A Treatise of Original Sin, Part 3 · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
The Qualities or Adjuncts of Original Sinne.
SECT. I.
The Text explained.
GEN. 8. 21.
And the Lord ſaid in his heart, I will not again curſe the ground any more for mans ſake, for the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth.
I Have formerly treated on that parallel Text to this, Gen. 6. 5. but wholly to another purpoſe; Though therefore this be of great affinity with the former, yet I ſhall deliver altogether new matter from it.
From the two-fold Subject of original ſinne, of Inheſion and Predication, I proceed to the conſideration of the Qualities and Adjuncts of it, and begin with this Text, which containeth a gracious promiſe from God never to bring ſuch an univerſal deluge, or any other general judgement upon the world for mans ſake any more.
This promiſe is made a conſequent of Gods Reconciliation with Noah, upon whoſe Sacrifice it is ſaid, God ſmelled a ſweet ſavour, ſpeaking after the manner of men, not that God did regard the material Sacrifice, for the ſmell of that muſt needs be diſtaſtfull and unſavoury, but becauſe Noah did it with a pure and holy heart, and withall chiefly, becauſe this Sacrifice of Noah was typical of Chriſts ſacrificing himſelf in time, by whom alone God becometh propitious; For Chriſts offering up of himſelf is ſaid to be Epheſ. 5. 2. A Sacrifice to God for a ſweet ſmelling ſavour, which was chiefly in the Euchariſtical Sacrifices, not that Chriſts death is compared to them only, as the Socinians would have it, but principally and chiefly to the Expiatory Sacrifices, as appeareth in the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, only in Chriſts death, there was that which was in Euchariſtical Offerings, a ſweet ſavour unto God, whereby he became propitious unto mankind; God being thus graciouſly pleaſed, we have this promiſe of God declared in the Text, wherein is conſiderable,
Firſt, The Cauſe of it, and that is Gods Deceree, The Lord ſaid in his heart, that is an expreſſion after the manner of men; For you muſt not conceive of God as changing his mind, or altering his purpoſes upon better conſiderations, or as if he took up a contrary reſolution to that, when he intended to deſtroy the world, but this is wholly ſpoken to our capacity; By this is meant no more then Gods purpoſe and ſecret Decree, which yet he manifeſted to the comfort of Noah, and therefore we have Moſes recording of it.
Secondly, There is the object matter of this promiſe, and that is two-fold, I will not curſe the ground, neither will I ſmite any more every living thing, as I have done; God curſed the ground at firſt upon Adam's fall, but this is meant of the Deluge, as appeareth by the other particular, for by that general floud it is conceived the ground was made worſe then before; The meaning then is, That God will not bring any more univerſal judgement, not but that particular Towns or Nations may be conſumed by water or other puniſhments, but there ſhall not be ſuch a general one by water any more, no, nor any general puniſhment; For what comfort would it have been to Noah, if that the world ſhould be preſerved only from drowing, if it might have been deſtroyed any other way; Therefore when at the Day of Judgement the whole world ſhall either be deſtroyed or renewed by fire, that will not be ſo much by way of puniſhment to the inhabitants, as to change its uſe, and to prepare for the great alteration, that God is then to make.
Thirdly, There is the aggravation of this mercy; God will do this, Though the imagination of mans heart be evil; This clauſe is to be conſidered, firſt as a Reaſon, then Abſolutely in it ſelf. If as a reaſon, then here is the difficulty taken notice of, how it can be made the ground why God will not deſtroy the world, ſeeing formerly Chap. 6. 5. it is there made the only reaſon why he would deſtroy it, can it be the motive for two contrary effects? Some therefore do not make it a reaſon at all, but part only of the deſcription of Gods promiſe, he will not deſtroy the earth again for this ſinfull diſpoſition, but there muſt neceſſarily be ſome reaſon, either expreſly or tacitly implied, for God is here declaring his purpoſe to take a more gracious and mercifull way, now that he had given ſuch a dreadfull demonſtration of his juſtice and anger againſt ſinne already: Some then make the reaſon to be ab incommdo, that if God ſhould deſtroy the world, becauſe of mans original corruption breaking forth daily, there would never be an end, we ſhould have flouds upon flouds; Therefore as the Pſalmiſt ſaith, He remembreth that we are but duſt, he knoweth our frame (Pſal. 103. 14.) therefore he will not alwayes pour cut his wrath. Thus (ſay they) it is here, and this is probable: Others make it an Argument ab aeqno, to which Pererius inclineth, as if God did hereby declare, That being man is thus originally polluted, and incurably ſinfull, as to his own power, therefore God would pity him; ſo that though formerly God looked upon it, as the matter of his wrath; now as the matter of pity being ſinne maketh us miſerable, ſo ſome think David, Pſal. 51. urgeth his natural corruption, as an Argument to move God to pity him, but this is not ſo probable, becauſe this doth directly contradict Gods former proceedings, when his wrath was poured out on the world, becauſe of this ſinne breaking forth into actual rebellions; I rather therefore go with thoſe that take the particle Ci adverſatively, Although, God would not again deſtroy the world, although mankind was of ſuch a corrupt frame; and thus it is to be taken in many places, the neglect whereof hath cauſed many Diſputes about ſome Texts of Scripture, whereas the rendring of this particle adverſatively, would eaſily have cleared it, as might be ſhewed, if it were to my purpoſe. (Vide Tarn. Exerc.)
In the next place we are to conſider the words abſolutely, and they are very emphatical, the Heart, the Imagination, and is evil. In the former place, Chap. 6. 5. there is a greater aggravation, Every Imagination, and only evil, and all the day long; but one ſuppoſeth the other; here in this Text, in ſtead of continually, or every day, as in the Original, we have From the youth, and therefore doth more palpably demonſtrate the original filth or all men by nature; Neither can the Adverſaries to this Doctrine of original ſinne put in the exception to this place, as they did to the former, for there they would evade, by ſaying, it was ſpoken of thoſe evil and wicked men, who had in a more notorious manner corrupted all their doings; But how can they open their mouth againſt this place, for God ſpeaketh this as true at that preſent of all mankind by nature, when yet the great prophane ones were deſtroyed, and Noah with his family was preſerved? So that this is a perpetual and inſeparable qualification from the nature of man, more than actual death; For Enoch and Elijah did not actually die, yet they were born with original ſinne: As for ſome Expoſitors who would limit to the time of youth, when a man is paſt his Infantia and Pueritia, his infancy and childhood, arrived at his Adoleſcentia, his youth, that is not to be admitted, for the word is to be applied to his whole time ſince he was born; The word Nagnar doth ſignifie one caſt or ſhut out, and properly belongeth to a new born Infant, and ſo doth ſignifie the tender Infancy of a child, although we grant that it is ſometimes extended to the youth, as Geneſ. 37. Joſeph is called Nagnar a youth, when he was ſeventeen years old feeding the flock. So 1 Kings 3. ſometimes it's applied to a Diſciple or Servant, becauſe they were ordinarily young, 2 King. 9. Iſa. 37. which the Septuagint render foreign, and it is applied to Chriſt; and therefore whereas Acts 4. 27. it is rendred Thy holy child Jeſus; Some think it better according to the uſe of the word, by the Septuagint, Thy holy ſervant, for ſo Chriſt is ſometimes in reſpect of his Mediatory Office, called the ſervant of God. But it is plain, that children are capable of ſinne before their youth, and therefore we are not to limit it, but to expound if of their very firſt being in original ſinne, which doth vent it ſelf actually in after years. Some make the Plural number to be obſervable, they render it à pueritiis, as containing the whole age of a man from his tender years, till he be grown up. Hence Grotius will extend it to the very time from the womb, but then runneth to his Socinian Hyperbole, which hath been ſufficiently confuted. To determine the time indeed, when Infants begin to be capable of actual ſinnes, is very difficult, but that is not my work here.
Now though it is ſaid to be evil from the youth, yet that is ſome limitation: It is not evil from Gods firſt creation of mans heart, not from its original being, and therefore the eſſence of a man is not evil: So that it is an horrible calumny of Tirinus the Jeſuite upon this place, to ſay, That from this Text Luther and Calvin do inferre, That the heart of a man is eſſentially evil; Illyricus his dotage is ſufficiently diſowned by them. As then the Leproſie got into the wals of the houſe, and that could not be ſcraped off, there was no way to get it out but by demoliſhing the wall, yet was not to be attributed to the Artificer that made the wall, but to ſome other ſupervenient cauſe; So likewiſe neither is original ſinne, though now ſo cloſely adhering to mans nature to be attributed to God, who firſt created mankind, but to Adam's voluntary Apoſtaſie from God.
The Text thus explained, there are two Doctrines contained in it.
Firſt, Original ſinne is an heavy and grievous ſinne.
Secondly, That there is a particular original ſinne in every one, which breaketh out into its actings betimes. From which we ſhall take occaſion to diſcourſe of the equality and inequality of original ſinne in every man. Let us begin with the firſt,
Original ſinne is a moſt grievous and heavy ſinne. In the Text is put an Although upon it, God will not deſtroy the world, although this ſinne be in man, implying, the infinite mercy of God, that is not provoked by this utterly to cut of mankind, Hic eſt inſiguis locus de peccato originali, &c. ſaith Luther on the place. This is a famous place concerning original ſinne, which whoſoever extenuateth (ſaith he) like blind men in the Sunne they do truly erre, and do not ſee what they daily doe, and may have experience of. It is from our ſenſleſneſſe and ſtupidity, or rather from our ſelf-love and phariſaical diſpoſition that we do not more afflict our ſelves under the apprehenſion of it, for this is the higheſt offence, the like whereof (ſaid Luther) unleſs in the Devils cannot be found.
SECT. II.
The Aggravaiions of Original Sinne.
¶. 1.
Of Adam's Actual Tranſgreſsion.
NOw for the aggravation of original ſinne, we may ſpeak either of Adams actual iranſgreſſion, which is our original imputed ſinne, or of that inherent corruption which we have from our birth, and both do admit of great aggravations, It is true, ſome Orthodox Writers doe deny the imputation of Adam's actual diſobedience unto us, as Joſua Placeus, who bringeth many Arguments (Theſ. Salm. Diſ. de ſtatu hominis lapſi ante gratiam.) but my work is not to anſwer them, I ſuppoſe it for granted, as a neceſſary truth. Concerning Adam's ſinne, which is thus ours by imputation; Bellarmine maketh the Queſtion, An ſit graviſſimum? Whether it was the greateſt of all ſinnes? And he concludeth, following the Schoolmen, that abſolutely it is not, only reſpectively, Secundum quid, in ſome conſiderations, which he mentioneth. Bonaventure ſaith, It is the greateſt ſinne extenſive not intenſive. But we are to judge of the hainouſneſs of ſinne, as we ſee God doth, who eſteemeth of ſinne without any errour: Now it is certain, there was never any ſinne that God puniſheth, as he doth this; The ſinne indeed againſt the holy Ghoſt, in reſpect of the object matter of it, and the inſeparable concomitant of unpardonableneſſe is greater, as to a particular perſon, but this being the ſinne of the common nature of mankind, doth bring all under the curſe of God; So that we may on the contrary to Bellarmine ſay, That it is abſolutely the higheſt ſinne againſt God, but in ſome reſpects it is not. I ſhall be brief in aggravating of that (not at all touching upon the other Queſtion) which hath more curioſity in it, (Whether Adam's ſinne, or Eve's was the greateſt?) then edification: Becauſe our proper work is to ſpeak of original inherent ſinne, yet it is good to affect our ſouls with the great guilt thereof, for ſome have been ready to expoſtulate with God, Why for ſuch a ſmall ſinne (as they call it) no more then eating the forbidden fruit, ſo many millions of perſons, even all the poſterity of mankind ſhould thereby be made children of wrath, and obnoxious to eternal damnation? Doth not the Pelagian opinion, that holdeth, it hurteth none but Adam himſelf, and his poſterity, onelyonly if they willingly imitate him, agree more with the goodneſſe of God? But if we do ſeriouſly conſider, how much evil was in this one ſinne, which Tertullian maketh to be a breach of the whole Law of God, we will then humble our ſelves, and acknowledge the juſt hand of God. For
Firſt, This is hainouſly to be aggravated from the internal qualification of the ſubject. Adam who did thus offend was made upright, created in the Image of God; In his underſtanding he had a large meaſure of light and knowledge; For though the Socinians would have him a meer I deot and innocent, yet it may eaſily be evidenced to the contrary: The Image of God conſiſteth in the perfection of the mind, as well as in holineſs of the other parts of the ſoul: Neither did El…phaz in his diſcourſe with Job, apprehend ſuch ignorance in Adam, when he ſaith, Art thou the firſt man was born? Waſt thou made before the hils?—Doſt thou reſtrain wiſdom to thy ſelf? Job 15. 7 8. implying, that the firſt man was made full of knowledge; If then Adam had ſuch pure light in his mind, this made his ſinne the greater, yea becauſe of this light ſome have proceeded ſo far as to make.Adam's ſinne the ſinne againſt the holy Ghoſt; but I ſhall not affirm that; Certainly in that Adam had ſo great knowledge, this made his offence the more evil; hence becauſe there was no ignorance in his mind, nor no paſſions in the ſenſitive part at that time to diſturb him, his ſinne was meerly and totally voluntary, and the more the will is in a ſinne the greater it is: Hence Rom. 5. It is called expreſly diſobedience, By one mans diſobedience; Yea learned men ſay, That this was the proper ſpecifical ſinne of Adam, eve… diſobedience; For although diſobedience be in a large ſenſe in every ſinne, yet this ſinne of Adams was ſpecifically diſobedience, for God gave him a poſitive command meerly, that thereby Adam ſhould teſtifie his obedience to him. The thing in it ſelf, was not intrinſecally evil to eat of the forbidden fruit, it was ſinfull, only becauſe it was forbidden; and by this God would have Adam demonſtrate his homage to him, but in offending, he became guilty in a particular way of diſobedience.
Secondly, If you conſider Adam in his external condition; His fin is very great, God placed him in Paradiſe, put him into a moſt happy condition, gave him the whole world for his portion; Every thing was made for his uſe and delight; now how intolerable was Adams ingratitude for ſo ſmall a matter, to rebell againſt God? Therefore the ſmalneſs of the matter of the ſinne doth not diminiſh but aggravate; he might the more eaſily have refuſed the temptation, ſo that this unthankfulneſs to God muſt highly provoke him.
Thirdly, The ſinne was an aggregate ſinne, It had many grievous ſins ingredient into it; It was a Beelzebub ſin, a big-bellied ſinne, full of many ſins in the womb of it; his ſinne was not alone in the external eating of the forbidden fruit, but in the internal cauſes that made him do ſo; There was unbelief, which was the foundation of all the other ſinfulneſs, he believeth the Devil rather then God; There was pride and ambition, He deſired to be like God; There was apoſtaſie from God, and communion with him; There was the love of the creature more than of God, and thereby there was the hatred of God: Thus it was unum malum in quo omnia mala, as God is unumbonum in quo omnia bona.
Laſtly, (Not to inſiſt on this, becauſe formerly ſpoken to) There was the unſpeakable hurt and damage, which hereby he brought to his poſterity. (Not to mention the curſe upon the ground, and every creature) The damning of all his poſterity in ſoul and body, it the grace of God did not interpoſe; It cannot be rationally conceived, but that Adam knew he was a publique perſon, that he was acquainted upon what terms he ſtood in reference to his poſterity; That the threatning did belong to all his as well as himſelf, if he did eat of the forbidden fruit. Now for Adam to be a murderer of ſo many ſouls and bodies, to be the cauſe of temporal, ſpiritual and eternal death to all mankind, who can acknowledge but that this ſinne is out of meaſure ſinfull.
¶. 2.
The Aggravation of Original Sinne inherent in us.
OUr next work is, to conſider the aggravation of original ſinne inherent in us; and this is our duty to do, that ſo being ſenſible of our own contagion, we may not flatter our ſelves in the power of our free-will, but fly alone to Chriſt, who is a Phiſitian and Saviour even to Infants, as well as grown men; and the rather we are to be ſerious and diligent in this, becauſe of all thoſe prophane opinions which do either wholly deny it, or in a great meaſure extenuate it. Some Papiſts make it leſs then a venial ſinne, and many of them plead hard, that it doth not deſerve hell, and eternal damnation: But no wonder this is done in Babylon, ſeeing in Jeruſalem there are ſuch oppugnators and extenuators of it; vsus if the Welſh Pelagius had not been enough, there is now a new Engliſh one ſtarted up, who, what with ſome abſurd opinions from the Socinians, ſome from the moſt Heterodox of the Papiſts, as Durand, Pigbius Catharinus, &c. and many things from the old Pelagian, hath ſtuffed his late writings with much glory and pomp of words, eſpecially againſt this original ſinne; what with his Hyperbolyes and Metonymyes it is made no ſinne, but an original curſe, rather then original ſinne, (Anſw. to the Letter of Rom.) ſo pleaſing it is to be Pigmilions, and to fall in love with our own purity, unwilling to be ſhut up under ſinne, that the gracious mercy of God may be alone exalted: And as the Socinians plead their reverence and zeal of honour to the Father, while they deny the Deity of the Son; ſo here is pleaded much reverence and tender regard to the Juſtice, Mercy and Goodneſs of God, much zeal to holineſs and piety, as if the Doctrine of original ſinne did undermine all theſe; But of theſe cavills in time; for the preſent, let us not judge of ſinne and the guilt thereof by humane principles, and phyloſophical Arguments, but by the Word of God. And
Firſt, The hainouſneſs of it doth appear (as heretofore hath been hinted) In that it is not like any actual ſinne, that hath its proper ſpecifical guilt, and ſo is oppoſite to one vertue only, and thereby doth contaminate but one power of the ſoul; but it is the univerſal diſſolution and deordination of all the parts of the ſoul. Vncleanneſs hath the guilt of that ſinne only, and is oppoſed to that particular grace of chaſtity, and ſo of every ſinne elſe; but now this hereditary defilement is contrary to that original righteouſneſs God created man in, and as that was not one ſingle habit of grace. but the ſyſteme of all; Thus original ſinne is not one particular ſinne, but the comprehenſion of all; It is the ſinne of the mind, of the will, of the affection, of the body, of the whole man; ſo that as when we would aggravate the goodneſs of God, we ſay, all the particular reſpective goodneſſes in the creatures are eminently contained in God, ſo we may ſay, all the particular pollutions, and guilt which is in reſpective ſinnes is eminently contained in this; ſo that if there could be a ſummum malum in man, (though that is impoſſible, becauſe malum moris fundatur in bono naturae) this original ſinne would be it: Look upon this original ſinne then, as the deordination of the whole man, as that which maketh every part of thee ſinfull and curſed, as that which maketh thee to bear the image of a Devil, who once hadſt the glorious and holy Image of God.
Secondly, This ſinne is greatly to be aggravated, Becauſe it is the root and cauſe of all actual ſinnes. Some queſtion, Whether all our actual ſinnes proceed from this fountain or no? And certainly we may conclude, that all kind of actual ſinne, whether internal or external, ſoul ſinnes, or body-ſinnes, do either mediately, or immediately flow from it. This is the evil treaſure of the heart, Mat. 12. 35. Hence one of the Names that original ſinne hath, is Fomes peccati, becauſe that is the womb in which all ſinnes are conceived: The Apoſtle James fully confirmeth this, Chap. 1. 14. Every man is tempted and drawn aſide by his own luſt; neither is it any wonder that many ſinnes being in their particular nature oppoſite to one another, that yet they ſhould all come from one common principle, ſeeing they all have the ſame generical nature of filthineſs; and the particularization of them is according to ſeveral temptations: Even as out of the ſame dunghill ſeveral kinds of vermine which are produced out of putrid matter may be brought forth; ſo that all the ſtreames of iniquity do meet in this ocean, they all come from this root, even as all men do from Adam; Not that the moſt flagitious crimes are inſtantly committed, but by degrees they do at laſt biggen into ſuch enormities; if then that Rule be true, That there is more in the cauſe then in the effect, and what is cauſa cauſae, is, cauſa cauſati, then certainly may all our iniquities be reduced to this as the fountain; hence David, Pſal. 51. in his humiliation for his murder, doth go up to the cauſe of all, even that he was born in iniquity.
Thirdly, It is to be aggravated, In the incurableneſs of it; for though Adam had power to caſt himſelf into this defiled condition, yet he had no power to recover himſelf out of it; as Auſtin expreſſeth it, A living man may kill himſelf, but when dead he cannot recover himſelf to life; This (you heard) is made part of the reaſon why God would not proceed to deſtroy the world again, although mans corrupt heart is ſo corrupt, even becauſe there was no hope that any judgments would cure them; They would proceed ſtill further in impieties, all that water did not waſh the Blackmore nature of man: hence it is that the grace of God whereby we are quickened out of this death, is wholly ſupernatural; It's no wonder that they who are doting to ſet up the Idol of free-will, do begin to lay their foundation in this, that there is no ſuch thing, as this natural pravity in man; But there was no more in man to recover him out of this original filth, then is in the Devils to reſtore them to their priſtine felicity: So that thy actual ſinnes are not alone to be humbled, for were it poſſible for thee to live with this ſinne alone, thou didſt need the grace of Chriſt to redeem thee from this bondage.
Fourthly, Herein alſo it is unſpeakably to be aggravated, That it taketh away all ſpiritual ſenſe and feeling. It's the ſpiritual death of the ſoul; we are dead men by nature in reſpect of ſpiritual things, and therefore though expoſed to all the curſes in the Law, yet we feel nothing, we do not tremble and cry out for help; The Phyſitian ſeeketh us, not we him; grace finds us out, not we grace; and hence it is, that we think we have no ſuch thing as original ſinne in us: Oh it is an heavy temptation to be given up unto, to think there is no ſuch thing as original ſinne, that we have no ſuch enmity againſt God naturally in our hearts! Wo be to that man, who begineth to think this thing little or none at all! What can we pray for ſuch a man, but that which the Prophet did for the Syrians when they were brought into the midſt of their enemies, Lord open their eyes (ſaith he?) which when done, they ſaw themſelves in the midſt of their adverſaries, and ſo looked upon themſelvet but as ſo many dead men; Thus if the Spirit of God by the Word make thee ſee the dunghill in thy heart, the general pollution of thy ſoul, thou wilt cry out, Oh how blind was I till now! how ſenſleſs till this time! Oh I am a damned man, an undone man, if God do not recover by his grace! Therefore that of Auſtin (though formerly mentioned can never enough be inculcated) That in their controverſie with Pelagians there is more need of prayer then ſyllogiſmes; The truth of this Doctrine, as it is primarily diſcovered by the Scripture, ſo ſecondarily by the experience of the regenerated, who (as Paul ſaid) were alive once ſecure and bleſſed, according to their own thoughts in the ſtate they were in, but when once convinced of the ſpirituality of the Law, and their own carnality and contrariety therunto, then ſinne becometh out of meaſure ſinfull, and they die and are undone in their own thoughts: Therefore concerning the Writers in this Controverſie, we are not only to enquire, what acquired learning they have, but what inſpired grace; what experimental workings of Gods Spirit in the humbling of them, and to make them renounce all their own righteouſneſs and fullneſs that Chriſt may be all in all: Thus Auſtin, who of all the Fathers hath moſt orthodoxly propugned this truth, ſo none of them diſcover ſuch an experimental converſion to God, and a gracious change upon their hearts, as he doth in his Books of Confeſſions; I do not detract from the piety of the other Ancients; only it is plain, Auſtin diſcovereth a more peculiar and higher degree of an experimental knowledge of his own unworthineſs, and Gods gracious power in bringing him out of darkneſs into light; and no queſtion, but the efficacy and power of this experience made him ſo orthodox, and couragious in maintaining that truth, which political and phyloſophical principles did much gainſay; but this is the wofull effect of original ſinne, that it taketh away all power to diſcover it ſelf; and as thoſe deſeaſes are moſt dangerous which take away the ſenſe of them, ſo is original ſinne to be aggravated in this reſpect, that it maketh a man inſenſible of it.
Fifthly, The aggravation of this ſinne is ſeen, That it is the habituall averſion of the ſoul from God, and converſion to the creature. It is true, original ſinne is not an habitual acquired ſinne, but yet it is per modum habitus, (as Aquinas expreſſeth it) That is, the ſoul of every Infant born into the world cometh with an innate and habitual averſeneſs to God, and what is holy; as alſo a concupiſcential converſion to the creature; ſo that the two parts expreſſed in an actual ſinne of commiſſion, mentioned by the Prophet Jermiah, Chap. 2. 13. My people have committed two evils, they have forſaken me the fountain of life (there is the averſio, à Creatore,) and have hewed to themſelves broken ciſterns, there is the (converſio ad creaturam) the ſame hath ſome repreſentation in original ſinne; for every man by this hereditary pollution ſtands with his back upon God, and his face to the creature; Even as the child cometh bodily into the world, with his face downwards and his back upon the heavens; ſo it is with the ſoul of a man, and this maketh our ſinne of native pollution to be out of meaſure ſinfull, in that a man ſtanding thus at a diſtance, yea at enmity againſt God, can never turn his face again towards God, but by a ſupervenient grace from above.
Sixthly, The great heightening of this ſinne is, In the deep radication of it; It is ſo intimately and deeply rooted in all the powers of the ſoul, that while a man is in this life, he can never be freed from it; hence it is that the ordinary determination of the Proteſtant Writers, concerning original ſinne, even in regenerate perſons is, That it is taken away, Quoad reatum, though not Quoad actum; There is original ſinne in every man living, yea in the moſt holy, only it is removed from them, Quoad reatum, the guilt ſhall not be imputed, and Quoad Dominum, though it be in them, yet it doth not reign in them, only it is in ſome degree preſent there, and therefore called by the ſame Divines, Reliquiae peccati, which expreſſion, though ſcorned by Corvinus, yet both Scripture and ſome experience doth juſtly confirme ſuch a phraſe; And although the late Adverſary againſt original ſinne (Tayl. a further Explication of the Doct. of Orig. pag. 501.) doth poſitively and magiſterially according to his cuſtome dogmatize, that it is a contradiction to ſay ſinne remaineth, and the guilt is taken away, and that in the juſtified no ſinne can be inherent; yet herein he betrayeth his ſymbolizing with Papiſts, for all our learned Proteſtants have maintained this Poſition againſt Papiſts, Biſhops and others diſtinguiſhing between reatus ſimplex, that is inſeperable from ſinne, or the merit of damnation, and Reatus redundans in perſonam, which is, when this is imputed; There is therefore alwayes abiding in every man, though juſtified, original ſinne in ſome meaſure, it is the foreign, The ſinne dwelling in us (as the Apoſtle calleth it, Rom 7.) and therefore in regard of the immobility and inſeperability of it from mans nature, while here on the earth, it is more to be aggravated then all actual and habitual ſins; For though in Regeneration, there is an infuſion of gracious habits, whereby the habits of ſinne are expelled, yet this original depravation is not totally conquered by it. And thus much may ſuffice for the aggravating of it, becauſe ſomething hath already been ſpoken to this Point.
¶. 3.
An Objection Anſwered.
THere remaineth one great Objection againſt the hainouſneſs of this ſinne,
That it is wholly involuntary, and therefore we are traduced in this particular, that we charge our ſinnes hereby upon Adam, or God himſelf, freeing our ſelves; Thus we accuſe others, and excuſe our ſelves, Is not this to do as Adam, who put off all to the woman whom God had given him, ſo we to clear our ſelves put all upon Adam's ſcore? Therefore many Papiſts and others complain of us, as aggravating it too much, whereas one of them ſaith (Rundus Tappor, Diſp. de peccato origin.) that it is minus minimo peccato veniali, leſſe then the moſt leaſt venial ſinne. But to anſwer this:
Firſt, As this Doctrine about original ſinne is wholly by revelation, ſo we are to judge of the hainouſneſs of it according to Scripture-principles. It is true, (as hath been ſaid formerly) the Heathens did complain of the effects of this original ſinne, but they did not know the cauſe; ſo that as by the Word we come to know that from our deſcendency from Adam we do contract this original pollution, thus alſo by the Word we are to paſſe ſentence about the greatneſs of the ſinne: If the Scripture ſaith, We are by nature the children of wrath; If God in deſtroying of the world, doth not ſimply look to actual ſins, but as they flow from ſuch a polluted principle; If by this we are in bondage to Satan, and are under his power, though there were no actual ſinnes committed by us, then let us not matter the ſpeculations of Philoſophers, nor the Political ſentences of Civil Magiſtrates, for by theſe nothing is accounted culpable, but what is voluntary by our own perſonal will: Hence Auſtin explained that aſſertion of his, when dealing againſt the Manichees, Vſque adeò peccatum eſt voluntarium, &c. Voluntarineſs is ſo neceſſary to the being of a ſinne that it cannot be any ſinne; if this be wanting in this (ſaith he) all Laws, all Nations, all Governours, &c. do agree: The Pelagians commended this of Auſtin, and improved it againſt him; but in his explication of himſelf, he calleth it Politica ſententia; This is true according to the political Laws of Governours, and withall agreeth to actual ſins: But the truth about original ſinne meerly by revelation, we need not then regard, what Ariſtotle and other Philoſophers ſay in this matter, who as they knew nothing of the creation of Adam, ſo neither of his fall; and this caution is neceſſary to every one that would not be deceived in this point.
Secondly, Although in one particular reſpect this ſinne may not be ſo hainous as others, yet in many other reſpects it doth farre exceed, and they are abundantly compenſative for that one conſideration: It is true, This ſin hath nothing of our own perſonal voluntarineſs; yea if a man ſhould now conſent to this birth-defilement, and even rejoyce, becauſe he was born thus eſtranged from God, this ſubſequent will would not make original ſin to be a voluntary ſin unto him, for this is an actual ſinne committed a new by the perſonal will of a ſinner: But though this be granted, yet there are many other reſpect which do exceedingly aggravate it, even thoſe we have mentioned before. Hence a learned Schoolman (Dela Rua contra Theolog. cont. 2.) ſpeaking of the compariſons made by Aquinas and others of original ſinne with venial ones, excuſeth them, ſaying, They muſt not be underſtood in that reſpect, as original ſinne is a mortal one, for ſo it doth infinitely exceed any venial one, but in that reſpect, as original ſinne is not contracted by our own proper action, but by Adam in whoſe will our wils were contained: What then, though in one particular this ſinne may not be ſo hainous as others, yet look upon the many other reſpects, wherein it doth exceed all other hainous ſinnes, and then you will be compelled to acknowledge the weightineſſe thereof.
Thirdly, The chiefeſt and higheſt aggravation of a ſinne, is from the contrariety of it to the Law of God; for ſeeing the Apoſtle doth define ſinne, 1 John 3. 4. to be foreign, The tranſgreſſion of the Law, then the more irregularity there is in ſinne, the greater is that ſinne: Now this foreign, it is either habitual or actual, and if habitual ſins are greater then actual, becauſe of the greater diſſonancy to Gods Law, then muſt original be more then habitual, and ſo greater then all ſins; if then we compare original ſinne with the Law we ſhall find it contrary to it in the higheſt manner that can be; For Gods Law doth not require only actual obedience, but ſuch obedience flowing from a pure and holy heart; and holineſs in the heart is more anſwerable to the Law then holineſs in actions: Thus on the contrary, ſinne in the habitual inclination of a man is more oppoſite to Gods holy Law, then the expreſſion of it in ſeveral actings; If then the Apoſtle define a ſinne by the contrariety of it to Gods Law, not by knowledge or voluntarineſs, then where there is the greateſt obliquity and declenſion from this rule, though there be not ſo much voluntarineſs, there is the greater evil; So that this reſpect may ſilence all thoſe cavils and diſputes which are uſually brought in to diminiſh the guilt of this ſinne, ſtill have recourſe to the Law of God, and there thou wilt find, that whereas actual ſins are reſpectively againſt reſpective commands, this is againſt every Law; It is againſt the whole Law, and therefore hath as much evil in it, in ſome ſenſe, as the Law hath good.
So that the Uſe is, To exhort every one who would have his heart deeply affected in this point, who would be humbled greatly, becauſe his ſinne is great, to take off his thoughts from all thoſe Philoſophical or humane arguments which are apt to leſſen it; Becauſe a Magiſtrate will not put a man to death, unleſs where he is guilty by ſome voluntary perſonal act of his own; do not thou therefore think it cruel and unjuſt with God, if he condemn for that ſinne, wherein though we have not own proper will ingredient, yet by imputation it is voluntary: But of this more when we are to juſtifie God in theſe proceedings againſt cavilling Sophiſters.
SECT. III.
That every one by Nature hath his peculiar proper Original Sinne.
THe ſecond Doctrine offereth it ſelf in the next place to be conſidered of, which is,
That every one by nature hath his peculiar proper original ſinne, which doth betimes vent it ſelf into actual evil. For the Text ſpeaketh univerſally, there is not any to be exempted. It is made a Queſtion in the Schools, Whether there be many, or one original ſinne onelyonly? Aquinas bringeth two Arguments for more original ſinnes than one; The one is from the Text according to the Vulgar Tranſlation, Pſal. 51. 5. where it is rendred, In ſinnes did my mother conceive me, in the Plural number; And then the ſecond from Reaſon, becauſe there being many actual ſinnes, it cannot ſeem rational, that one original ſinne ſhould incline to them all, ſeeing many times theſe ſinnes flow from contrary principle; How may it be thought this one ſinne ſhould carry a man out concupiſcentially to ſo many contrary luſts? Therefore that this truth may be fully demonſtrated, let us conſider theſe Propoſitions:
Firſt, That ſuch who deny any original inherent corruption, and make Adam's actual ſinne to be ours onelyonly by imputation, as Pighius and Catharinus, they will ſay, That there is but one original ſinne, which is by imputation made every mans; Even as by the light of one Sunne, every man ſeeth, or (as ſome Philoſophers ſay) there is one common Intelleotus agens, by which all men are inabled to underſtand; So that by this opinion every man hath not his peculiar inherent defilement, but that one actual tranſgreſſion by imputation, is made the one common ſinne of mankind. Now although this is to be granted, That Adam's actual ſinne is made ours (which Chamier, and ſome French Proteſtants following him do dangerouſly deny) yet the Texts heretofore brought in this point, do evidently convince, That every one hath his peculiar native defilement that he is born in: So that original ſinne, though it may be called one in ſpecie and proportione, yet when we come to every particular man, he hath his numerical and individual original ſinne in him: Although therefore there be as many original ſinnes in the world, as there are men and women, yet in one man or one woman, there is but one original ſinne: Thus David, Pſal. 51. 5. confeſſed his particular birth-ſinne, not that it was his caſe alone, not that any other ought not ſay ſo, as well as David, but becauſe this conſideration doth moſt humble and affect a man, for what is it to hear that in the general there is ſuch a thing as original ſinne, unleſs a man make particular application to himſelf, unleſs he bring it home to his own heart, unleſs he cry out, Ah wretched and undone ſinner, I, even I am the man that am thus born in ſinne, even though there were no other men in the world, yet I ſhould be by nature the child of wrath! And truly this is one reaſon of our large diſcourſing upon this point, that you might at laſt bring this coal of fire (as it were) into your boſome to kindle there, not only to think of the undone eſtate of mankind in the general, but to think this is true of thee, I am the man of whom all this evil is ſpoken; Believe thy ſelf to be ſuch a Toad, ſuch a Devil; Hearken to the Word more then to theſe flattering and ſoothing ſuggeſtions which thy own deluded heart, or corrupt teachers may obtrude upon thee.
Secondly, That although this original ſinne be commonly called the ſinne of the nature, yet that is not to be ſo underſtood, as if it were not alſo exiſtent in the perſon, and ſo a perſonal ſinne. Catharinus (Opuſc. caſu hominis.) confeſſeth he doth not underſtand how original ſinne can be called the ſinne of the nature, for the nature is an abſtract, and it is a Chymerical ſigment, to ſay, an univerſal nature is capable of ſinne, becauſe Actiones ſunt ſuppoſitorum; and the late known Enemy to this truth, doth (as it were) triumph in his Arguments againſt this expreſſion, when it is called, The ſinne of our Nature (Further Explicat. of the Doctrine of Orig. pag. 493.) For while he is wreſting and wrecking the miſerable 9th Article of the Church of England, adding and detracting (Procruſtus-like) to make it commenſurate to his prepoſſeſſed imagination (although he ſhould remember, that according to the Civil Law, no credit is to be given to confeſſions extorted upon the rack) he poſitively dictates, that ſin is an affection of perſons, not of natures; The humane nature cannot be ſaid to be drunk or commit adultery, Actiones ſunt ſuppoſitorum, and ſin is a breach of the Law, to which perſons not natures are obliged. This Argument I remember is urged alſo by ſome againſt Chriſts obedience, that the Law did not bind his humane nature, becauſe it was not a perſon, and therefore the command did not reach to him as he was man, to do this or that. But the anſwer is very obvious, That although the Law doth immediately bind the perſons, yet mediately it doth alſo the nature, Who can deny, but that the Law to love God, though immediately it be commanding the perſon, Thou ſhalt love the Lord, &c? yet thereby the ſoul of a man is alſo reached unto, ſo that hatred of God in the ſoul, as it is there inherent is forbidden mediately; Otherwiſe there could be no habitual ſins or graces, becauſe the command or threatning did no wayes reach to them.
In the next place (to our purpoſe in hand concerning original ſinne) it is ignorantly objected, That Actiones ſunt ſuppoſitorum; For we doe not ſay, Original ſinne is an action, it is in the nature of habits; So that this ariſeth from a groſs miſtake, That a child doth actually ſinne in partaking of this nature-defilement; We ſay it doth contrahere peccatum, or receive this pollution with its nature, not that it doth actually ſinne in the reception of it. But then
3. When it's called the ſinne of our nature, it is not meant, as if this nature did univerſally exiſt any where, that indeed would be a meer Chimera, or as if mans nature were any where but in a perſon, But that whereſoever the nature of a man is any where ſubſiſtent in individuums, there is alſo this corruption; Even viſibility and mortality are the univerſal properties of the nature of man: There is no man but hath theſe affections; So alſo is original ſinne thus inſeparably annexed to the nature of man, whereſoever it doth particularly ſubſiſt. To this purpoſe Julius Sirenius a Scholaſtical Writer (Promptu, Theolog. lib. 20. & 22.) When we ſay, Original ſinne is a ſiane of the humane nature, Non ita velim intelligas quaſi naturae per ſe conſiderata actio aliqua convenire poſſit, &c. do not underſtand it as if any action could agree to nature, conſidered in it ſelf; for not the action (which is of the ſuppoſitum) but the modus agendi belongeth the nature exiſtent in the ſuppoſitum, for ſin is not an action, but the mode, or rather the defect of the mode in an action. The Sum is this, A man is born thus in ſin, not becauſe he is this or that perſon, but becauſe he is a man deſcending from lapſed Adam; So that by this we ſee, that it is the ſin of our nature, and yet ſo as it is the ſin of every perſon new born, but we are neceſſitated to call it, the ſin of our corrupt nature, to diſtinguiſh it from all actual and habitual ſinnes, which are the ſinnes of one perſon, that they are not neceſſarily the ſinnes of others; Every man is not neceſſarily a proud man, an unclean man, but every one is thus a defiled man, deſtite of the Image of God; only this muſt alwayes be remembred, That it is not our nature-ſinne, as we had it from Creation, but as vitiated by Adam's voluntary tranſgreſſion, and if he would put it in the definition of man, that he was animal rationale mortale, we may adde ad peccata prenum, prone and inclming to ſinne; for we muſt conſider man otherwiſe in Divinity, and by Scripture-light, then we do in Philoſphy; Hence to be a man, or to walk as a man in Scripture-phraſe ſometimes, is to be ſinfull, and to do a thin ſinfully: You ſee then that upon good grounds original ſinne is called the ſinne of our natures, and that as in actual ſinnes the perſon doth defile the nature: So on the contrary in original ſinne the nature defileth the perſon; for the humane ſpecies was in Adam, as we ſay, the whole ſpecies of the Sunne is in the Sunne, though with ſome diſſimilitude. Hence it is that according to the Expoſition of ſome learned men, it is called, The ſinne of the world, not my ſinne or thy ſinne, but the ſinne of the world, John 1. 29. For this Rule is given, that whereſoever foreign is uſed with the emphatical Article in the Singular number, as in this place, there we muſt alwayes underſtand original ſinne; but perhaps that is no more true then another Rule, (viz.) where the word foreign hath the Article foreign there alwayes it ſignifieth the holy Ghoſt, I rather therefore think, that by the ſinne of the world is meant all ſinne, any ſinne committed and repented of; for Chriſt did not only come to take away original ſinne, as ſome would have it, but all actual ſinne as well; So that the expreſſion is here uſed in the Singular number for the greater emphaſis: Hence Divines have two Rules, firſt, Nomen terminatione ſingulare ſaepe ſignificatione eſt plurale, a word that hath a ſingular termination, may have a Plural ſignification, as ſinne in the Text ſignifieth all ſinne. The other Rule is, Quando Scriptura ſacra ſingulari numere utitur pro plurali, tum ſaepe plus ſingularitate ſignificat quam pluralitate when the holy Scripture uſeth a ſingular number for the plural, then it often ſignifieth more in the ſingular number then if it had uſed the plural, as Exod. 15. 22. He hath caſt the horſe and rider into the ſea, that is the great company of Pharaoh's hoaſt; we do not then exclude original ſin from this place, only we ſay, actual ſin is alſo comprehended in this propitiatory Sacrifice of Chriſt.
Propoſ. 3. By this then it appeareth, That ſeeing every one hath his proper peculiar original ſinne, that the Infants ſinne is diſtinct from the parents original defilement, and ſo our inherent pollution doth differ from Adam's ſinfulneſſe inherent in him; For you muſt know, that the ſinne, which is original in us, was perſonal in him, he did by his own voluntary tranſgreſſion offend God, and ſo deprived himſelf of all that ſpiritual honour and glory God had crowned him with; Immediately upon the deprivation of Gods Image, there was an habitual inclination unto all manner of evil, and this pollution is tranſfuſed from Adam to all his poſterity, not that the ſame ſinne numerically in Adam is communicated to every one deſcending from him, but the ſame in kind; Therefore that Argument which the Pelagians gloried in, in their conflict with Auſtin, fetched out of Ariſtotle, That accidens non migrat de ſubjecto in ſubjectem, is fooliſh and abſurd; For we grant that the ſame numerical ſinne which was in Adam is not propagated to us no more then the ſame perſonal humane ſubſiſtency, but as we have an humane being diſtinct from his; ſo alſo an original pollution is in every man diſtinct from that ſinfulneſs in Adam. It's true, ſome learned men have doubted, whether we are to conceive original ſinne inherent in us, as having a diſtinct guilt from Adam's tranſgreſſion, they think it more conſonant to truth, if we ſay that his ſinne and our native pollution, do make up the formal guilt of it; But as we have heretofore ſhewed, that cannot be, therefore though we are alwayes to judge of this original pollution with this reſpect to Adam's ſinne, that being the original efficient ſinne, and this the original formal one, yet in it ſelf conſidered there is a damnable guilt, and therefore by it alone we are ſaid to be children of wrath.
Laſtly, Although original ſinne be but one in every man, yet we may call it many in respect of the efficacy of it, and the innumerable iſſue that cometh from it: So that we may ſay it is one and many in ſeveral reſpects, for all the ſinnes of the world have their riſe mediately and immediately from it, all theſe ſprings come from that Ocean; Thus Aquinas and the Schoolmen anſwer that place, Pſal. 51. 5. Although the proper anſwer to that place is, that in the Hebrew it is in the ſingular number, the plural is only according to the Vulgar Tranſlation; and if you ſay, How can all theſe actual ſins which are of a contrary nature come from this one ſpring? How can one ſin diſpoſe to many contrary ſinnes? We anſwered this before, and ſhall adde one thing more to clear it, (viz.) That though one ſinne may not diſpoſe directly, and per ſe to all ſinne, yet per accidens, it may by removing that which did keep off all ſinne; for original righteouſneſs did incline to all duties, and thereby preſerved from all ſinne; now original ſinne excluding this, thereby all ſins are committed, as temptations and occaſions do intervene; Even as if a muſical inſtrument be marred, every ſtring maketh a different jarre according to the nature of it, or as when a mixed body is diſſolved, every element goeth to his proper place, which is Aquinas his ſimilitude, of which when we ſhall ſhew how original ſinne is equal and inequal in all.
SECT. IV.
That Original Sinne which is in every man doth vent it ſelfe betimes.
WE proceed to the ſecond part in the Doctrine, which is, That this original ſinne which is in every man doth vent it ſelf betimes, his Imagination is evil from his childhood. We told you, the Papiſts offer violence to the Text, when they limit it to a mans youth, excluding his childhood, as if that were innocent; The Rabbins they ſay (as Mercer relateth) this evil figment is in a mans heart, till he be thirteen year old, and afterwards a good figment cometh into a man. It is greatly diſputed with the Schoolmen, When is the time that a child cometh to diſcern between good and evil, for till then (they ſay) the Law of God doth not bind, and ſo he is not capable of actual ſinnes? Some limit the time of actual ſinnes to four or ſix years of age; But certainly here cannot be any fixed or uniform Rule given; neither may we deny children to be guilty of actual ſins, before they come to years of diſcretion: Certainly Auſtin ſpeaketh of his obſervation of the envy which one child hath, while another ſucketh the ſame breaſt; and therefore although we cannot ſay with the Lutherans, That Infants have either actual ſinnes, or actual graces, yet no doubt but actual ſins do very early proceed from them; neither is the time of their ſinning to be limited to the time of their uſe of reaſon in a formal and deliberate manner. It is true, our Saviour took a little child, ſetting him in the midſt of the company, ſaying, Vnleſſe a man become like this child, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, Mat. 18. 4. not that ſuch a little child had not both original and actual ſins in him, but becauſe comparatively to grown perſons they are innocent, having not the pride and other ſins as men of age have, therefore it is, that we are to be converted, and become like little children; yea there is no parent that deſireth the ſalvation of his children, but he may obſerve, that from the very childhood there is a great averſneſs to what is holy and a natural inclination to evil; Inſomuch that all do betimes give a diſcovery of that imbred and ſinfull pollution that is in them. Solomon ſaith, That folly is bound up in the heart of a child, prov. 22. 15. And in Job 11. 12, Man is ſaid to be born like a wild Aſſes-Colt, becauſe of the ſtupidity and unteachableneſs that is in every one by nature to what is good. To conſider this more throughly, we are to take notice, that original ſinne doth not lye in a man aſleep, or like a ſluggiſh and muddy pool that doth not ſend forth its noiſome ſtreames, but by the Apoſtle, Rom. 7. is deſcribed as a ſinne that is alwayes acting and rebelling againſt the Law of God; and therefore as ſoon as ever a child is capable of ſuch ſinfull actings, this original ſinne doth put forth it ſelf, it is not to be limited to yeares of diſcretion, but even in the childhood of man much folly and vanity, many actual motions of ſinne, do put forth themſelves: It's often ſaid by Divines, that original ſinne is peccatum actuoſum, though not actuale, an active ſinne though not an actual; and this ſhould make us look back to our very childhood, and to mourn for all that folly and vanity we then committed; How quickly did thy enmity to holy things begin to appear? What a wild Aſſes Colt? or what a young Serpent waſt thou, plainly manifeſting, that as thy parts of mind and ſtrength of body ſhould encreaſe, ſo alſo would thy corruption break forth more powerfully: But of this childhood-ſinfulneſs more is to be ſpoken.
SECT. V.
How ſoon a Child may commit actual Sinne.
WE are treating upon the ſecond part of the Doctrine, which is, That the proper original ſinne that is in every man, doth break forth into actual evil betimes, [From the youth] The word is obſerved by learned men, to be uſed in the Plural number for Emphaſis ſake, and therefore is not to be limited to ſuch a time, as when one cometh to years of diſcretion, but even to our childhood, therefore the Hebrew word is uſed of Infants, as Moſes, Exod. 2. 6. and Sampſon, Jud. 13. 5. although we deny not but that it is alſo in Scripture applyed to thoſe that are grown up; Hence Divines have a Rule, Secundum Hebraorum idioma, Infans vocatur emnis filius ad comparationem parentum, according to the Hebrew cuſtome, every ſon is called an Infant comparatively to his parents, and happily we may adde a Diſciple and ſervant reſpectly to their Superiours. This word Obadiah applyeth to himſelf, 1 Kings 18. 12. Thy ſervant feareth God from his youth; This time then of ſinning is to be extended further, then uſually it is imagined, for commonly we look not upon the actions of young ones as ſinnes, till they come to ſome diſcretion, or if we do, we count them very little, and venial, they are matter of delight more then of humiliation; ſo few are there who do rightly affect themſelves with the vanity and folly, as alſo enmity to holy things that they were guilty of even while little children. But becauſe this truth hath ſome difficulty in the doctrinal part thereof, let us more exactly enquire into the nature of it, which will be ſeen in ſeveral Propoſitions. And
Firſt, The Lutherans have a peculiar opinion, that even Infants, whether in the mothers womb or new born, are guilty of actual ſinnes: for whereas they make the word foreign, (Steg. Photin. diſ. de peccato Orig. Fewrborn. diſput. 1a.) to be applyed ſometimes to the Infant in the womb, Luk. 1. 41. ſometimes to Infants new born, 1 Pet. 2. 2. They conclude, that even ſuch as theſe, before they have any uſe of reaſon, are guilty of actual ſinnes, only concerning actual ſinnes they diſtinguiſh, that ſuch are either taken ſtrictly and preciſely for thoſe that came from deliberation, and the will, or largely for any motions or ſtirrings of the ſoul againſt Gods Law, though without the act of will and reaſon, and in this latter ſenſe (they ſay) Infants partake of actual ſinnes. But although original ſinne is an active quality in a man, and doth begin to work very early, yet it cannot be thought to produce actual ſinne, till the ſoul by its powers and faculties is able to produce operatins. It is true, we read of Timothy, that he is ſaid to know the Scriptures from foreign, but that doth ſignifie Timothy ſomething grown up, and attaining to ſome underſtanding (for the Lutherans are too peremptory, who think, a place cannot be brought; where foreign, doth ſignifie a child ſomething grown up; Timothy therefore is ſaid, 2 Tim. 35. To know the Scriptures from a child, becauſe his godly Mother and Grandmother did as ſoon as he was able to receive, inſtruct him in the faith, which could not be, while a meer Infant. Therefore
In the next place, A ſecond Propoſition is, That even in the ſtate of integrity, had not Adam fallen, children new born would have been without actual knowledge, as well as in corrupted nature, they would not have been born with perfect uſe of their reaſon, no more then they would have been born with perfect and compleat bodies, for ſuch could not have been contained in the womb. We take it for granted, (though ſome have been for the negative) that in the ſtate of innocency there would have been multiplication of children by generation, which appeareth in the Creation of a woman for a man, and if ſo, then that the children at that time born, though they would have been free from original ſinne, and all the general effects thereof, yet would not have been born in a perfect ability actually to uſe their reaſon. Indeed the Scripture is wholly ſilent, what would have been done, if man had not fallen, and therefore nothing can be certainly determined, unleſs we had ſome divine revelation about it, yet there is a good Rule given, that we muſt think God would then keep to that ordinary way of nature, which we now find, except where ſinne and the effects thereof have made a difference; we are not to make miracles and extraordinary workings of God, unleſs ſome neceſſity of reaſon compell thereunto, and thus it would be here, if children new born ſhould have had perfect actual knowledge. It is true, Auſtin doth ſeem to incline (Vide Auguſtin. de peccator. Mer. & Rmeiſt. lib. 1. cap. 35, 36. eſpecially cap. 37. that as ſoon as ever the children were come forth from the womb, God would have made them great and perfect bodies, as he did Eve of Adam's rib immediately, or at leaſt made them fit for all motions of the body; but this is ſo improbable, that Auſtin cannot be excuſed, unleſs we think he ſpake it doubtingly, and by way of inquiſition, yea not only concerning the body, but even the ſoul alſo, that a child is ſo long without the uſe of reaſon, he ſeemeth to make it not from meer nature, but vitiated and polluted; This (we ſay) hath no probability, for we muſt not think that God would have alwayes in the ſtate of innocency, wrought miraculouſly in the conſtant propagation of mankind. It is true, the blindneſs that is habitually upon the mind of every Infant, whereby it is indiſpoſed to receive the Truths of God when grown up, would not then have been in Infants; There would not have been any privation of ſuch light as was neceſſary, but it would have been meer neſciency and ſo no ſinne, and therefore ſuch a neſciency was in Chriſts humane nature, while and Infant, Luk. 2. 52. He encreaſed in wiſdome and ſtature, as alſo, Iſa. 7. 15. Butter and honey ſhall be eat, that he may know to refuſe the evil, and chooſe the good, that is, he ſhould eat on childrens uſuall food, till he did encreaſe in knowledge, but all this was without ſinne. This Propoſition may ſatisfie that Infants cannot have any actual ſinne, while meerly ſo, becauſe the want of uſe of reaſon in them is no ſinfull imperfection; neither are they under the commands of God to beleive and know him, as alſo to love him with all their ſoul: Therefore it is abſurd in the Lutherans to ſay, that theſe commands of actual knowledge, fear, or love do bind them, while thus under a natural neſciency that floweth from their very nature, as nature not as vitiated and defiled.
Prop. 3. The reaſon why Infants have not the actual uſe of reaſon, as ſoon as they are born ariſeth not from their ſoult, but the conſtitution of their bodies; As in natural fools, mad men, or men in ſleep, there is no defect in their ſouls, but in the body, which is the organical inſtrument of the ſoul; Therefore when Infants die, as ſoon as ever their ſouls are ſeperated from the body, they have perfect knowledge and reaſon; but the want of the uſe of reaſon ariſeth from the abundance and overflowing of humours, whereby the ſenſitive powers of the ſoul are make indiſpoſed for their operations.
Prop. 4. Seeing therefore that the ſoul cometh to work rationally by the ſucceſſive alteration of the complexion of the body, as the organs are diſpoſed, which in ſome is ſooner, in ſome later, it is impoſſible to give not only the metaphyſical indiviſible inſtant, but even the moral time wherein a child doth firſt begin to have an actual ſinne. As we cannot obſerve it in our ſelves when we firſt had any uſe of reaſon, ſo neither can we in another; and therefore the limiting of the works of underſtanding, to the fourth, ſixth or ſeven years, is altogether uncertain, only we are to conclude, That children ſinne long before they know what ſinne is, or can underſtand what it is to offend God, for thoſe peeviſh … vexations which are in little ones, even while ſucking, are not to be freed … ſome kind of guilt, for ſuch things would not have been in the ſtate of innocent…: And if you ſay, Why ſhould we think thoſe are ſins, ſeeing they do not flew from the uſe of reaſon and free-will? Therefore.
The fifth Propoſition is, That contrariety to the Law of God is of the eſſence of a ſinne, not voluntarineſs in actu ſecundo (as they ſay) as if immediately elicited by the will; For habitual ſins are not voluntary in that, but becauſe they are the effect produced by voluntary acts of ſinning that did precede, therefore they have as much voluntarineſs, as is required to make an habitual ſinne, and thus original ſinne with the immediate effects that flow thence, have as much voluntarneſs as is required to make them ſinnes, for as habitual ſinnes are therefore ſins, becauſe contracted by our own perſonal will, ſo original ſinne is voluntary, becauſe deſcending upon as by his will, who was our Head, both quoad eſſe naturale, and morale, as it is in time more to be explained: Therefore that Poſition of Socinians and others, That nothing can be a ſinne which is not committed by the voluntary conſent of our own perſonal will, is to be rejected as that falſe foundation upon which they build ſo many erroneous Doctrines.
The ſixth Propoſition is, That even young children very early have imperfect workings of underſtanding and will; So that thoſe obſcure actings of a rational ſoul begin farre ſooner to put themſelves forth, then many do think; Hence it is that they know and love thoſe that give them ſuck, we muſt then conſider, that there are imperfect workings of reaſon and perfect formed ones; Theſe later indeed are not ſo ſoon, but the former are very early; Lapide in Pſal. 25. ſpeaketh out of Gregory, of a child but five year old guilty of blaſphemy; And certainly Auſtin in his Confeſſions, doth much bewail his ſins, while he was a child, he was but tantillus puer, yet tantus peccator, a little boy, but a great ſinner. This truth is very uſefull, not only to confute Pelagiant and Socinians, who make in a child an indifferency to good or evil; or with Ariſtotle a blank table to receive any impreſſion, but eſpecially to quicken up Parents to their duty in diligent admonition and inſtitution of them; For Solamon, wiſer than any Pelagian, ſaith, Prov. 22. 15. Folly is bound up in the heart of a child; The word ſignifieth, is cloſe bound to his ſoul, as if it were with ropes: Now if beſides this natural folly, there be wicked education and evil example, this will be ſuch a three-fold cord that will not eaſily be broken: Oh then do not think it is no matter what children do, their ſins are but ſports and jeſts, you will not have them diſpleaſed or corrected, for this is contrary alſo to Solomon's counſel, Prov. 22. 5. Train up a child in the way he ſhould go, &c. Some render it dedicate, ſome inſtruct, it cometh all to one ſenſe, but who muſt be thus trained? Even a child, in the Hebrew it is Gnal pene, ſuper es viae, which cauſeth divers Interpretations; Some underſtand it of the very firſt beginnings of a childs courſe, when he in bivio, whether he ſhall take to virtue or vice; Some for the very time that any entrance can be made upon them; for children are to learn many things by meer memory before they have underſtanding, neither is that, though in holy things, a taking of Gods name in vain, but a ſerving of God according to their capacity; Some underſtand it according to the capacity of the child, as a veſſel with a narrow mouth muſt have liquour poured into it by degrees; all theſe ſenſes tend to the ſame purpoſe, (viz.) that Parents ſhould not put off the inſtruction of their children, or to think, becauſe they are children, therefore their ſins are not to be much regarded, for you have Job ſharply bewailing theſe, Job 13. 23. What were thoſe iniquities for which God did ſo ſeverely chaſtice Job? Why did God write ſuch bitter things againſt him, it was becauſe of the ſins of his youth, the ſame word in the Text: And Pſal. 25. 7. David in great affection prayeth God would not remember the ſins of his youth, the ſame word alſo in the original, as is in my Text: And certainly, we have a dreadfull example of Gods anger, even againſt the ſins of little children, 2 King. 2. 23. for ſuch came out of the City, and mocked the Prophet, ſaying, Go up thou bald head, and there preſently came two ſhe-bears that did tare in pieces two and fourty of them: They were but little children, and you would think none would regard what they ſaid, but behold the heavy judgement of God upon them: Therefore let Parents be more deeply affected with the lies and ſinfulneſs of their children, then commonly they are. The wicked man is ſaid, Job 20. 11. to have his bones full of his puerilities, or as we tranſlate it, the ſinne of his youth, becauſe ſinne acted in the youth, doth cleave more inſeperably then other ſins, even as he who had been poſſeſſed with a Devil from his youth, was more difficultly cured, therefore the Text addeth, Thoſe ſins lie down in the duſt with him; Thy youth-ſins will go to the grave with thee, if grace make not a powerfull change.
SECT. VI.
Whether Original Sinne be alike in All.
THe laſt thing to be treated on, is to anſwer that Queſtion, Whether original ſinne be alike in all? Do we not ſee ſome even from the very womb more propenſe to iniquities then others? And if it be equal in all, Why ſhould not all be carried out to the ſame ſins alike? Why is not every one a Cain, a Judas?
To this we anſwer theſe things, 1. If we take original ſinne for the privative part of it (viz.) the want of Gods Image, ſo all are alike; Every one hath equally loſt this glorious Image of God, none hath any more left of it in them then another: Even as it is concerning thoſe that are damned in hell; They are all equal in their puniſhment in reſpect of the poena damni, they loſe the preſence of the ſame God, and are all alike caſt out from his preſence, but there is a difference in reſpect of the poena ſenſus, ſome have greater torments then others.
2. Original ſinne is alike in all in the poſitive part, if you do reſpect the remote power of ſinne, that is, there is in all equally an habitual converſion to the creature: Even as all have the ſame remote power of dying alike, though for the proxim power ſome die ſooner, and ſome later; The ſeed then of all evil is alike in all, all are equal in reſpect of the remote power of ſinning.
3. By original depravation, all are alike in reſpect of the neceſſity of ſinning; There is no man in this loſt eſtate, but he doth neceſſarily ſinne quoad ſpecificationem (as they ſay) whatſoever he doth, he ſinneth, though not quoad exercitium, this ſinne or that ſinne one is more ingaged unto then another: Neither is this neceſſity of ſinning like the neceſſity of hunger and thirſt; for theſe are meer natural and not culpable, but this neceſſity of ſinning is voluntarily brought upon us, and though it be neceſſary, yet is voluntary and with delight alſo: As Bernard expreſſeth it, The voluntarineſs taketh not off from the neceſſity, nor the neceſſity from the voluntarineſs and delight.
Laſtly, Original ſinne is equal in all, in reſpect of the merit and deſert; it deſerveth death, it deſerveth hell; There is none cometh into the world thus polluted, but he is obnoxious to death, and an heir of Gods wrath; For although ſome are freed from hell, yea and one or two have been preſerved from death, yet is wholly by the grace of God; The deſert of original ſin is equal in all.
But then you will ſay, How cometh it about that ſome are more viciouſly given then others, ſome more propenſe to one ſinne then another?
I anſwer, 1. From the different complexions and conſtitutions of the body, with their different temptations and external occaſions of ſinne as they meet with; Though the remote power be equal in all, yet the immediate and proxim diſpoſition is the bodies complexion, and other concurring circumſtances; For original righteouſneſs being removed, then a man is carried out to ſinne violently, according as his particular torrent may drive him; Even as if the pillars or ſupporters of an houſe ſhould fall to the ground, every piece of wood would fall to the ground more heavily or lightly, as the weight is, or as you heard Aquinas his ſimilitude, when the mixt body is diſſolved every element hath his proper motion, the air aſcends upward, the earth downwards; and this is the cauſe of the divers ſins in the world, and ſome mens particular inclinations to one ſinne more than another. And then
2. The grace of God either ſanctifying or reſtraining doth alſo make a great difference; It is God that ſaith to the ſea of that corruption within thee, Hitherto thou ſhalt go and no further. Think not that thou hadſt a better nature, or leſſe original ſinne than Judas or Cain, but God doth either change thy nature, or elſe he doth ſeveral wayes reſtrain thee, that thou canſt not accompliſh all that actual wickedneſs thy heart would carry thee unto.