Goodwill Towards Men, Part 1 · Section 23
Sect. 23.
PROP. XXIII. For, Adam's breach of Covenant was not only to his Personal prejudice; but so mischievous to all his posterity, that descend from him by Natural Generation, that it subjects them all to a state of sin and wrath.
HAd he kept his Integrity he should have begotten Children, not in a state of sin, but in a state of innocency: The Image of God, that Original righteousness which was concreated with him, should have been conveyed and derived from him to his Children, together with other blessed priviledges appertaining to that state. But when Adam by his sin, had deprived himself of Original righteousness, he could not derive that to us, of which he had deprived himself. Nemo dat quod non habet, he could not communicate that to us, which he himself had lost.
I find some of great Name that deny the Covenant was made with Adam and his posterity, the better to deny Original sin, [Though the Doctrine of Original corruption (as I conceive) will be found to hold true, abstracted from the consideration of that Covenant made with Adam. And a learned pen hath noted this, that many bring the Doctrine of Original sin into doubt by laying all upon Covenant Relation, Dr. J. T. Ans. to Bishop of Roch. p. 106.and denying, or over-looking the Natural proofs.] If there had been such a Covenant (sayes one) it had been but equity that to all the persons interested, it should have been communicated, and caution given to all who were to suffer, and abilities given them to prevent the evil; for else it is not a Covenant with them, but a Decree concerning them. And it is impossible that there should be a Covenant made between two, when one of the parties knows nothing of it.
But it is neither impossible, nor unequal to involve and include Children in Covenant with their Parents, when they understand nothing of it. They are parts and appendices of the Parents, and at their Parents dispose, before they know how to dispose of themselves. And who questioneth but in taking a Lease one may by Covenant bind not only himself, but his Children after him to certain Terms, which yet the Child knoweth nothing of? And did not that Covenant which Moses made betwixt the Lord, and the Children of Israel, Deut. 29. take in their little ones, v. 10, 11, 12. Yea, the Children that were to be born of them, v. 15. who were intentionally in Covenant, though not actually; yea, the very Law, and light of Nature teacheth men to Covenant for their Children, when they do but engage them to their duty, and may probably by that means, procure them some considerable benefit and advantage.
As to that plea, [It would not be equal, if the posterity had not caution given what they might suffer by the breach of the Covenant, and ability given to prevent the evil] that this is a meer flourish, a sound of words without any strength of Reason, is thus demonstrated, viz. This would make as much against Gods decree concerning Adam's posterity, as against the Covenant with him, and his posterity.
Now it is granted on all hands (and this learned writer will not deny) that the Posterity of Adam have lost and suffered much by the fall. And may not one argue against Gods proceedings herein, just as he does against the Covenant with Adam and his posterity; saying, It had been but equal that caution should have been given to all who were to suffer, and abilities given to them to prevent the evil.
But that you may understand what Man's condition is by Nature, through the fall of our first Parents.
1. Take notice, that Adam by his fall lost his Original rectitude, and became universally depraved in the whole Man; see the blindness of his mind, together with crookedness of will, and disorder of affections, Gen. 3.8. When they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God, among the trees of the Garden. And if they had not thought of God, till they heard of him, where was Conscience? In a dead sleep sure. And was not their understanding now darkned, darkned with a witness, when they thought to hide themselves from Gods presence among the trees? But whether can a creature flee from his presence? Again, how strangely were their wills perverted, and affections disordered, who now exceedingly dread, and cannot endure the presence of God; whereas, before they had sinned, he was accounted the chiefest good, they could not but have delighted in his presence before, as their highest happiness.
And what was Adam's fall but a turning from God to the Creature, preferring the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life before God and happiness; preferring a false seeming good before the chiefest good. V. Thes. Salmur. de Statu. hom. laps. Sect. 19, 20. p. 208.Thus he changed his ultimate end: And having changed his ultimate end, he was wholly changed as to his Morals; there being no more of moral goodness in any means or end, that a Man propounds to himself, than there is of respect and subordination to the ultimate and highest end. And therefore when Man turned from God the chiefest good, to a false good, being led away with his sensitive appetite, (through his own incogitancy, and the tempter's subtilty) there upon he became animalis home, wholly carnal; I say, thus he became a vain, sensual, carnal man. Hence came that woful disorder into his Soul. All things turned upside down with him. The sensitive appetite, (which was the lower faculty, inferior to the will, and understanding, and to be ruled) came to rule in Man, the other powers loving and liking to have it so. Thus the nearest end of the lowest faculty (as things of sence) the things of the flesh, the having and enjoying of those things, became the last and highest end of the superior faculties. What horrible confusion was here brought into Man's Nature by sin? That if you look upon him in a Moral consideration, he was no longer such a Creature as God made him, but quite another thing; though he had the same Natural faculties after his fall as before, yet the moral qualities of those faculties were not the same, but directly contrary. God made man upright, with an appetite in perfect subjection to right reason, with a clear understanding of the chiefest good, with a will sweetly closing with that good; but when through inadvertency (as I said before) he fell from God to a false good, all these faculties were immediately corrupted, and depraved, the rectitude of them quite lost.
If any one should say here, but as Adam when he fell, turned from God to the Creature, and to a false good; might he not of himself turn from that false good unto God again?
Ans. No, not of himself, when he hath lost that rectitude of Soul, which is absolutely necessary to ones chusing God, and taking him for his last end and chiefest good; nor is the case alike: It is easie for one to fall, or cast himself down from an high pinacle, not so easie for him to rise again, when by that fall he hath broke all his bones. Thes. Salm. ubi supr. Sect. 33. p. 211.As it is observed, Haec rerum quae corrumpi possunt naturalis est Conditio, ut facile corrumpi, corruptae in integrum restitui vix unquam possint: This is the Natural condition of things which may be corrupted, that they may easily be corrupted, but being once corrupted, can scarce ever be restored to their perfection again. But of this in another place.
2. Adam by his fall having lost his Original righteousness, and his whole Nature being corrupted, he begat Children like himself, destitute of Original righteousness, and so indisposed to all true goodness, but prone to all which is evil.
That the corruption of Nature is propagated unto all, that naturally descend from him, is very evident. Adam had lost Gods Image, and was corrupted, and sinfully enclined, when he is said to have begotten a Son in his own Image, Gen. 5.3. observe, the Scripture opposeth the Image of Adam to the Image of God, Eph. 4 22.24. to the Image of Christ, 1 Cor. 15.47, 48, 49. what is Adam's Image, but the flesh, Joh. 3.6. the Old man, Col. 3.9. All men naturally bear the Image of Old Adam. Does not that prove corruption natural, and propogated to them?
Again, how plain is that of our Saviour, Joh. 3.6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. By this argument he there proves the necessity of regeneration, of a new birth, without which there is no entering into the Kingdom of God. For that which is born of the flesh is flesh, as Job 14.4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an anclean? The answer is, not one. No man can do this. So Rom. 5.19. By one Man's disobedience many were made (constituted) sinners. [Many] Some would have the Apostle speak thus, cautelously, because that all simply and absolutely were not made sinners by Adam. Eve was a sinner, yet not made so by Adam's means; she was first in the transgression. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was made Man; yet was not a sinner. But admitting these two special exceptions, the foreign here, these [many] are as much as all, v. 12. The All here meant indeed, were many, and the many here spoken of were all. But the word [many] seems to be used here, because it was to come in again in the other part of the comparison. [made sinners] foreign constituted sinful, to understand this of their being only used as sinners, is a private interpretation, and not according to the Analogy of Faith.
How strange a passage is that one hath, Dr. J. T. Ans. to Bishop of Roch. Letter, p. 11.I was troubled with an Objection lately, for it being propounded to me; why it is to be believed that the sin of Adam could spoil the Nature of Man, and yet the Nature of Devils could not be spoiled by their sin, which was worse, I could not tell what to say, and therefore held my peace.
But methinks one need not study much for an answer to it. The Devils were not the root and fountain of other Spirits. God did not say to them, as to our first Parents [Encrease and Multiply.] But Man being to propagate his kind, it seemeth not so unaccountable, (once supposing our first Father to have sinned away Gods Image, that his Nature is destitute of Original righteousness, Natura enim humana (quae in primis parentibus tota erat) per peccatum tot a corrupta est—unde non nisi corruptos, injustos, & mortales filios generare potuit. Meth. Confes. Edit. a De Soto. fol. 4.2.and tainted with a contrary principle, habit, disposition, or inclination) that he should beget Children in like manner viciously enclined. It is natural for creatures to beget their like. Haec est Naturae Lex, nt sui quaeque res similem gignat, homo hominem, vitiosus vitiosum, Leprosus leprosum. (plac. de Imput. pri. pec. p. 160.)
And, as is the Root, so the Branches; as the Spring, so the Streams. You would not expect pure and wholesome streams, to flow from a corrupt fountain.
Obj. If all descending from Adam be corrupted, how was Christ Jesus clear from Native corruption? was he not conceived, and born of a Daughter of Adam?
Ans. All that descend from Adam by Natural Generation (the Virgin Mary not excepted) derive Natural corruption from Adam. But Christ descended not from Adam by Natural Generation, his Generation and conception was miraculous. He came into the world, not by vertue of that primitive benediction [Increase and Multiply] but to make good that special promise [The seed of the Woman shall break the Serpents head.] He was that seed of the Woman conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of a Virgin; and so the Holy One indeed, Luk. 1.35, This very much confirms the truth of the point I am upon, scil. the propagation of Natural corruption to all that naturally descend from Adam, that Jesus Christ to free him from the said pollution, must not come into the world by Natural Generation, but by a most miraculous conception.
Obj. But you will not deny, but Adam after his Fall was restored by Repentance, and renewed by Grace.
Ans. Grant him to be renewed, sanctifyed, yet it was but in part, that he had Gods Image restored in him. And this, of Gods wonderful special Grace, and therefore it was not a quality that was naturally to descend. When he begat a Son, he did this, as a man, not as one renewed and created again. He begat a Son after his own Image, that is, sinful like himself; not after Gods Image, which in man's lapsed state, is purely supernatural.
Obj. But you cannot tell how this Natural corruption is conveyed from the Parent to the Child.
Ans. Nor do we know how the bones do grow in the womb (Eccl. 11.5.) of her that is with Child. But we must not deny that which is plain, because we cannot understand that which is difficult. We have seen plain Scripture for the derivation of corruption from Adam to us all.
Obj. But may not the Scripture mean, we are made sinners by imitation of Adam, rather than by the propagation of corruption from him? May we not understand it thus, that we are corrupted by his evil Example?
Ans. No, That were not to interpret but to pervert the Scripture. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Does not this speak plainly of Natural Generation, and nothing of imitation. So Psal. 51.5. Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in Sin did my Mother conceive me. Certainly, David is here confessing his own sin. Not the sin of his Parents, but that which he had cause to be ashamed of, and humbled for, as his own Sin, not anothers. So that Text [by the Disobedience of one many were made sinful] If it meant by imitation only, then it should have been said, that we were made sinful by the Serpent, by Satan, or by the Woman, Eve, rather than by Adam; or why is the speech limited to the disobedience of one, when the world is full of pernicious examples; great multitudes there are, that draw others to sin by their evil Examples. And multitudes that are drawn to sin this way, who never read or heard of Adam. And those that have heard of his sin, have also heard of his punishment; that should rather deterre them from sin. And plain experience shews, that not his particular example, which is so remote; but nearer examples have the most malignant influence upon men. And that Children in the most religious families, where are the best precepts, and examples both, do bewray corruption of Nature, as soon as ever they can put forth any Acts of reason. Oh what strangers are they in Israel, yea, strangers in the world, yea, strangers to their own hearts, that see not the first rise of sin and wickedness that is in the world since the Fall, to be from an evil inclination within men, and not from an observation and imitation of others. And I know not well, what can be replyed to that, if we are made sinful by the disobedience of one Adam, only by imitation, then may we not be said (by a parity of reason) to be made righteous by the Faith of one Abraham, we walking in the steps of his Faith?
3. The next thing I would clear to you is, That this Natural inherent pravity, or Original corruption is sinful. It makes us really guilty before God, obnoxious to his wrath and curse for ever. I purposely wave speaking of the guilt of Adam's first transgression, the imputation of it to his posterity immediately, and antecedently, or irrespectively to this corruption of Nature, propagated from him, leaving it to the sober consideration and discussion of the Godly-learned.
But though we hold Adam's sin propagated, Non peccatum personae, sed peccatum Naturae; not his personal sin, not the transient action; but the sin of the Nature of Man, the corrupting of his Nature; for so it was an inherent, permanent, Evil quality: this alone sufficeth to condemn any one in the world. In regard of this inherent pravity and corruption, which is in every one from his very birth, yea, from his very quickning in the womb; we all deserve death and condemnation, deserve to be dealt withal and punished, after the same manner, as if we had done what our first Parents did.
Now this is very plain and evident from Scripture, Eph. 2.3. and were by Nature Children of wrath, even as others. Nothing but sin could subject us to Gods wrath, to which yet we are all obnoxious by Nature, one as well as another. And if obnoxious to Gods wrath by Nature, then sinful by Nature. So that there is sin and guilt in our very Nature, before ever we come to the practice and commission of sin.
Again, what an undeniable proof is that, Rom. 5.12. By one man sin entered into the world, and death by Sin; and so death passed upon all men, foreign, which whether you will read it relatively in quo in whom, or causally, eo quod, because or in as much as all have sinned, I shall be content. These things are plain however.
1. That death came into the world by sin.
2. That all on whom death passeth, have sin.
3. That many on whom death passeth, (as infants) have not actual sin.
4. Therefore it follows that they have sin derived from Adam with their very Natures. That Original corruption hath the true Nature of sin; otherwise according to the Apostles arguing, Infants should not be subject to death.
But here we are told by no mean writer, that Man was created Mortal, Ʋn. Necess. p. 371.and if Adam had not sinned he should have been immortal by Grace, i. e. by the use of the tree of Life.
Yet elsewhere the same hand layes down this assertion contrary to the former,
Dissolution of the Soul and Body should have been, Ans. to the Bishop of Roch. Letter. p. 86.if Adam had not sinned] which if so, how then should he have been immortal by grace, i. e. by the use of the tree of life? what he adds there by way of proof; For the world would have been too little to have entertained those Myriads of Men, which must in all reason have been born from that blessing of [Increase and Multiply] hath no strength at all, but leans on this weak and false prop; that without the dissolution of Soul and Body, Man could not have been translated from Earth to Heaven. Take this away, and what he saith comes to nothing.
But though Adam was not immortal, as the Saints are after the resurrection; yet neither was he Mortal as we all now are. Thes. Salm. de Stat. Ada. ante Laps. Sect. 32. p. 197.Tam naturalis erat Adamo facultas non moriendi, quam non peccandi. To say, that he was created Mortal, is to deny that immortality was any part of Gods Image, wherein Man was created. Again, death was threatned only in case of disobedience, as we see here, Gen. 2.17. Does not that imply, he should not have dyed, if he had not sinned. As the Apostle telleth us, death entred by sin, and passeth upon none but Sinners; Infants dye as well as others, and therefore they are sinners.
And yet further to evince it, take this Argument; Either Infants that dye in infancy, and are saved, are saved by Christ, or not; now surely there are none that have the face of Christians, can have a face to say, any in the world are saved without Christ; for there is salvation in no other. Therefore I hope we may take this for granted, all Infants that are saved, are saved by Christ. And if saved by Christ, then Christ dyed for them. If Christ dyed for them, then they were really guilty; truly, properly sinners in themselves; otherwise they are none of them saved by Christ.
Yea, indeed if Infants, or any in the world were innocent and guiltless before God; such would have no need of a Saviour, no need of pardoning Grace and Mercy; such must go to Heaven another way, not by the satisfaction and redemption of Christ. He had dyed in vain so far, had he dyed to purchase Gods favour for those, who no way merited his displeasure. Justice it self would not condemn, but clear all that can plead not guilty.
Methinks, though the Remonstrants would have natural corruption meerly penal, not sinful; yet they (of all others) should grant this Argument, who would have the death of Christ intended for all, and every one alike, to make the remedy provided in Christ, the second Adam, adequate unto our malady and misery, that came by the first Adam. Now what need that Christ's death should be intended for Infants, to reconcile them to God, if they were not obnoxious in themselves to his wrath?
Obj. But sayes Corvinus, If the Law does not require that a Man be born without sin, Cens. Anat. Arm. c. 8. Sect. 7. p. 121.if it requires not Original Righteousness, a man sinneth not in that he is born without it; therefore the want of it cannot properly be called sin.
Ans. Though it is true (as Rivet sayes) vetantur futura, In Exod. 20. p. 314.non praeterita aut praesentia? quae jam in actu sunt; yet facta mala arguuntur à Lege, improbantur & damnantur. And so this, prava dispositio, & carentia Justitiae damnantur a Lege. It is contrary to the Law, and condemned by it. The Law properly forbids things to come, but reproves, disallows of things present, contrary to it. As this Native inherent corruption (including an indisposition, and averseness from what is truly good, and proneness to evil) must needs be contrary to the Law. That which is the cause of all actual sin, must needs be foreignsinful sin indeed.
Again, was not Man obliged by the Law of his Creation to be, and continue as holy, good and perfect, as God made him? In this respect may we not be born guilty Creatures, Rei debendi, licet non agendi, we are guilty before God, if our Natures (as well as Actions) be not perfectly conformed to Gods will, and Law.
Obj. But sayes Corvinus, after the fall, obedience is required by a new Covenant, wherefore Man is considered as fallen, not as upright still.
Ans. I have shewed before, the new Law of Grace doth not hinder the old Original Law (which requires perfect Obedience and exact conformity to the will of God in all things) from being still in force; otherwise we do not sin in not obeying perfectly, and have no cause to be humbled, and to sue to God for pardon and forgiveness upon that account.
Obj. This corruption of Nature in Infants is not theirs, by an Act of their wills.
Ans. Though it be not a voluntate, yet it is in voluntate. Are sinful habits no sins, because they are not sinful Acts? It comes not by the Child's will, it's true, for it comes by Nature, is conveyed naturally. The Child born sinful, because descended from sinful Parents: Yet this corruption is principally and eminently seated in the will, and from the will it acts, and shews it self as soon as the will can act. The sin of Infants is not in Action, but in this evil disposition. We must say this of Children, even unborn, or newly come into the world, that they do not actually will the committing of this or that sin, it is from natural impediments, the lett and hinderance is a natural incapacity; otherwise there is that pravity of will even Natural to them, which would break forth into all manner of Sin (if God withheld his restraining hand) the Natural Impediments of Action being but removed. And is not this enough to make them Objects of Gods wrath, and worthy of Death? How can an infinitely holy God but loath, and abhor such vile Creatures; whom he seeth (even by Nature) so wickedly enclined, if he look upon them, as in themselves, and not in and through his Son Jesus Christ? as Creatures that have evil qualities by kind, are the more offensive to us, because those qualities are Natural to them. As Wolves for their ravenous disposition, Toads and Serpents for their poysonous quality, before such quality or disposition be put forth into act.
What I have delivered concerning Natural corruption, and the sinfulness of it, it is no other Doctrine, than is laid down in the 39 Articles, Art. 9. as also in the Articles of Religion agreed upon at Dublin in Ireland, 1615. Sect. 23. Original sin standeth not in the imitation of Adam, (as the Pelagians dream) but is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every person, that naturally is ingendred and propagated from Adam: whereby it cometh to pass, that Man is deprived of Original righteousness, and by Nature is bent unto sin, and therefore in every person born into the world, it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation.
What could be spoken more plain for the propagation of corruption to every one naturally descended from Adam, and that this corruption is properly Malum culpae non paenae, that it is not a meer languor, or frailty of Nature, but a pravity and fault, a moral defect; and so that it layes every person born into the world, under Guilt, obnoxious to wrath and condemnation. How strange is it that any should subscribe, and declare their unfeigned Assent to so plain truths, and yet afterwards deny them?