A Treatise of Original Sin

. 1.

FIrst, This controversy about man's mortality is very famous in the Church, and hath been of old solliciously disputed. The Pelagians as they denied original sin, so consonantly to that falsehood they affirmed, That death was not the punishment of sin, but did arise by the necessity of our natural constitution; Which Assertion was condemned by some Councils, and the Laws of Emperors, as injurious to God the Creator of men. For this experience, that Infants new born are subject to many miseries, and death itself, was a thorn in their sides, which they could not endure in, nor yet possibly pull out. Sometimes with the Stocks they would deny death to be an evil. Sometimes they would say, Children in the womb are guilty of actual sins, for which they deserved death: but that which they did most constantly adhere unto, was, That Adam was made mortal, and would have died, if he had not sinned, death being a necessary consequence (as they say) from a man's corporal constitution. The Papists, especially the Schoolmen of old, and the Jesuits of late (to whom Jansen doth vehemently oppose in this point, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Greek expression is) say, That Adam was indeed by nature mortal, but by grace and superadded favor, he was immortal. So that both Papists and Protestants agree in this, That Adam was made immortal in his Creation: Only the difference is, Whether as original righteousness, so immortality may be said to be natural or supernatural to Adam; We say it's natural, they say it's supernatural; and yet Bellarmine (De gratiâ primi Hom. lib. cap. 5.) in his explication of himself in this point cometh very near us, or at least speaketh contradictions to himself: For (he saith) if natural be taken for that which was put into man from his nativity, if natural be taken for that which was to be propagated to Adam 's posterity; if natural be taken for that which is convenient, to perfect and prepare a man for his end, then they say original righteousness, and so by consequence immortality would have been natural to Adam 's posterity; but if we take natural for that which doth internally constitute nature, or necessarily flow from the principles of nature, then (they say) immortality was supernatural, even as original righteousness. But the Protestants, when they call original righteousness natural, they do not mean effective, as if it were not the gift of God bestowed upon us, as if it did flow from the principles of nature; but subjective, that is, original righteousness and immortality were not supernatural to Adam, as they are now to us, being we are corrupted, but connatural, or a due perfection to man, supposing God created him for such an end, as to enjoy himself. So that it is due not so much to the nature of man, as to God's Order and Decree concerning man. Thus as in birds, supposing God would have them to fly, it was necessary they should have wings, (though they come from a natural principle) so in man, supposing God made him for communion with, and enjoyment of himself, it was necessary that he should be endued with holiness ( Though flowing not from nature, but concreated by God with man. ) Thus that which is the gift of God, and cometh only from him, may be in respect of the subject a due perfection. It was thus with Adam in respect of his soul, that was created immediately by God, it did not flow from any natural causes; yet supposing God would make him a rational creature, then this became a due perfection to him. Adam then was immortal by nature in a well-explained sense, as he had a reasonable soul by nature. But however it be, Protestants and many Papists agree in the thing, that he was made immortal; only they differ in the manner How. Now the Socinian differeth from all; for he dogmatizeth, That Adam was made mortal, that death was natural, and denieth any original righteousness or immortality that was bestowed upon Adam any way. It is true, sometimes he saith, That though Adam was made mortal, yet God might have preserved him from actual death by some way or other; only that he was made immortal, that he denieth. So that what the Papists dream about their imaginary pure naturals, saying, God might have created man so: Socinians affirm defacto, it was so. The late Writer Dr. T. is also positive for Adam 's mortality by nature, That Adam was made mortal by nature (saith he) is infinitely certain, and proved by his eating and drinking, &c. (Further Explicat. pag. 453.) instancing in those Arguments the Socinians use to bring. All which Assertions do directly and evidently oppose the word of God.

. 2.

How many ways a thing may be said to be Immortal; and in which of them man is so.

SEcondly, When we say, God made Adam immortal, and that upon his transgression both himself and his posterity are subjected to a necessity of death, We must rightly understand in what sense he is said to be so. For

1. A thing may be said to be immortal absolutely and essentially, having no principles of death within, nor cannot be destroyed by any cause without. Thus 1 Tim. 6. 16. God is said only to have immortality. This is that comfortable attribute which the people of God make use of under all changes and vicissitudes, God is always the same. Though father die, though mother die, yet God doth not; as one in the Ecclesiastical Story said, when word was brought him, that his father was dead, Desine (saith he) blasphemias loqui, pater enim meus immortalis est, Cease to speak blasphemy for my father is immortal.

2. That may be said to be immortal, which is so by some singular dispensation of God, either in respect of mercy, or of justice; and thus it is with the glorified bodies of the Saints, and the damned bodies of wicked men; for the Saints their vile bodies shall be made like Christ's glorious body, they are raised to incorruptibility and glory; and as for the bodies of damned persons, though they be raised to reproach and dishonor, yet by God's justice they are preserved immortal; so that the fire cannot consume them to ashes, neither shall length of time ever destroy them. For if God could make the Israelites clothes and shoes to last so many years without being consumed, no wonder if he do a greater matter upon the bodies of men.

3. That may be said to be immortal, which by the will of the Creator is so constituted, that being separated from all matter, it hath no principles of dissolution from within. And thus the Angels are immortal, they have no principle of corruption within, yet they are annihilable by the power of God; should God withdraw his preservation of them they would cease to be, but from within they have no cause of dissolution. The Devils also in this sense are immortal, and that is the reason, though many wicked and bloody persecutors of God's Church have died, yet the Devil being immortal hath stirred up new ones, which made a good man say to one who did greatly rejoice at the death of a cruel persecutor, At diabolus non moritur, but the Devil doth not die.

Lastly, A thing may be said to be immortal, Conditionally supposing such and such conditions he performed, and in this sense only we say, God made Adam immortal; for 〈◊〉 had a power to sin, and so a power to die, he had a power to stand, and to a power to be freed from death. So that we do not say, Adam had such an immortality as the glorified bodies have that cannot die, but conditionally only. As he had in him power to sin, so he had a power to deprive himself of all happiness and immortality, which fell out also to our utter undoing. Autin 's expression of Posse non mori, and Non posse mori, is known by all. It is not then an absolute, but a conditional immortality we speak of.

. 3.

Propos. 3. ALthough we say that God made man immortal, yet we grant, that his body being made of the dust of the earth, and compounded of contrary element, it had therefore a remote power of death. It was mortal in a remote sense, only God making him in such an eminent manner, and for so glorious an end, there was no proxim and immediate disposition to death. God indeed gave Adam his name (whereas Adam imposed a name upon all other creatures, but not himself) and that from the originals he was made of, to teach him humility even in that excellent estate, yet he was not in an immediate disposition to death, When Adam had transgressed God's Law, though he did not actually die upon it, yet then he was put into a mortal state, having the prepared causes of death within him; but it was not so, while he stood in the state of integrity, then it was an immortal state, now it is a mortal one; I say state, because even now, though Adam hath brought sin and death upon us, yet in respect of the soul a man may be said to be immortal, but then there was immortality in respect of soul and body, the state he was created in, did require it. So that although death be the King of terrors, yet indeed original sin, which is the cause of it, should be more terrible unto us. Now man by sin is fallen, the beasts could they speak would say; Man is become like one of us, yea worse, for he carrieth about with him a sinful soul, and a mortal body.

. 4.

Distinctions about Mortality, and that in several respects Adam may be said to be created mortal and immortal.

THe fourth Proposition is, That from the former premisses, it may be deducted, that in several respects Adam may be said to be created mortal, and immortal; yet if we would speak absolutely to the question, when demanding how Adam was created, we must return, Immortal. Some indeed, because man's mortalilty and immortality depended wholly upon his will, as he did will to sin, or not to sin; so they have said he was neither made mortal, or immortal, but capable of either; but that is not to speak consonantly to that excellency of state which Adam was created in; for as Adam was created righteous, not indifferent, (as the Socinians say,) neither good or bad, but capacious of either qualification; so he was also made immortal, not in a neutral or middle state between mortal and immortal; so that he had inchoate immortality upon his creation, but not consummate or confirmed, without respect to perseverance in his obedience: for the state of integrity was, as it were the beginning of that future state of glory. Again Adam might be called mortal in respect of the orginals of his body being taken out of the dust of the earth, but that was only in a remote power, so God did so adorn him with excellent qualifications in soul and body, that the remote power could never be brought into a proxime and immediate disposition, much less into an actual death, for a thin • may be said to be mortal, 1. In respect of the matter, and thus indeed Adams body in a remote sense was corruptible.

2. In respect of the form. Thus Philosophers say sublunary things are corruptible because the matter of them hath respect to divers forms, whereas they call the heavens incorruptible, because the matter is sufficiently actuated by one form, and hath no inclination to another; and thus Adam might truly be said to be immortal, for it was very congruous that a body should be united to the soul that was suitable to it; for that being the form of a man, and having an inclination or appetite to the body, if man had been made mortal at first, the natural appetite would in a great measure have been frustrated, it being for a little season only united to the body, and perpetually ever afterwards separated from it: Surely as an Artificer doth not use to put a precious Diamond or Pearl into a leaden Ring; so neither would God at first join such a corruptible body to so glorious and an immortal soul.

3. A thing may be said to be mortal in respect of efficiency: and thus it is plain Adam was not made mortal: for he might through the grace of God assisting have procured immortality to himself; that threatening to Adam, In the day he should eat of that forbidden fruit, he should die the death, Gen. 2, 17. doth plainly demonstrate, that had he not transgressed God's command, he should never have died.

4. A thing may be said to be mortal in respect of its end; Thus all the beasts of the field, (whatsoever Puccius thought) are mortal, because their end was for man, to serve him; so that it is a wild position to affirm, as he doth, that there shall be a resurrection of beasts, as well as of men, for they were made both in respect of matter, form, and end, altogether mortal, whereas Adam was made after the Image of God, to have communion and fellowship with God, and that forever, which could not be without immortality.

. 5.

Prop. 5. THe true causes of death are only revealed in God's Word. All Philosophers and Physicians they searched no further then into the proxim & immediate causes of death, which are either external or internal; they looked no further; and knew of no other thing, but now by the Word of God, we Christians come to know that there are three principal causes of death; so that had not they been, those intermedious and proxime causes of death had never been: The first cause is only by occasion and temptation, and that was the Devil: he tempted our first parents, and thereby was an occasion to let death into the world: for this cause the Devil is called, Joh. 8. 44. a murderer from the beginning; it doth not so much relate to Cain, as to Adams transgression; yet the Scripture Rom. 5. doth not attribute death to the Devil, but to one man's disobedience, because Adams will was not forced by Satan, he had power to have resisted his temptations, only the Devil was the tempting cause. The second and most proper cause of death was Adams disobedience; so that death is a punishment of that sin, not a natural consequent of man's constitution. The History of Adam as related by Moses doth evidently confirm this, that there was no footstep of death, till he transgressed God's Law, and upon that it was most just, that he who had deprived himself of God's Image, which is the life of the soul. should also be deprived of his soul, which is the life of the body; that as when he rebelled against God, he presently felt an internal rebellion by lusts within, and an external disobedience of all creatures, whom he did rule over before by a pacifical dominion; so also it was just, that he who had deprived himself of spiritual life, should also be divested of his natural life. Hence it is that the Apostle informeth us of that, which all the natural wise men of the world were ignorant of, Rom 5. 12. That by one man's sin, death entered into the world, where the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is observed to have its peculiar Emphasis, pertransiit sicut lues, even as the rot doth destroy an whole flock of sheep; and therefore at the 14 ^th Verse the Apostle useth another emphatical expression, Death reigned, and that upon those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression: Seeing then by Adams transgression death cometh thus to reign over all mankind, and there would be no justice to have 〈◊〉 inflicted, where there is no sin; it followeth necessarily that every child becometh inherently sinful because internally mortal and corruptible. Thirdly, The third and last cause, is the anger of God justly inflicting this punishment of death upon us; death may be considered in respect of the meritorious cause, and so it is not of God, but of sin. Secondly in respect of the decree • ing and punishing cause; and this death is from God, as an evil justly inflicted upon man for his sins; God inflicts the sentence of death upon us, but sin deserveth it; not that death can properly be caused by God, for that is a privation, but by removing life, God in taking away life, is thereby said to cause death: Even as when the Sun is removed from our Hemispere, then darkness doth necessarily follow. These then are the causes of death, but oh how little are they attended unto • men attributing death to many other causes besides this.

. 6.

Prop. 6. WHen we say that death cometh by original sin, in that we comprehend all diseases pains and miseries, which are as so many inchoate deaths, yea all labor and weariness; for so God threatened Adam, Gen. 2, 17. Cursed is the ground for thy sake: in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground: for out of it wast thou taken. In this sentence there is matter enough to humble us; there is not a thistle in thy corn, not a weed in thy garden, but it may put thee in mind of original sin; yea there is not the least pain or ach of thy body, but this may witness it to thee: so that Austin saith truly, we do circumferre testimonium, &c. We carry about with us daily full evidence to confirm this Doctrine of original sin: for such evils and calamities as do necessarily follow our specifical nature, accompanying us as men, they cannot be attributed unto any other cause but original sin; which consideration viz. of mankind being universally plunged into miseries, and not knowing the cause thereof, made the Platonists, and some Heretics conclude, that the souls of men had sinned formerly, and by way of punishment were therefore adjudged to these mortal and wretched bodies. Though death be only mentioned, because that is most terrible, and all other miseries tend thereunto; yet they are necessarily included. Some ask the Question, Why God did not threaten hell, rather then death; but no doubt eternal death is understood in this commination, for temporal and eternal death are the wages of sin, only death is mentioned as being most terrible to sense, men being more affected with that, then with hell which is believed by faith. The Scripture then mentioning death only, how absurd and preposterous are the Socinians, who in that threatening will comprehend anything but death; death they say cometh from the necessity of that matter we are constituted of, but sickness, labor, and such miseries, as also eternal death, these are the proper fruit of sin: Thus men delivered up to error, are hurried from one dangeous precipice to another. But let Christians in all diseases, miseries, and death itself, look higher then the Philosopher, or the Physician: Let them acquaint themselves with original sin, and thereupon humble themselves under God's hand.

. 7.

The several Grounds assigned by Schoolmen of Adam's immortality rejected, and some Causes held forth by the Orthodox.

Propos. 7. ALthough it be agreed upon by all, except Socinians and their adherents, that Adam was made immortal at least by grace, and the favor of his Creator; yet there is difference among the Popish Writers, upon what to fasten the ground of his immortality: What was the cause of it, therein they disagree. Some place it in a certain vigor and excellency that was then in the soul, whereby it was able to preserve the body from death: Molina liketh not this, ( De opere sex dierum Dispute. 28.) and therefore he doth affirm, that the body of Adam was made immortal and impassible, by an habitual gift bestowed upon it, which he saith was a corporeal quality extended through the whole body; Because, saith he, this immortality was not a transient thing, but an enduring gift, suitable to that state; and God is used to give permanent gifts, not immediately, but by some inherent principle: Even as the glorified bodies are made immortal by some intrinsical quality accommodated to that state; yea and the bodies of the damned also, though they are immortal, yet they are not impassible, because they are tormented in the flames of hell fire. But Suarez (Lib. 3. de hominis Creatione cap. 14.) doth upon good grounds reject any such supposed corporeal quality, as being without any foundation from the Scripture, and introducing a miraculous way without necessity. For who can think, that Adam had such an intrinsical quality in his body, that fire would not burn him? that if he went upon the waters, his body would not sink? Others they attribute his immortality to the tree of life, that was (say they) both alimentum, & medicamentum; as it was both nourishment, so it preserved life; and as it was medicinal, so it did repair that partial abating of natural strength in concoction, which would otherwise in time have come upon man: But this opinion taketh that for granted, which yet is greatly controverted, viz. that it was called the tree of life, as if there had been some active physical power in the fruit thereof to continue a man's life, either for a long time, as some think, or forever, as others; whether indeed once eating of it, or constant eating was necessary, as opportunity did require, is also debated by curious Authors; for some make it to be called a tree of life, only Symbolically, as being a sign of eternal life, which Adam should have enjoyed had he continued in obedience. And truly though it should be granted, that there was such a virtue in the tree, yet when Adam had sinned, it would no ways have helped him, or preserved him from death, because the wages of sin is death, and therefore would not have produced that in him, which it is supposed that it might have had in Adam 's obedience; yet God would cast him out from Paradise, lest he should eat of that tree: For it was just that he who had incurred the sentence of death by his transgression, should be deprived of all the signs of life, and symbols of God's favor. Furthermore this tree of life, was not it self immortal; Would that always have continued? Was not that subject to alterations as well as other trees? How then can man's immortality be attributed to that? Seeing then there is so much uncertainty amongst Schoolmen upon what to place Adam 's immortality, the Orthodox do consonantly to Scripture, put it upon these things, concurring as causes to preserve him from death.

The first is, That excellent constitution and harmony of his body, whereby there could not be any humor peccant or excessive. So that from within there would not have sprung any disease. And although in Adam 's eating and drinking, being nourished thereby, there would necessarily have been some alteration in him, by deperdition and restauration, which is in all nourishment; yet that would have been in part only, not so as to make any total change upon his body.

2. The second cause was, That original righteousness which God made him in. For seeing sin only is the meritorious cause of death, while Adam was thus holy and absolutely free from all sin, death had no way to enter in upon the body.

3. There was the providence of God in a special manner preserving of him, so that death could not come by any extrinsical cause upon him. No doubt but Adam 's body was vulnerable: a sword if thrust into his heart, would have taken away his life; but such was the peculiar providence of God to him in that condition, that no evil or hurtful thing could befall him.

Lastly, and above all, God's appointment and divine ordination, was the main and chief cause of his immortality. For if the Scripture say, ( Deut. 8. 3.) in the general, That man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word that cometh from the mouth of the Lord, then this was also true in Adam: And if we read of Elias, that he went forty days in the strength of a little bread that he did eat, Is it any wonder, that the appointment of God should work such immunity from death in Adam? Whereas then there are three things about death considerable, the potentia or power, the actus, or death itself, and the necessity, Adam was free from all these; unless by power we mean a remote power; for if he had not had this power of dying, then he could not have fallen into the necessity of death. Thus you see the excellent constitution of his body, original righteousness, a divine providence, and God's order and decree therein did sufficiently preserve Adam, not only from actual death, or the necessity of death, or death as a punishment; but also from any disposition, or habitual principle within him of death and it may be from this state of immortality Adam was created. The Poets by 〈◊〉 obscure tradition, had their figments of some meats and drinks which made men immortal; as their Nectar, called so, say some, because when drunk, did make them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , young again; or as others, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as that which did not suffer them to die. There was also their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as much as sine mortalitate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is mortalis. They had also their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , luctus, because it did expel all sorrow and grief. But to be sure when we compare our mortal, sinful and wretched estate we are in, with this glorious estate of Adams: What cause have we to humble our selves, to see the sad change that is now come upon us? By this we may see how odious that first transgression was unto God, that for the guilt thereof hath made this world to be a valley of tears, to be like a great Hospital of diseased and miserable men.

. 1.

LEt us proceed to prove our Doctrine, That through Adam sinning we are made sinners, and so mortal, which necessarily supposeth that Adam was made immortal, and that death had nothing to do with mankind, till sin came into the world.

The first Argument is, From that glorious condition Adam was made in, and also the excellent end he was created for. All which would have been horribly obscured, if death or mortality had then been present. The fears and thoughts of death are a bitter herb in the sweetest dish that is; when of any comfort we have, we may say as the young Prophets to their master, there is mors in ella, death in the pot; death in this or that mercy thou enjoyest, this doth greatly abate our delight. Therefore we read of one of the Kings of France, a Lewis, that forbad all those who attended him, ever to make any mention of death in his ears; that profane man thought, such a speech would damp his delights. Seeing then God's purpose was to make a man such an excellent and blessed creature, can we think he was made mortal, and that it might have been said to him, This night thy soul shall be taken away, and then whose shall this Paradise, and all these goodly enjoyments be? It is the Scriptures design to aggravate the goodness of God towards man, and to show the excellency and honor God put upon him. Whereas the Socinians directly oppose this purpose of God's Spirit, and would make man as miserable as may be. Hence they say, he was created like a mere innocent, that he had not much more knowledge than an Infant, that he had no original righteousness, that he was made mortal. Yea Socinus, (Resp. ad Puc. cap 14 pag. 106.) cavils at the explication of that place, Genes. 2. 8. which is owned by all Interpreters, about the garden in Eden. which God placed Adam in; he would not have any such place of pleasure or delight understood thereby. But although the word may be retained as a proper name, Eden, for so our English Translators do, yet because it cometh of a word that signifieth to delight, Gen. 18. 12. The Church of God hath always intepreted it of a place of delight, yea that Heaven is called Paradise allusively thereunto; and therefore it's horrible impudency in Socinus to say, that place was not called Eden, when God planted it at first, but in following ages it received that appellation. Thus whereas the Psalmist doth admire the goodness of God, for the honor put upon man at the Creation. This Heretic laboreth to debase and diminish it as much as may be.

. 2.

ANd if Adam had been made so righteous and glorious, yet subject to death he would have been like that building Paul supposeth, 1 Cor. 3. Whose foundation was of gold and precious stones, but the superstructure hay and stubble: Or like Nebuchadnezzar 's Image, which was partly of gold, with other additaments, and partly of clay; all which would have redounded to the dishonor of God his maker; neither could it so well be said, By one man, (or by the Devil) death came into the world, as by God who is supposed to make man in such a mortal and frail estate.

But I proceed to a second Argument, and that may be drawn from the commination made by God to Adam upon his disobedience, compared with the execution of this sentence afterward, which might be enough to convince any, though never so refractory. The threatening to Adam we have recorded, Gen. 2. 17. where God prohibiting him to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, confirmeth this Law with a penalty (viz.) That in the day he did eat thereof, he should surely die: dying thou shalt die; The gemination is to show the certainty, as also the continuance or it. So that Socinus and others, who would not understand corporal death in this place, as being from the natural constitution of a man, and so would have been, had there not been this commination, doth join too much with the Devil in this business; for his endeavor was to persuade the woman that this threatening was false, and that she should not die, death should not be the punishment of her transgression: But what need we any clearer place then this divine commination? Doth not this necessarily suppose, that if Adam had not transgressed, he should not have died, and so by consequence have been immortal, it being not possible for death to come in at any other door, but that of sin? To threaten a mortal man with mortality had been absurd, or to make his natral condition a punishment, for then it would have been a punishment to be made a man, if made mortal. The Socinians therefore to elude this, would not understand by death, the separation of the soul and body, but eternal death; or as they say at other times, a necessity of dying; but a necessary death and eternal death are absurdly made parallel by them. For beasts are under a necessity of death, yet cannot be said to partake of eternal death, especially the godly they cannot but die, yet they are absolutely delivered from eternal death. We must therefore take death for corporal death, not but that the death of the soul by sin here, and eternal separation from God hereafter, is to be included herein, yet this temporal death is also a great part of the penalty here threatened, which may be evinced by these three reasons:

1. Moses is relating in an historical manner, what was done to man in the beginning. Now in an historical Narration, we are not to go from the literal meaning, unless evident necessity compel, much less may we do so here, when we have the Apostle acted by the same Spirit of God, as Moses was in being Penman of the Scripture, attributing our corporal death to Adam; For no doubt when Paul wrote this Text, In Adam we all die, he had this historical relation made by Moses in his mind.

2. The sentence and execution of it must be understood in the same manner. Now it's plain, that in the execution of it, mentioned Chap. 3. 19. corporal death is meant, because Adam is thus told, That dust he was, and unto dust he should return.

3. It must be meant of temporal death, because this alone, and not eternal death doth belong to all mankind. For although at the day of judgment, it is said, some shall not die, yet that sudden change made then upon them, will be equivalent to death. Thus you see the threatening made to Adam at first doth abundantly confirm this truth. There is one doubt only to be answered, If death be meant in that sentence, how then is it that Adam did not immediately die? How is it that he lived many hundred years afterwards? To this some say, That the restriction of time, viz. the day, is not to be made to the time of eating, as if at that day he should die, but to death; as if the sense were, thou shalt die one day or other, thou shalt be in daily fear of death. But if this be disliked, then we may understand it of a state of death, that day he did eat thereof he became mortal, for every day is a diminution of our life. As a man that hath received a deadly wound, we say he is a dead man, because though he did linger it out, yet all is in a tendency unto death. Now this will appear the more cogent, if you take notice of the execution of this sentence mentioned, Gen. 3. 17, 18, 19. where the ground is cursed, and man also adjudged to labor and wearness all the days of his life, even till he return to the ground out of which he was made. But here the Socinian thinketh he hath an evasion, Death (saith he) is not here made a curse, but only it's the term how long man's curse shall be upon him. It is not poena, but terminus (saith he) for it is said, he should be under this labor, till he did return to the ground; but if we consider the sentence before-mentioned, it is plain, it is a curse. So that in this place it is both a curse, and a term putting an end to all the temporal miseries of this life, though to the wicked it is the beginning of eternal torments.

. 3.

THe third Argument for our mortality, and also actual death by original sin, is taken from those assertory places, which do in express words say so. Not to mention my sext, which hath said enough to this truth already. We may take notice of other places affirming this. And certainly that passage of Paul's, Rom. 5▪ 12. may presently come into every man's mind, By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. It is true, we told you Calvin maketh the Apostle to speak of spiritual death here, as in my Text of temporal death, which the coherence also doth confirm; but though that be principally intended, yet not totally. Even temporal death is likewise to be understood, as being the beginning and introduction to eternal death, if the grace of God doth not prevent. We have then the Apostle attributing death not to man's creation at first, but to his disobedience: Neither is this death upon men, because of their actual sins, but because of Adam 's disobedience by whom we are made sinners, yea in whom we have sinned; That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is diversely translated, and much contention about it, viz. whether it should be rendered in whom, or causally, for as much? It is true, the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as learned men observe, is used in the New Testament variously, sometimes for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Luke 5. 5. sometimes for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Luke 10. 9. sometimes for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Acts 3. 16. and otherwise; but for ought I can observe it may very well be understood for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Mark 2. 4. & Luke 2. 25. The Scripture useth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for quatentus, as Rom. 11. 13. And indeed this is most consonant to the Apostles scope; for why should Adam 's sin be brought in rather than other parents? Were it not that we were considered in him under a common respect, as one with him. It is true Erasmus saith, he doth not remember that ever he read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a Dative case; but Heb. 9. 17. may confute him. And among profane Authors, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , neither can 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 26. 50. be said by most men to signify in as much. For as De Dieu observeth the postpositive, is for the demonstrative, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Art thou come for this? as the other Evangelists, Dost thou betray the son of man with a kiss? Although if we should render it causa • lie, as the adversaries contend, it would no ways prejudice the truth we plead for; seeing that the sin here charged upon all mankind, is, because of Adam. And therefore if we will make any rational coherence in the Apostles discourse, it must be after this manner, As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, as much as all have sinned, that is, all sinned in that one man, for what sense it is to say, That by one man sin and death entered upon all, because all sinned in themselves? This would be a contradiction to lay the death of mankind upon Adam 's sin, and upon all men's actual sins likewise: Yea, it is wholly repugnant to the Apostles scope, who is comparing Adam and Christ not simply as two originals and beginnings, but as two causes of death and life. Indeed I would not much contend with any, that would render the word causally, and so make the verse an whole entire proposition in itself, without any defective expression at all; so that we understand all men's sinning to be interpreted of that which they are guilty of in Adam. It is not worth time to take notice of the wild Divinity imposed upon this Discourse of Paul's, by the late Writer, ( Unum Necessar. pag. 365) who would have Death come upon mankind occasionally only by Adam's sin, and that but till Moses his time, and after Moses to come upon a new account, by the Law promulgated through his ministry. The mentioning of this is confutation enough: for here in this Text the Apostle doth make all mankind to die, because of Adam: And why may not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Text.

Another Text witnessing this truth is, Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sin is death Here death is not taken only for eternal death as the Socinians say, because the opposite unto it is made eternal life, but for both kinds of death eternal and temporal; temporal death being the in-let of eternal, and so contrary to eternal life. Neither is that cavil of their worth anything, who would make the wages of sin to be the Subject, and not the Predicate, because the Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put to it; but that is no sure Rule. Sometimes the Article is put to the Predicate, for some emphasis sake, and not the Subject, as I Cor. 9. 1. Are not ye 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 my work in the Lord? Are ye not that eminent and conspicuous singular work of mine in the Lord? We see then, what it is that sin deserveth, even temporal and eternal death; it cometh not from man's primitive constitution, but Adam 's transgression. Therefore it is that we deserve many thousand deaths, if it were possible; for original sin deserveth death, every actual sin deserveth death, yea and hell also: Oh how miserable is man, who thus deserveth to die, and to be damned over and over again! Therefore the Apostle useth the plural number, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to signify the manifold evils that are in this death. The word properly signifieth that meat, which was allowed soldiers for their service in war. We see then how fearful we all are to be of sin; What wages wilt thou have for every pleasant, every profitable sin? even death temporal and eternal.

The last Text I shall mention is, that which Austin so much urgeth in this point, Rom. 8. 10. The body is dead because of sin, which is chiefly to be understood of our mortal body; now he saith it's dead, because of the sentence of death passed it, so that there is no way to escape it. It is sin then that maketh the body in a state of death, that deserveth the whole harmony and good temperament of the body should be dissolved, and thereby follow a dissolution of the whole man. For though sin deserve death, yet there must be thereby some ataxy or disorder made in the body of a man, otherwise death would not follow. So that though sin be the meritorious cause, yet several diseases the effect of sin, do actually cause death. Not that sin maketh a substantial change in a man, but an accidental only. Thus you see the Scripture constantly attributing death, yea and our mortality and corruptibility to sin only, and not to our natural constitution. Therefore those are strange positions we meet with ( Unum Necessar. cap. 6. Sect. 1. pag. 371, 372.)

But seeing he professeth himself to be of the same judgment with his incomparable Grotius, let him consider how these positions agree with him, who doth against Socinus industriously and solidly prove, ( Defens. fid. de satisfac. cap. 1. pag. 19, 20, 21.) that death hath always some respect of a punishment, instancing in the Texts I have mentioned, using such words, Quidclarius? Quis vel verba legens non videat hanc sententiam, and Corinthians (the words of my Text) and an ad anussim respondereisti ad Romanos? Yea he concludeth, And indeed, if death were not the effect of sin, but consequent of man's nature it would be no evil, whereas the Scripture accounteth it of that nature, as Deut. 30. 15. See I have set before thee this day, life and good, and death, and evil.

SECT. I.

What is meant by Wrath in this Text.

A S I began this Subject of original sin with the Text in hand, so I shall conclude with it. My purpose in re-assuming of it, is to treat of the last and most dreadful effect of our native pollution, which is, The desert of everlasting damnation. From this alone had we no actual sins, we are made heirs of God's wrath, as this verse doth fully evince.

I shall not insist upon the Coherence and Explication of the words, that work is done already. I shall only add some observable particulars that were not formerly taken notice of, and that will be done in answering of two Questions,

1. What is meant by wrath here? And

2. What is meant by nature?

For the first, no doubt we are to mean God's wrath; Therefore Tertullian 's Exposition of this place is singular and much forced; he understands wrath here subjectively, as if it were man's wrath, making the sense to be. We are all by nature subject to passions, especially that of anger is predominant. When it is said ( Lib. 3. de anima, cap. 16. saith he) that we were by nature the children of wrath, • rationale indignativum suggillat, &c. he reproveth that irrational anger we are subject to, which is not nature, as it cometh from God, but of that which the Devil hath brought in. Tertullian affirming these three parts or powers of the soul, the rational, the irascible, and the concupiscible, which he calleth indignativum & concupiscentivum. In the irascible, he speaketh of a good indignation, and an evil one, applying this Text to the later. Cerda his Commentator illustrating this, saith, Tertullian 's meaning is,

but this is so improbable that it needeth no refutation. The wrath then, is God's wrath, which like himself is infinite, and the effects thereof intolerable; So that it is as much as to be Children of hell, children of everlasting damnation, even whatsoever the wrath of God may bring upon a man in this world, and the world to come.

SECT. II.

What is meant by Nature.

THe second Question is, What is meant by Nature? As for those who would have it to signify no more then prorstus and vere, altogether or indeed, we have heretofore confuted; yet granting that this is part of the lease, but not the principal. For we are to take nature here for our birth-descent, as appeareth partly, because the Apostle useth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which doth more properly relate to our nativity, whereas before he calleth the children of disobedience 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 partly, because the Apostles order is observable; for in the original it is, We were children by nature of anger, that is, natural children opposed to adopted ones; and partly, because the Jews pretended holiness by their nativity, because they were the seed of Abraham; which pride the Apostle would here abate, making them equal herein to the Heathen Idolaters. Neither by nature are we to understand custom only, as if the Apostle meant by it the constant custom of our actual iniquities, which useth to be called a second nature, we are made children of wrath; for the Apostle doth nowhere use the word so, no not in that place, 1 Cor. 11. 14. Doth not nature 〈◊〉 you? &c. For nature is taken both for the first principles, and also the immediate conclusions deduced from them, which later the Apostle doth call nature. Therefore it is matter of wonder, that the late Annotator in his paraphrase on Ephes. 2. should take in the orthodox sense (viz. And were born, and lived, and continued in a damning condition, as all other Heathens did (observe that, born in a damning condition) should yet refer to his notes, on 1 Cor. 11. where he seemeth to contradict any such birth-damnation, from this of the 2 ^d to the Ephesians: For he would understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the national custom of Idolatry amongst the Heathens; and if so then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not to relate to our nativity or birth, as some translate it, which he also noteth in the margin. But though custom may be called nature, yet there is commonly some limiting expression; as when he quoteth out of Galen, that customs are acquired natures, or out of Aristotle, custom is like nature: Here are restrictive expressions, whereas Paul speaketh absolutely. And as for that instance which the learned Annotator hath out of Soudas, which the late Writer maketh use of for the corrupting of this Text, ( Unum Necessar. cap. 6. Sect. 2.) it doth very fairly make against them. For Soudas upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enlarging himself, and particularly making it to signify the principle of motion, and rest of a thing, essentially and not by accident (alluding happily to Aristotle's definition) doth after this, add, But when the Apostle saith we we were by nature the children of wrath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he doth not speak of nature in this sense, because this would be the fault of him that created us. All which is very true, and doth directly oppose Manicheism; We do not say, there is any evil nature, or that the primordials of our nature were thus corrupted. They that hold pure naturals cannot answer this reason of Soudas, it doth militate against them. But we affirm this corruption of our nature came in by Adam's voluntary transgression. So that in this sense we call it natural malum, as Austin; and quodammod • natural, as Tertullian. So Soudas his meaning seemeth to be, That the wrath of God is not naturally due to us, as the creatures have their natural principles of motion and rest within them; but that Soudas doth not by nature wholly mean an evil custom, appeareth, in that he saith, two things are implied in this expression:

The first is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an in dwelling abiding evil affection (by which we may very genuinely understand; that innate corruption in us, that sin which dwelleth in us. ) And

The second is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A continual and wicked custom. These are not to be confounded as the same thing, but one is the cause of the other. Original sin is that evil, in-dwelling affection; from whence proceedeth evil customs in sin. But it is not worth the while to examine, what the opinion of Soudas was in this particular. Varinus doth better discourse upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , making it to be the individual property of a thing, as the fire to burn, and saith, it differeth from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : for this is the essence of a thing, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the power or efficacy of a thing; and thus from him we may say, original sin is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , though still we must remember, that it is not a primordial, but a contracted property. It's made so upon Adam 's transgression.

SECT. III.

That by nature through the original sin we are born in, all are heirs of God's wrath, all are obnoxious to eternal damnation.

NOw my purpose is to insist chiefly upon the Predicate in ths Propositon, We are children of Wrath, and that by nature, even of God's wrath. So that thus Text doth contain the heavy doom of all mankind. For it's observed to be the form of speech, which the Jewish Judges used, when they passed sentence upon any capital offenders, to pronounce, That such were the sons of death. From hence we may observe,

That by nature, through the original sin we are born in, all are heirs of God's wrath, all are obnoxious to eternal damnation. This is the most bitter herb in all this discourse of original sin. Here all the adversaries to it, seem to be most impatient, when you utter such words as these, by nature deserving damnation as soon as ever we are born, before any actual sin committed, it is just with God to throw us into hell, that every Infant is obnoxious to this vengeance: At these words they are ready to rend their garments, and to say, we have spoken blasphemy. The late Writer will in some sense (though in effect it be none at all) grant that Adam 's sin may be imputed to us for some temporal evils, but that the effect of it should be to put us into a state of eternal condemnation: This seemeth horrid to him. But who may let his heart work in pitiful thoughts against Scripture affirmations? Why should not all say, it agreeth not with the mercy of God, that men should forever lie roaring in hell, for the sins committed here in a transient manner? But of this in its time. We must judge of God by Scripture-light, not by our human affections. And as Gregory saith well, He that cannot find out a reason of God's doings, may easily find in himself a reason, why he cannot find it out. This Text doth clearly declare the condition of all mankind by nature, and therefore it must be for original sin, and not actual, we have also the Apostle Rom. 5. 16. in that comparison between the first Adam and the second fully establishing this, The judgment was of one (saith he) to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses to justification: here we see attributed to this sin, not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , judgment and condemnation, which cannot be limited only to temporal curses, because condemnation is opposite to justification, and to eternal life through Christ: Yea that Text Rom. 3. 19. may like an oath, put an end to all controversies and strifes in this matter; where the Apostle proving all men both Jew and Gentile to be under sin, maketh this the consequent of it, That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God. Here we see all mankind is guilty before God: They are all so many damned men, if the grace of God doth not interpose; so that what is naturally ours, whether original or actual, is wholly damnable. Therefore to the sense of the word nature, already given, we may take in Erasmus his Interpretation also, who maketh nature to be opposed to the grace and mercy of God, mentioned in the following verses. So that from this Text we may conclude, Every man in his naturals, whether originally or actually considered, is exposed to God's vengeance, which might take hold upon him as soon as ever he hath a being. Therefore Chrysostom explaineth the Text thus, We are by nature the children of the wrath of God, and nothing else; for as he, who is the son of a men, is by nature a man, so are we the children of wrath. Thus he. And the Apostle addeth, as others, to show, That no Church-privileges which the Jews enjoyed, made them any ways better in this respect, then the Heathens.

SECT. IV.

What is comprehended in this Expression, Children of wrath.

BUt let us see the wonders of God in this deep point. And

First, What is comprehended in this expression, Children of wrath? And

1. There is implied, That we all by nature have inherent corruption in us, that we are unclean and filthy in the eyes of God, for God's wrath is not anywhere, but where sin is. God's anger doth suppose sin, what God indeed may do by absolute Sovereignty in afflicting of an innocent creature, is disputed by Divines; but all agree, de facto, that now God doth not make any miserable, but who are sinful: And if this be true of temporal miseries, much more doth it hold of eternal. It doth not stand with the goodness and justice of God to damn any, but sinners: If then Infants new born are by nature the children of wrath, it followeth, there is such an internal defilement in them, whereby they do deserve it. Therefore they who hold, God punisheth man for Adam 's sin, though it be but temporally, when we have no sin by nature inherent in us, are injurious to the goodness and justice of God: we must be children in sin before we can be children of wrath.

2. Here is implied, That for this pollution of nature, we bring with us into the world, God is greatly offended with us and displeased. Let Infants be accounted never so pretty and innocent babes, yet when we think Scripture-thoughts, we must conclude, they are children of wrath, that they are part of that world, which is guilty before God. God (I say) is offended with them, not simply, because born, or because the children of men, but because born in sin, and the children of corrupt sinful men. Let not then our human and carnal reasonings argue saying, They have no understanding or will, they have no actual consent to any iniquity, why should such a severe curse be inavoidably laid upon them, who know not the right hand from the left? For this is plain, we cannot be by nature the children of God's wrath, unless he be greatly offended and displeased with us; How sad then is it to consider, upon what terms every child cometh into the world? God's wrath is against it, he is offended with it, as not having his Image, but the Devils; and hereby man's condition is worse and more miserable then the young ones of beasts, even the vilest of them, Toads and Serpents: for though man hateth such, yet God doth not.

3. This wrath is God's wrath, not man's, which maketh our estate to be far more dreadful. Now God's wrath is like himself infinite, and that which a creature is never able to stand under. Hence it is that we can never sufficiently apprehend his wrath; for if the wrath of all the great men of the world were put together, (and yet the wrath of a King is (said to be) like the roaring of a Lion, Prov. 19. 12.) it is but as a spark to a great fire in comparison of God's anger. The Scripture representeth it in a more dreadful manner, then we are able to think of. Hence the Psalmist crieth out, Who knoweth the power of thy anger? according to thy fear, so is thy wrath. Psal. 90. 11. where by fear may be meant God's word, that teacheth us to fear, as Psal. 19. 9. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; by which we are taught, that no man till he apply himself to the word of God, can rightly apprehend God's wrath. It is indeed disputed by the Schoolmen, Whether anger be properly in God, or no? And some do conclude, That it is as properly in him, as love; only we must not understand it to be in him, as it is in us, with passion and imperfections. It is an act of God's holy will, whereby he abhorreth sin, and decreeth to punish it.

4. This wrath being thus great and unspeakable, hence there is no evasion of it, but by the blood of Christ, for he only who was God and man could remove this; and therefore it is, that Infants do need Christ a Savior, which could not be, if they were not children of wrath; for if he be a Savior, it is to such who are lest. Neither is that any better than Adam 's fig-leaves to cover his nakedness, which the Pelagians of old, and others of late would run unto,

If then he bringeth Infants to eternal glory, he must do it as a Christ, not as a Savior; which distinction can no ways be founded upon Scripture.

5. From this wrath of God there ariseth an obligation to eternal damnation. For you may say, If God be angry with man thus by nature, doth it follow therefore that man must be obliged to eternal death? Will not temporal death, and the miseries of this life be enough? No, from God's wrath thus against us, there is a debt and obligation lying upon us to everlasting misery: And the reason is, Because this corruption we are born in, is truly and properly a sin and to every sin there is adhering the merit of utter destruction. So that the Schoolmen and some Papists, who dispute, Whether original sin deserve everlasting damnation in hell; and concluding upon the negative, that it hath some less punishment, is frivolous and absurd. For if it have truly and properly the nature of sin in it, then it cannot be denied, according to Scripture-grounds, but hell is the proper reward of it.

Lastly, This wrath may be considered either immanently, as it is in God, viz. his will abhorring all sinners, or transiently in the effects thereof. For that it is of great use in Divinity to distinguish between the Attributes and Effects of them; for the Attributes as they are in God, cannot receive any intension or remission, but the effects may and do. Now the godly they were the children of wrath by nature, as the Apostle speaketh here, but they are not so now. For though original sin doth still abide in some measure, yet it is not imputed unto a godly man; so that they are not for the present under God's wrath, though once they were, not that any change is made in God, but in man, who is the object. The effects of this wrath are partly in the temporal miseries of this life, and partly in those eternal torments which shall be in the world to come. The child cometh weeping into the world, as prognosticating it's misery, thus it is miserable before it hath any actual sin; So that whereas the Infant cannot without teaching learn to speak or go, of it's own self it inclineth to weep. Cerda upon Tertullian (De animâ lib. 3. cap. 19.) speaketh of some that thought Infants by these complaints did accuse our first parents, and that the male children cry A, as if they intended Adam; and the females E, as if they meant Eve, though he saith others attribute it to their different strengths of nature: But this is a foolish and ridiculous fancy. It is certain, that these weepings and complaints do argue the misery of our natures, though but new born, and so by consequence the sinfulness of them. The other effect is eternal damnation in hell, which God might inflict upon every child new born; so that he might go weeping hence, into that place of weeping in hell, of which we have many more things as yet to speak.

SECT. V.

Some Propositions in order to the proving, That the wrath of God is due to all mankind because of Original Sin.

NOw because this curse seemeth cruel and unjust to human reason, till by actual sins men have procured wrath upon their own heads; It is good to establish it upon Scripture-grounds, which is so sure a rock, that though the storms and tempests of men's rage do arise against it, yet it will abide immovable. But before we do that we are to premise something, by way of Observation tending thereunto. As

First, In deciding of the doctrinal truths of Religion, we are not to attend to our own human affections, but merely to the voice of God in the Scriptures. God's dispensations are not to be regulated according to our pitiful affections; most of the Arminian Tenants are suited to human compassions, rather then commensurated to Scripture-regulations: But if men will give way to that, why shall not Origen 's position of the salvation of all the damned; yea Devils and all at last be received as most commending of God's mercy, and most suitable to our pitiful affections? And why should not all embrace the pleasing and pitiful Doctrine of one Georgius Siculus, mentioned by Crakanthorpt? (Defens. Eccles. Anglic. contra Spalat. cap. 37.) by whose Books he saith many were bewitched. His opinion was, that neither this or that particular man was predestinated to salvation, but that God had appointed a time when he would save the whole world, and quicquid de pradestinatione tradimus, philosophicâ tantum argutiâ niti; and what was delivered (by learned orthodox men as we must suppose) was grounded only upon philosophical niceties. Is not this absolute salvation of all men very agreeable to human desires and affections; yea and why doth not God vouchsafe not only the immediate offers of grace to all men, and effectually bless the same to all, so that all men shall be converted and saved, for he can as easily save all men as one if he please? Nay if we do consult with our own pitiful estates, how offensive would several passages of God's providence in many outward temporal judgments be unto us: As in the drowning of the world, where many children had not corrupted their ways, as men of the world had; yet they were all miserably destoyed: thus also in the terrible destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, all the little children therein who could not be guilty of such heinous transgressions, as the Sodomistes were, yet did partake of that dreadful judgment, whereas at another time God in his conviction of Jonah, why he would not destroy that great City of Nineveh, useth this Argument. Jonah 4. 11. to spare that place, because there were more then sixscore thousand persons, that could not discern between their right hand and lest: If then a man should give liberty to his human affections, to expostulate why these tender babes that knew nothing of their fathers sins, should be involved in such sad calamities, with their ungodly parents, how hardly would he keep within the bounds of sobriety and modesty? Thus it is about this Doctrine of original sin, whereby we are all in our very birth exposed to eternal damnation; Some call it a rigid and cruel Doctrine, and all because they judge of God according to their own affections: But as Bellarmine well observeth in the dispute about the state of Infants dying in their original sin without Baptism, ( Lib. 6. de Amissione, grat. ) naming five several opinions, some whereof are more rigid, others more favorable, That our opinions cannot at all alter or change the state of Infants so deceased; The rigid opinion doth not hurt them, neither doth a favorable opinion do them any good, but the Word of God that will stand; our favorable and pitiful opinions will not make the natural estate of any man the better; yea when such Doctrines are found to be contrary to the Word of God, they may do a great deal of hurt, plunging of them into dangerous consequences, that may flow therefrom. Therefore to such Disputants, we may well reply that which Acosta the Jesuit ( Lib. 5. de procur. Indorum salute cap. 3.) saith to some of his own Religion, that held even Heathens might be saved without the knowledge of Christ; and that the contrary Doctrine was inhumane and severe: Non hic agitur (saith he) durumne hoc & severum sit, an benignum & liberale; sed utrum verum necne.

Secondly, As we are not to attend to human affections in this point; so neither to human and natural reasonings; Why God should impute Adam 's sin to us. and we all be accounted as sinners in him, and from him the cursed root we the cursed branches do spring, ariseth from the just proccedings of God, though happily the causes the thereof be unknowen to us: When therefore the Scripture of God doth plainly affirm such a sinful, and cursed estate, let not philosophical Arguments obstruct our faith, lest if we do so in other mysteries of Religion, as well as in this, at last we fall into plain Atheism; Let us be content with our own measure of understanding, not invading the secrets of God, lest we herein betray notoriously our original sin, while we labor to deny it. For Luther speaking against these Curislae and Quaeristae as he calleth them, ( In Gen. ) whereby men will demand a reason of God's proceedings, and affect to be like God in knowledge as Adam did, hath this expression, Fieri Deorum est original peccatum, original sin is the affection of a Deity.

Thirdly, We are always in this controversy to distinguish between the merit of condemnation, and the actual condemnation itself: It is unquestionably true, that all by nature do deserve this eternal damnation; but then concerning the actual damnation thereby, there are different opinions; Some have delivered positively, that none is ever damned for original sin only; as some Papists, and the Remonstrants; yea there are many say, that this actual condemnation by original sin, is universally taken off all mankind by Christ; so that as by the first Adam all were put into a state of God's anger, so by the second Adam all are put into a state of actual reconciliation by Christ, till by their actual sins they do refuse Christ, and so procure to themselves damnatation, not upon any account of Adam 's sin, but their own voluntary transgresson; Concerning Infants also dying in their infancy, great Disputes there are; Some concluding all that die so, though of Unbelievers and Pagans, that they are saved; original sin not damning any others; they conclude otherwise: but then they are divided into several opinions amongst themselves; of which in time more is to be said. For we are not as yet come to that point, concerning the actual condemnation of any by original sin merely, but the merit and defect of it, what every man doth deserve by it as soon as he is born; though every sin deserveth 〈◊〉 , yet this obligation to eternal punishment may be taken off, yea and that while the sin abideth; as original sin doth in some measure in a godly man. There are indeed some who make the reatus poenae, the guilt of punishment to be the form of a sin, and if this were true, then they could not be 〈◊〉 : Others make it a proprium to sin, but this cannot be understood of actual guilt, but potential guilt. Every sin, and so original doth, deserve that those who are infected therewith, should perish in hell torments eternally; but yet the actual obligation hereunto may be removed by the grace of God, the sin still remaining in some degree, as the fire had a power to burn the three Worthies, though the actual working thereof was hindered.

SECT. VI.

Arguments to prove, that by Nature we are all as so many damned men; That Damnation belongs to the Sin we are borne in.

THis being premised, let us now consider those Arguments, which may firmly establish us in this truth, That by nature we are all as so many damned men; that of ourselves we can expect no other; and that though we were free from actual transgression, It is the grace of God only, that delivereth us: All mankind is like that wretched Infant, Ezek. 16. spoken of by the Prophet, wallowing in blood, filthy and loathsome, necessarily perishing, unless the grace of God speak unto us, to live; we all lie like Ezekiel 's any bones, of whom we may say, Can these live? Can these be saved? Not one, unless God give life. And

First, All deserve eternal damnation by original contagion, Because it is a state of sin and spiritual uncleanness we are born in. And therefore if once it be granted to be a sin, the wages thereof must be hell and damnation: Insomuch that some Popish Writers are very absurd, who disputing against Pelagians. That our birth-sin is properly and univocally sin, yet afterwards question. Whether children dying therein do go to hell or no? Some assign them a Paradise, wherein they have a natural happiness, as Catharinus (Opusc. de statu pucrorum, &c.) Others, as Bellarmine, that they have poena damni, but not sensus, as if there were half an hell, or that one might be shut out from the beatifical fruition of God, and yet not be tormented with sensible pain. This is certain, if it be truly and directly a sin, as the Scripture so often calleth it; then without the grace of God, there is no possibility of escaping hell thereby. why then should damnation because of it be thought so horrid, when it is acknowledged to be a sin? Job (you heard) saith, Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Job 14. 4. here we are all unclean. Now what doth the Scripture pronounce of such, Revel. 21. 29. There shall not in any wise enter into the heavenly Jerusalem, anything that is unclean, or that defileth. No unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of heaven; and if they do not enter in there, they must enter into the kingdom of hell; There is no middle place, Qui inducis medium recede de medio, as Austin. The Scripture also calleth it sin, Psal. 51. 5. Behold in sin did my mother conceive me; and what is the wages of sin but death? Rom 6. 23. not only bodily death, but that eternal death, which is opposite to everlasting life; and the Apostle saith, The sting of death is sin, 1 Cor. 15. 56. which Austin expounds in this sense, as that by sin death is caused, as that is called Poculum mortis, a cup of death, which causeth death; or as some say, The Tree of life is called so, because it was the cause of life. If then original sin be a sin, it must have a sting, and this sting is everlasting death. So that if we attend to what the Scripture speaketh concerning us, even in the womb and the cradle, that we are in a state of sin; we must conclude, because it is a sin, therefore it deserveth damnation. Hence you heard the Apostle Rom. 5. expressly saith, Judgment came by one to condemnation; and Rom. 3. That the whole world is guilty before God.

Secondly, The Scripture doth not only speak of this birth-pollution as a sin, but as an heinous sin in its effects, whereby it doth admis of many terrible aggravations, (as you have heard.) It is the Law in our members, it's the flesh, though body of sin, the sin that doth so easily beset us, the sin that warreth against the mind and the Spirit of God, that captivateth even a godly man in some measure, which maketh Paul groan under it, and cry out of his miserable condition thereby; so that it is not merely a sin, but a sin to be aggravated in many respects, and therefore necessarily causing damnation, unless God in his mercy prevent. Let Bellarmine and others extenuate it, making it less then the least sin, that is (of which more afterwards) let them talk of venial sins, that do not in their own nature deserve hell; yet because all sin is a transgression of God's Law, the curse of God belongeth thereunto, therefore it hath an infinite guilt in respect of the Majesty of God, against whom it is committed; and they who judge sin little, must also judge the Majesty of God to be little also. What shall one respect of involuntariness, which is in original sin, make it less then others, when 〈…〉 so many other respects (some whereof do more immediately relate to the nature of sin, then voluntariness can do) far exceed other sins?

Thirdly, Original sin must needs deserve damnation, because it needeth the blood of Christ to purge away the guilt of it, as well as actual sins. Christ is a Savior's to Infants, as well as to grown men, and if he be a Savior to them, then they are sinners; if he save them, then they are lost. As for that old evasion of the Pelagian,

Fourthly, That eternal damnation belongeth to the sin we are born in, appeareth by those remedies of grace, and Ordinances of salvation which were appointed by God both in the Old and New Testament, for the taking away of this natural guilt. Circumcision in the Old Testament did declare, that by nature the heart was uncircumcised and that everyone was destitute of any inherent righteousness; hence circumcision is called, The seal of the righteousness, which is by faith, Rom. 4. 11. To this Baptism doth answer in the New Testament, the external never whereof with the formal Rite of Administration doth abundantly convince us of our spiritual uncleanness, as also the need we have of the blood of Christ, and also of his Spirit for our cleansing.

Now because the known Adversary to this truth, affirmly, That he knoweth

As also that we might see the Judgment of our first Reformers in England about Baptism, as relating to original sin; It is good to observe, what is set down in the Public Administration of Baptism, as by the Common-Prayer-Book was formerly to be used; there the Minister useth this Introductory, Forasmuch as all men be conceived and born in sin; adding from hence, That none can enter into the kingdom of Heaven, unless he be born again. It is the sin he is born in (not pure Naturals, as the Doctor saith) that inferreth a necessity of regeneration.

Again, In the Prayer for children to be baptized, there is this passage, That they coming to thy holy Baptism may receive remission of sins. Now what sins can children have but their original? It is spoken in the plural number, because more than one child is supposed to be baptized. Again in the same Prayer, we meet with this Petition, That they being delivered from thy wrath; What can more ashame the Doctors opinion then this? That which he accounteth so horrid, is here plainly asserted, That children are born under God's wrath; therefore prayer is made, that they may be delivered from it.

Lastly, In another Prayer after the Confession of Faith, we have this Petition, That the old Adam in these children may be so buried, that the new man may be raised up in them. Why doth he not scoff at this expression, saying, (as he doth upon another occasion) That they change the good old man with these things; that he never thought of? No doubt but he will force these passages by some violent Interpretation, as he doth the 9 ^th Article; but certainly it would be more ingenuity in him to fly to his principles of liberty of prophesying, rather then to wrest these public professions of original sin. It is true, the Ancients, and so the Papists put too much upon Baptism. For Austin thought, every child dying without Baptism; yea and without the participation of the Lord's Supper was certainly damned. But of this extreme more afterwards. It is enough for us, That Christ's Institution of such a Sacrament, and that for Infants, doth evidently proclaim our sinfulness by nature, and therein our desert of eternal wrath.

Fifthly, To original sin there must needs belong eternal wrath, because of the nature of it, and inseparable effects flowing from it. The nature of it is the spiritual death of the soul; by this a man is alienated from all life of grace; and therefore till the grace of God appear, it's true of all by nature, as followeth in the Chapter where this Text is, verse. 12. Without Christ alient from the Commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the Covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. Thus Davenant upon that Text, Dead in sin, Col. 2. 13. saith,

If then original sin put us into a spiritual death, if thereby we be deprived of all spiritual life, How can it be avoided but that eternal damnation must fo •• ow thereupon by the desert thereof? And as for the inseparable effects of it, which are to carry us on necessarily to sin in all that we do, to make us utterly impotent and unable for anything that is good; What can this produce but everlasting misery to our souls?

Sixthly, Original sin is of a damnable nature, because of that spiritual bondage and vassalag; we are thereby put into even to the Devil himself. For not being the children of God, we are necessarily the children of the Devil: And therefore to be children of God's wrath in the Text, is no more then to be the children of hell, and of the Devil; for which reason he is called, The Prince of the World. Seeing then the Devil hath power over all mankind, they are in his bondage, and Christ came as a Redeemer to deliver us from him. This doth argue in what a woeful and dreadful estate we are left in by this original filthiness. To have the Devil possess our bodies, how terrible is it? But he possesseth the souls of everyone by nature, till Christ doth destroy him, and cast him out. Hence the Apostle celebrateth that powerful grace of God, whereby we are delivered from the power of darkness into the kingdom of his dear Son, Col. 1. 13. from which children are not to be excluded.

Seventhly, That original sin hath merit of damnation, is plain, Because by it we are in an unregenerate, estate, John 3. Whatsoever is born of the flesh is flesh, and therefore unless a man be born again of the Spirit, and from above, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven: yea none that are in the flesh can please God, Rom. 8 8. If then no unregenerate man can be saved, and by original sin we come to be in that state of carnality, it is plain, that by nature we are prepared fuel for eternal flames in hell.

Eighthly, That original sin deserveth damnation, appeareth, in the consequents of it. For when Adam fell into this spiritual death, which is the same with original sin in us, (though it could not be called so in him, because he had not it from his first being, neither was it derived to him from any other) we may take notice of two sad and terrible effects thereof, besides many others. The first whereof was the terror and fear upon his conscience, when God called him by name, saying, Adam, where art thou? He then flieth from God, and would have hid himself from his face: How cometh Adam thus to be afraid, thus to tremble, who had such peaceable enjoyment of God before? Was it not because he had now lost the Image of God? And this impression is still upon all men by nature. There is an inward terror and fear of God, knowing he is an holy, just and omnipotent God, who cannot but hate and punish sin, and therefore we being conscious of that sinfulness and pollution which is in us, are afraid of him, dare not think of him, or draw nigh to him, horror is ready to surprise us, when we think of God, while in our natural estate. The other consequent upon Adam 's pollution, was the casting him out of Paradise, and in him all his posterity was likewise ejected. Now this was a type (as it were) of our being cast out of Heaven. This is like that solemn curse at the last day, Depart from me ye cursed. So that if all these Arguments be duly considered, we cannot any longer resist the light of this truth, That to us belongeth hell and damnation, as soon as ever we are born, even before we have committed any actual sin at all.

SECT. VII.

Some Conclusions deducible from the Doctrine of the damnableness of Original Sin.

THe Doctrine of our native impurity, and the damnable consequent thereof being thus established upon the Scripture rock, which will dash in pieces all errors that beat upon it: I shall proceed to some Conclusions deducible thence from. As

First, That position of some, though of different principles, is wholly contrariant to the word of God, that none are damned for original sin; For seeing this sin hath the same damnable guilt with it as actual sin hath, there is no more reason for the non -damnation of persons in one more then in another, neither can we conceive God obliged to forgive one more then another; why then should it thus universally be acknowledged, that for actual sins God may and doth damn men, but not for original sin? It is true, when we speak of persons grown up, we cannot separate their actual sins and original, because original sin is always acting and conceiving, putting itself forth into many divers lusts; and thereupon we cannot say of any adult person, that he is damned merely for original sin, because to this original hath been superadded many actual transgressions; and thereupon all impenitent persons dying so, are condemned for both; yea their condemnation is enhanced thereby; for the desert of damnation by original and actual sin both, is greater then by original or actual severally. Seeing then many die in the guilt of their natural and actual uncleanness, it is an unsavory Doctrine to affirm, that no man is damned for original sin. It is true, some men do dogmatize, that original sin in respect of the guilt of it, is universally taken off all, and that all mankind is put into a state of reconciliation by the second Adam, as they were into a state of wrath by the first; but this over-throweth the Doctrine of special election, and doth confound nature and grace together; yea it maketh Christ to have died in vain, of which more fully in its time. For the present, seeing that so many die unconverted in their state of unregeneracy, it must necessarily follow, that many are damned both for their original, and actual sin also. For shall the root be less damning, then the branches or fruit? actual sins demonstrate the effect and power or original sin, and the aggravation of the effect doth necessarily, aggravate the cause: As they said to Gideon desiring he should slay them, Judge. 8. 21. As is the man, so is his strength: Thus it is here, as a man's corrupt nature is, so are his actions; the one is actus primus, and the other is actus secundus: Thus as life though an actus primus, yet is always expressed in second acts, and the effects thereof: so it is with original sin; it is by way of a fountain in us, yet always emptying itself into streams. It is then a subtle devise of Bellarmine, who being unwilling to make damnation, as it comprehends the punishment of sense, to be the consequent of original sin, to say, that one dying in his original sin, is not damned by reason of his original sin, but ration subjecti, it bringeth damnation, because such a subject is destitute of spiritual life and grace: But this is to confront the Scripture, which attributeth condemnation and 〈…〉 to this sin, because of the intrinsical evil and heinousness thereof. The essence is of one to condemnation saith the Apostle Rom 5. and the Text saith we are by nature the children of wrath. Besides this is a ridiculous and absurd 〈◊〉 ; for original sin is nothing but the spiritual death of the soul; and doth wholly destroy that respect and habitude, which the soul had unto God. Father, this Popish evasion is of no strength with us, who hold no venial sins in their sense. For they say a man may be damned in hell for venial sins, not because they, of their own nature, deserve so; but because of the subject sometimes, who may die destitute of all grace; and then his venial sins increase his condemnation. But this Doctrine of a venial sin, in the Popish sense is immediately opposite to Scripture, and contrary to the Majesty of the most holy God.

Conclus. 2. In that original sin is thus meritotious of eternal damnation, Those learned men who hold the corrupt Mass of mankind to be that state, out of which God chooseth, some to eternal life, leaving others in this wretched and sinful condition they have by Adam, do thereby affirm nothing injurious to God, or anything that may justly be complained of by sound reason. It is not my intent to launch into that vast Ocean of the dispute about the object of election and reprobation, no not as it is confined among the orthodox; they themselves disputing whether it be Massa para, or Massa corrupta, from whence ariseth that distinction of Supralapsarians, and Sublapsarians. It is enough at the present to affirm, that if the corrupt Mass of mankind be made the object of election and reprobation, the justice of God is abundantly cleared against all Papists, Arminians, and others in this particular, because original sin doth deserve eternal damnation. This was the opinion of Austin and many moderate learned men; think this opinion less obnoxious to cavils and more consonant to Scripture, then that of those, who hold God's decrees herein to be, supposing Massa pura, or man considered as man, merely in a common sense: Thus God speaketh of hating Esau, and loving Jacob in respect of his purpose according to election, and that before they had done good or evil, Rom 9 11. which relateth to their actual evil: Yea this was Calvin's opinion, as appeareth, ( Lib 1. de eterna Dei predestinatione contra Pighium, alleged by Crakanthorpe, Defens. Eccles. Anglic. cap. 37.) where Calvin saith, when we treat of predestination, Vnde exordiendum esse semper docui, at{que} body doceo, jure in morte relinqui omnes reprobos, qui in Adam mortui sunt & damnati, jure parice qui naturâ sunt filii irae; ita nemini causam esse cur de nimio Dei rigor qu • ratur, quando reatum in se omnes inclusum gestant: Thus Calvin. And how orthodoxly and vehemently doth Crakanthorpe, (though of the Episcopal judgment) defend this? Potestne quisquam (saith he) te Spal • to, quisquam ex vestris Dei justitiam in damnandis reprobis luenlentiùs asserere? In Adamo in massâ perditirei omnes mortis, eorum alios ex istâ Massâ per misericordiam liberat, alios in eâdem Massâ per justitiam damnandos relinquit. For God's election and reprobation is about Infants, as well as Adult persons; neither may we think it any cruelty or injustice of God, if he leave an Infant in his natural impure estate, seeing grace is free if it be grace, and God is not bound to add a new favor where the former is lost; and although such an Infant had no voluntary personal acting to this corrupt estate he is born in, for which God eternally passeth him by with a negative preterition, as some Divines express it; yet because sins in the Scripture-language are called debts, that which is just between man and man, may be much more between God and man, who cannot be any ways obliged to show favor to him, and that is amongst men; children are liable to their parents debts, and what their parents did wickedly and voluntarily contract by their prodigality and luxury, that the children stand engaged to pay, though they had no influence into those supposed debts. Thus all mankind stands engaged for Adam 's debt, (I mean as the consequent corruption of his nature by his voluntary disobedience, doth hereditarily descend to all his posterity,) and the rather, because it is both aliena, and nstra culpa, as Bernard, both Adam 's debt and our own also: No wonder then if mankind lying in this blood, God spake to some, to live, and leaveth the restin their undone estate; but I must not enlarge on this. When that mutable Euripus, and miserable Ecebolius, (though not crying out afterwards as he did, Culcate me insipidum salem; Spalatensis had objected this as a puritanical opinion, (and also the Doctrine of the Church of England, ) That Infants dying with Baptism may yet be damned; Crakanthorpe defendeth the Church of England herein, (Defens. cap. 40) yet with such assertions that cannot please the late Antagonist of original sin: Vbi e Scriptures habes Infantes, morientes cum Baptismo non posse damnari, (saith he:) An tu à Dei consili • s es, ut sine Scripturâ hoc scias? ut scias tales omnes Infantes electos esse? You see he putteth their salvation upon election that are saved, concluding indeed that in the judgment of charity, we think such may be saved, but as for a judicium certitudinis & veritatis, he doth leave that to God, but you must remember he speaketh not of all Infants, though of Infidels.

SECT. VIII.

A Consideration of their Opinion that hold, a Universal Removal of the Guilt of Original Sin from all mankind by Christ's Death: Answering their Arguments, among which, that from the Antithesis or Opposition which the Apostle maketh Rom. 5. between the first Adam and the second Adam.

THirdly, In that original sin is meritorious of eternal condemnation, yea and doth produce this effect actually in some, Hence that Doctrine so confidently avouched by some, that by Christ the guile of original sin is wholly taken off stom all mankind, and everyone by nature is now born in a state of God's love and reconciliation, till by actual sins be doth exclude himself from this mercy, is also an unsavory opinion, and contrary to the Word of God. But because this Doctrine is very plausible, and hath had confident avouchers of it, let us thoroughly search into all the recesses of it. And

First, We may take notice, that Puccius wrote a book for this purpose, to prove, that as by Adam we were truly, properly, and de facto put into a state of sin and wrath, and that antecedently to our knowledge or consent; so by the second Adam all mankind in the same latitude is put into a state of savor and reconciliation with God, properly actually, and de facto; and that antecedently to any faith, or knowledge that they have Christ; but as Adam 's sin was efficacious in men, as men, quatenus homines, to their condemnation, so was Christ's obedience efficacious for their justification to all men, as men. This opinion he proveth by an hundred and twenty Reasons, and concludeth with excessive confidence of truth on his side, that he hath it by the Spirit of God; and that though for the present it seemeth not to be approved, yet he is confident the whole world will at last entertain it. Insomuch that his boastings and presumptions are such, that you would think not much learning, but much pride had made him mad. This man considering the diversity of Sect; and Opinions in Religion, for two and twenty years wandered up and down to Jews, Manumetans, Arians, and others, that having knowledge of all kind of opinions, he might at last judge which was the true Religion; but this is not the way to find the truth; God rather in just judgment leaveth such to errors. In this universal road Jacobus Andraas and Hube • ius are said also to go, though with some little variation. The man foundation they all build up 〈◊〉 is, the comparison made by the Apostle Rom. 5. between the first and second Adam, wherein the extent of justification to life by Christ, seem 〈◊〉 to be as universal, as that of condemnation by Adam, the Apostle using the same words of many and all. This opinion saith Puccias is most consonant to that 〈◊〉 of God, which the Scripture commends, and removeeth from God 〈◊〉 all suspicion of cruelty and injustice. By this instance we may see, there is no stop or bounds can be put to men's errors, when once they will judge of God's love and mercy according to human compassionate principles. And therefore let such, who deny original sin, or extenuate it, pleading the awe they have in their hearts respectively to God, that men may have no hard thoughts of him; Let such (I say) consider, whether Puccius and his followers do not far transcend them in this kind; yea, whether by their principles they must not necessarily come off to his way. For although he doth assert original sin, yet he maketh it wholly taken away by Christ's death, and that to all mankind, so that now we are not born in a state of wrath and enmity against God.

Secondly, There are others that do not receive this opinion of God's gracious love in Christ to men, as they are men, but as they are believers, that yet affirm, The guilt of original sin wholly taken away by Christ, as to all mankind, so that no man lieth under this guilt; and thereupon conclude, That all Infants, though of Heathens and Pegans, are certainly saved; for having no actual sin, and their original being removed, the door is set open for them to enter into Heaven, which is afterwards to be considered.

Thirdly, There are yet some who deservedly are reputed as more honorable for learning and orthodoxy then the former, who though they hold original sin, and God's special election of some persons to eternal glory, do yet withal maintain a possibility of salvation to everyone lying in the corrupt mass of mankind. Thus Crocius (Duod • c. Dissert. Dissert. 1 ^a . de peccato origin. ) although he denieth the Huberian way of assuming all men into a state of favor, so that no man is obnoxious to damnation by original sin, yet affirmeth, That none is necessarily damned for it, without the accession of new sins, and that therefore there is a way of possibility of salvation for everyone. This opinion hath many learned Abettors, but if it be thoroughly pursued, it must either fall into the old known orthodox way, or empty itself into the Arminian channel. Yea it seemeth to be of so brittle subtlety, that it doth not avoid any of those inconven • ercies, which they labor to do; neither doth it practically give any comfort to a man rationally doubting in his conscience about his interest in Christ's death, or stir up and provoke to obedience unto those Commands and Exhortations that are pressed upon us. But this Controversy belongeth not so properly to my subject.

I shall conclude against the former opinions mentioned, That by original sin we are children of God's wrath; yea and for that, as well as their actual sins, some are eternally condemned; which Doctrine hath received witness and testimony to its truth from the most eminent Guides and Pastors in God's Church in all Ages. Insomuch that Fulgentius cometh with his Firmissime tene & nullatenus dubita, &c. Believe most firmly, and doubt not in the least manner, but that everyone by nature is obnoxious to the wrath of God, that person cannot be saved. It is true, he addeth without the Sacrament of Baptism; of which opinion in its time ( De incarnatione ad Petrum Diacon. )

The Synod of D • ri also rejecteth the error of such, who teach,

But let us consider, What Arguments are brought to prove this universal removal of the guilt of original sin, from all mankind by Christ's death. And

First, They urge the love of God to mankind, so often mentioned in the Scripture: Insomuch that they say, it doth not stand with the 〈◊〉 and mercy of God, when man is plunged thus into an undone estate, there to leave him, and not deliver him out of it. But to this many things may be said. As

First, We grant, that notwithstanding our original sin, yet God loveth mankind, and demonstrateth much mercy to men, even because they are his creatures. And it must be granted, That the Scripture doth often celebrate this mercy of God to man, though in a sinful condition: But then we must distinguish between the general love of God, and his special love, between his love of benevolence and love of complacency, as some express it. God doth love all mankind with a general love, or love of benevolence, so as to do good in a liberal manner to them. This love of beneficence is demonstrated both to the good and the bad; yet this doth not remove the guilt of sin, we may be children of wrath for all this. Therefore there is the other special love and grace of God, a love of complacency and acceptance of us in Christ; and this is only to some of mankind, as the Scripture in many places doth show: And yet we must add, that when any are damned, we cannot say it is for any defect of God's particular love and grace, as if the fault were to be laid there, but upon the original and actual sinfulness of the person so condemned; for every man's perdition is of himself.

Secondly, It is no injustice in God, if he let men alone in their lost estate by Adam; for he did at first endow him with all heavenly ability to stand in that glorious estate, and thereby to bring happiness to his posterity also. Now when Adam by his voluntary disobedience, had deprived himself of all this excellency, was God bound to restore him a second time? If a Debtor by his own prodigality make himself unable to pay his Creditor, is the Creditor bound to bestow money upon that man, and to put him into his former condition again? Now if man own not this to man, much less doth God to man.

Lastly, The condition of the apostate Angels, and God's dispensation towards them, doth abundantly discover, what God might do in this case; for there is no reason in man, why he should be more kind to him, then an apostate Angel, seeing all are sinful. Now when the Angels fell, was God bound to recover theme? Did he deliver any one of them out of that wretched estate? No more would God have been unjust, if he had not saved any one out of all mankind.

Let us therefore admire at the goodness of God in choosing of some, and tremble under his justice in passing by of others, taking heed of pride and curiosity in searching into these mysterious ways of God, especially of his prescience and providence in this particular, which heads in Divinity are full of comfort, as well as excellent in dignity: but to be wise in them according to sobriety is operae pretium, to err periculum, to acquiesce miraculum, as Junius excellently in his close of his dispute with the foresaid Puccius.

In the next place, let us conflict with their Goliath, the chiefest support of their cause, and that is from the Antithesis or Opposition which the Apostle maketh Rom. 5. 15. between the first man Adam, and the second man Jesus Christ's, wherein the Excellency and Preeminence is given to Christ, that his grace doth much more abound to life and justication then Adam 's sin can to condemnation; Yea the Apostle useth the same note of Universality for the subject of either; sometimes all, and sometimes many, plainly declaring hereby, That as there is by Adam a Catholical enmity and offense that we are plunged into, in respect of God towards us, so there is also as Catholical and Universal Reconciliation and favor with God, that we are instated into, through Christ our Mediator; otherwise it seemeth much to derogate from the honor and glory of Christ, that his favor and love should be more straitened and limited than Adam 's efficacy to our condemnation.

To this many things are to be considered by way of answer:

First, That if they will rigidly and severely urge the collation made between Adam and Christ, then they must conclude of the actual salvation of every man, not one excluded. For it Adam 's sin did de facto, put all into a state of condemnation; so that if God's grace had not wrought an evasion for some, all had actually perished. Thus it followeth much more than on Christ's part, that all must be de facto saved, and delivered from Adam 's transgression with the consequents thereof. But the Scripture doth clearly evidence this, That in respect of the event, the greater part of mankind will be damned. The way to hell is a broad way, and many enter therein; So that Christ is not actually a cause of saving more than Adam is of damning; if you respect the event and issue, far more through Adam 's disobedience go to hell, then through Christ's obedience are admitted into Heaven, and yet the Adversaries themselves must confess, here is no derogation to the honor and glory of Christ, And if it be said, That it is man's actual unbelief and impentency, whereby he doth willfully and frowardly refuse Christ the Physician of his soul: Christ hath put him into a state of favor; but he doth voluntarily cast himself out again, and so is made unworthy of the grace, which cometh by Christ. It is answered, that is true. But

1. How cometh it about that men have such an actual rebellion against Christ? Whence is it that they have such an inclination within them, to refuse him that is a Savior, though he come for their good? Though their sins and the Devil will never be that help to them, which Christ would be, yet they embrace the later, and refuse the former; Is not all this from the polluted nature we receive from Adam? So that hereby Adam may be thought more universally to destroy, then Christ to heal.

Again, In the second place, Why is it that through Christ they are not delivered from this rebellion? Why is it that he doth not vouchsafe a more tender and pliable heart? for condemnation cometh by one sin, but the Apostle aggrava • eth the free gift by Christ, that it is of many offenses unto Justification; If then of many, why is there any stint or limit of this free gift? It is plain, that rebellious disposion by some against Christ, is wholly subdued and conquered by him, and the same power he could put forth in others also, if he pleased, but he will not do it; and therefore the state of reconciliation by Christ, is not as extensive, as of condemnation by Adam; if then for the event it is plain, that Adam 's condemnation is larger than Christ's reconciliation (all wicked men being damned in hell both for their original and actual sins and) then the purpose or decree about this event, was no ways tending to the dishonor of Christ.

Secondly, It is to be considered more diligently, in what method the Apostle doth here speak of the Universality of the Subject relating to Adam and Christ. For the Apostle twice speaking in the general of our condemnation, doth use the word all, verse. 12 Death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned. And verse. 18. Judgment came upon all men to condemnation; but to these generals, he doth presently subjoin a distribution of this all, and then useth the word many: By which it is apparent, that the Apostle on purpose altering his speech, and distributing this all afterwards into many of two kinds, he doth understand the word all, not universally, but commonly and indifinitely; e • se why should he immediately upon the word all, presently interpret it distributively? So that if the Apostles expression, and the Coherence of his Discourse be more exactly searched into, it will be found not to patrocinate any such supposed Catholical reconciliation; For the Apostle divideth the all, into the many condemned by Adam eventually, and the many justified and saved by Christ effectually.

Thirdly, When the Apostle maketh this comparison between the first Adam to condemnation and Christ to Justification, giving the superiority 〈…〉 This is not to be understood in respect of the number of men, but of the nature of these gracious effects we hate by Christ. This comparison is not for express in quantity but quality. The Apostle doth not say, O, how many more (as the P • l • gians of •• d applying Christ's benefits to Infants bringing them to the Kingdom of Heaven, who yet (they said) received no polu •• 〈◊〉 hurt by Adam) but how much more shall the grace of God abound through Christ to many? The how much more lieth not in the number, but in the nature of these gracious effect; which come by Christ, though to some only; for that the Apostle doth not intend an excess of Chriss grace, in respect of the number, it is plain, because that had been impossible, there could have been but an equality at most: If it should be granted, That Christ hath reconciled all those that Adam lost, this would be an equality only, we could not say, Christ redeemed more than Adam destroyed, for that could not have been; therefore it is plain, that the superabundance attributed by the Apostle to Christ, in respect of Justification, is to be understood intensively, not extensively, in respect of the nature of those blessed effects we receive by him, and so indeed there is a great transcendency in Christ in respect of Adam. For

1. By Christ we have vivification and quickening to grace and glory, whereas by Adam we have sin and condemnation. Now it is far easier to occasion the damnation of many, then to procure the salvation of one. To justify and save one man, is more than to destroy all mankind. As we see amongst men, it's easier to destroy a thing, then to build it up; one man may kill many men, but yet the same man cannot bring any one of those to life again. If therefore Christ had saved but one of all mankind, he was infinitely to be exalted above Adam, by whose disobedience mankind was plunged into a perishing estate. So that if we do compare Death with Life Heaven with Hell, Damnation with Salvation, and that the one cometh from a deficient cause, the other from an efficient; we must necessarily conclude, that Christ hath infinitely the preeminence above Adam.

2. There are some that distinguish between the sufficiency and worth that is in Christ's mediation, and the actual application of it,

For the obedience of Christ is the obedience of God and man. Now though this answer may in a good explained sense be received, yet I shall not so much avouch it, partly because the distinction is made use of to a far other end, then the Orthodox do intend; and then partly, because the Apostle doth not here attend, in his comparison, so much to what is sufficient in Christ, as to what is actual; not so much to what he is able to do, as what he will do. It's efficacy not sufficiency the Apostle aimeth at; therefore we stick to the former answer, though in many other respects, the excellency of the second Adam to the first, night be declared, which are not here to be repeated; only that one the Apostle instanceth in, is not to be passed over, which is, that it is but one offense to condemnation, whereas the grace of Christ extendeth to the abolishing of many offenses, that one sin is enough to damn, but the grace of Christ appeareth, not only to the abolition of that, but also all offenses that do actually flow from it. Thus every godly soul may comfortably improve this truth, that there is more in Christ to save, then is in all sin, whether original or actual to damn; Christ is more able to justify, then Adam is to condemn. Therefore some Schoolmen deny, that Adam 's sin did demerit the death and damnation of all mankind, it deserved his own damnation, and his own death only. All other men's deaths, and other men's damnation have for their meritorious cause their original sin inherent in them. Adam did not meritoriously deserve these; but when fallen, then his posterity descending from him, did naturally fall into such a corrupted estate, as he himself was plunged into; and the reason they give of this is, because no mere man can either m • rer •• or demereri, for the whole nature of mankind; if Adam had stood, all his posterity would have been holy and happy: but we cannot say, Adam would have merited this for all mankind; for that is a peculiar thing to Christ only, which is incommunicable to a mere man, to merit; for the whole race of mankind. And although there is a great difference between merit and demerit; (a man may put himself into a demerit of eternal glory, but not into a merit) yet in this they are alike. This reasoning of some Schoolmen admitted (which seemeth very plausible) then it necessarily followeth, that Christ's power to save is superlative, more than Adams to destroy.

Lastly, That Christ in his efficacy of grace, doth exceed Adam in his condemning guilt, appeareth, In that at last, he will utterly remove original sin from all, that are his members; and so totally vanquish it, that it shall not remain in the least spot thereof. Although Christ came into the world to take away all sin, yet some Schoolmen conclude, that principally it was to deliver us from original sin; Because (saith Suarez, De Incar. Christi) this is the cause and the root of all actual iniquities. It is not enough for Christ to purge us from our actual impieties, but he also intends to heal our natures. Now because original sin infecteth the nature, chiefly as it is in persons, so also doth Christ principally intend the sanctification of our natures. And although this be not presently and immediately done, yet it will at last be done, in that good time he hath appointed for that end. Those indeed that limit the efficacy of Christ's grace to original sin only, as if actual sins were to be removed by our voluntary penances and satisfaction, they make Christ but a same. Savior, and a semi mediator. But yet it may well be affirmed, because this original corruption is the pollution of the nature, and is the cause of all actual defilements, therefore the blood of Christ doth in the most principal place cleanse from this. And therefore this should exceedingly comfort the godly, who groan under the relics of this defilement upon them, that Christ will never leave them, till he hath restored them perfectly to their primitive integrity; for this end he came into the world, so that he would be but an impefect Savior, if he should not at last cure thee of this nature-defilement; for this lieth upon him to do, that he bring all things to their former, yea a better perfection; that so all may admire the goodness, wisdom and mercy of God in Christ; and that all cavillers may stop their mouths, who usually demand, Why did God suffer Adam to fall? Why did he not prevent sin, when it was in his power? Now when all the world shall see, that a greater good is wrought by the second Adam, than evil was by the first; this will make us break out into holy exclamations, saying, Oh the wisdom of God, how unsearchable are his ways? And this may suffice for the razing of that foundation they build so much upon.

In the third place, I find that urged for an universal cleansing of all mankind, and that none is in a state of wrath now by nature; Because in that vision which Peter had, Act. 10. 28 he saith, God had shown him, that he should not call any man common, or unclear. But this doth not any way contradict this Doctrine o • spiritual uncleanness, which Job saith is upon all men; but uncleanness is there understood of that Jewish sanctity, which was vouchsafed to the nation of the Jews; whereby that people alone were entitled to Church-privileges (and all Heathens abiding strangers from this Covenant of grace, were as dogs not children; they were accounted as unclean, unto whom the word of grace was not to be preached) called therefore Gal. 2. 15. Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, until Christ came, and broke down this parition wall: So that the meaning is, We are not now to include the Gospel within the Jews, but every nation is as clean in this respect, as they are: Insomuch that we are not to forbear preaching unto any people under the heavens; otherwise if we regard this spiritual filthiness, we are to call every man unclean, as being the child of God's wrath. Hence Austin of old did urge that phrase, He that believeth not, the wrath of God abideth on him. Joh. 3. 36. he doth not say, it cometh upon him, it will fall upon him, but it abideth on him, implying, that it was there before, even in respect of his natural pollution, though he had never committed those actual sins of unbelief and disobedience to the Gospel of Christ.

But that I may come out of this controversy I shall instance in one Objection more, and that is, the promise made by God to Adam after his fall. For Gen. 3. 15. when Adam had cast himself into this cursed estate, and through the fear and horror that was upon him he aid flee from the presence of God; God did in mercy look upon him, and made: but gracious promise concerning the seed of the woman, which should bruise the head of the serpent: hereby (some conceive) is a re-assuming of all mankind into God's favors again and that the promise is made to Adam and Eve, as the two principles and 〈◊〉 of mankind, and that hereby they are made an holy root, wherein all branches 〈…〉 made holy. This place is indeed mentioned by Puccius (but Sneanus Method des. cons. sal. & dam. c. 3. &c. 4.) out of whose loins came Arminius and his followers, doth much insist on this place; whereby he maketh it a blasphemy to think, that Adae maleficium should extend further than Christi beneficium not indeed in the Huoerian or P •• cian sense, who hold an absolute reconciliation antecidently to man's faith and repentance; but conditional, or conciliabilty, or salvability of all, it they do repent and believe. But this Text cannot be a foundation for such a Doctrine. Indeed it is very difficult, and many grammatical and real doubts there are upon the place; only we must take it for granted, that there is declared the first promise of a Chris: till Adam heard this from God, he could have no more hopes for his salvation, than the devils have. Therefore we are to abominate the Socinian Doctrine, who make this to be only a malediction of the serpent, or a cu • se upon that creature, putting a natural enmity between that and a man; affirming also, That Adam and Eve understood no more from God then that thing. But we see other Scriptures plainly alluding to this, as when Christ is said to be made of a woman, Gal. 4. 4. and that he came into the world to destroy the works of the devil. 1 Joh. 3. 8. and in other places we find the devil called the old serpent, and the red dragon, which seduced the whole earth, Rev. 12. 9, 10. Yea Paul did allude to this promise, when he useth that expression, Rom. 16. 20. The God of peace shall shortly tread or bruise Satan under your feet. And whereas the Socinian asketh, How it can be a promise, seeing it is a curse? Can cold and hot come out of the same month? The answer is easy: therefore there is a promise, because of the curse; for in that the devil and his seed is in a mystical sense cursed by God, thereby is a promise made concerning Christ and his seed for victory over the devil; so that the promise is of excellent use and comfort; no godly man ought to fear either devil or wicked men, as long as he remembereth this promise. If Satan's head be not yet bruised, if he have some life still, if he sometimes sting thee, be not discouraged; for though this promise was made long ago, yet God hath not forgotten it. But although this be so, yet we cannot from hence conclude, that God is become reconciled with all mankind; or that all after Adam 's fall are received into equal grace. For we see plainly, there are two kinds distinguished in the Text, there is the Woman's seed, and there is the serpents seed; and between these there is an enmity placed; The woman's seed is Christ and his members (as we will here take for granted) The serpents seed are all wicked men reprobated in their sins; for by nature we are all the serpents seed; but here it speaketh of such a seed as shall continue in opposition to Christ and his people: That therefore some are the woman's seed, some the serpents seed; on one part it cometh from the mere grace of God, and on the other part from the justice of God. So that this Text, if rightly considered, doth rather overthrow than establish such an universal Reconciliation of all mankind. It is true, for those who are made Christ's by free discriminating grace, both this promise, and that discourse of Paul's, Rom. 5. do proclaim admirable comfort and consolation. For that condition thou wert so irrecoverably plunged into; that sin and devil thou wert so afraid of, is wholly conquered by Christ. Hold up thy head therefore thou member of Christ and be exceeding glad, for the second Adam hath taken off that sin, that wrath, that vengeance which the first Adam had brought upon thee. And alas! how free was this grace of God to thee? What did God see in thee more then in the sons and daughters of Adam? Wast not thou in the same filth with them? Wast not thou wallowing in the same blood with them? Had not Adam infected thee, condemned thee, as well as others? Oh stand forever admiring the unsearchable ways of God's grace to thee, who of a child of wrath, hath made thee a child of such special favor and mercy!

SECT. IX.

Of the state of Infants that die in their Infancy, before they are capable of any Actual Transgressions, and that die before Baptism.

THe next particular in order to be treated upon is, concerning the state of those Infants, who die in their Infancy, before they are capable of any actual transgression. These having only original sin upon them, what may we conclude about their final estate? for we will take for granted, that the Doctrine of the Lutherans is to be exploded, who hold that Infants have actual sins, and that some do partake of actual grace; this is repugnant to reason and experience. Now to proceed more orderly in this point, we are to take notice of these ensuing particulars.

First, That it is one thing to be a child of wrath by nature, and another thing to be reprobated forever by God, never to be admitted into his favor. When the Apostle calleth us children of wrath, the meaning is not, as if there were a final and total rejection from all grace; for then the meaning would be, that all men are damned, which is manifestly contradicted by many places in Scripture. Though therefore all Infants are by nature the children of wrath, yet all are not reprobated; though all deserve to be damned, yet all are not actually damned.

Secondly, We are to know that those, who hold some Infants dying in their original sin to be damned, do yet acknowledge that it is (as Austin calleth it) mitissima omnium poena, the mildest of all punishments, because they have no actual sins joined with their original, to increase the torments of hell. It is true, we told you original sin in the nature of it is very great and heinous, even so great, that none are able to express the loathsomeness thereof; yet because it hath this diminishing circumstance, that it is not voluntary personally in an Infant, therefore we may conclude, that they have lesser torments in hell, then Adult persons. For that there are degrees of torments in hell, some punished more extremely then others, is acknowledged by all, though some learned men question, whether there be any degrees of glory in heaven.

Thirdly, As for the Doctrine of the learned about the state of Infants dying in their Infancy, there are several opinions; Some hold that all Infants dying so, whether in the Church, or out of the Church, whether of believing, or unbelieving parents, are saved. They think this opinion doth most suit with the goodness and mercy of God: of this opinion are not only the Heterodox Doctors, but even learned Junius in his answer to Puccius; Zwingli also is alleged for this. Others they make a distinction of Infants dying in their Infancy. For either they die without Baptism, or with Baptism; if without Baptism, then they conclude of their damnation; and in this rigid way Austin went, and many follow him; yea Austin thought, that if they died without the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper also: for at that age it was generally held that both the Sacraments were necessary to salvation, and therefore both to be applied to Infants: But then for these Infants, who die partakers of Baptism, they concluded undoubtedly of their salvation, this being their Doctrine, that Baptism doth wash away original sin: The Papists they all agreeing in this likewise, that Baptism is necessary necessitate medii to salvation, either really, or in voto, in desire; and because an Infant dying without Baptism, cannot have a desire thereunto; Hence they conclude of eternal death, as a punishment unto such; yet Elisius a Papist in his piorum clypeus, &c. ( Quest. 10. Art. 3.) is very bold, saying that opinion which many Divines and the Church holdeth, concerning the state of Infants dying without Baptism according to the ordinary law, est sa •• dura & onerosa, is very hard and burdensome, and not conformable to the precepts of Christ, which are sweet and easy; and therefore he alledgeth Gerson and Cajetan for this opinion, which he is so far from judging heretical, that he calls it pietati conformis; but generally the Papists go otherwise: But then they differ amongst themselves. Some of them, as Catharinus, place Infants so dying, in a terrestrial Paradise, where they have a natural, though not a supernatural happiness, ( Opus de statu parv ) Others make their condition more miserable, viz. that they have the privative part of eternal death, though not the positive; they have the poena damni, the punishment of loss, though not of sense, they are shut out from enjoying God, but yet they say this will not work any sorrow in them, because they know, that they were not in a capacity for enjoying the face of God, as (say they) a Country Peasant is not grieved, because he is not a King, because he never was in any probability for such a dignity. But, as a Popish Writer, ( Flor. Conrius Archip. Thuani. ) observeth, confuting his own party, and rigidly following Austin, in a Tractate joined to Jansen his Works: These Infants (saith he) knowing that they are shut from the face of God, must needs be exceedingly grieved; because in Adam they had a capacity to enjoy God, even as a poor man may mourn that he is not a King, when his ancestors had a right to it, but sinfully lost it, and this is the case of all Infants; so that it is a mere figment that many Papists have, to make an half hell, and a semi -damnation, as if we might be deprived of God's favor, and not be positively damned. It is true, here also the Papists are divided; Bellarmine maketh five divers opinions concerning the state of dying Infants, and he joineth with those that hold they have inward sorrow in that eternal death, but yet not so great as to be called hell fire, or the worm of conscience. For this end they write and speak so much of a limbus Infantum, a border or fringe as it were in hell; where Infants are all disposed, being without the Vision of God, yet not tormented with body pain; but there is no Scripture for such a place: and therefore we leave this limbus to these limbatis pontificiis, who love to enlarge their limbos, and simbrias, as one saith. Lastly, There are others, and they distinguish of Infants dying: either they are such as are within the Covenant, and are of believing parents; and of such they conclude their salvation: for they look upon their federation, as an external sign of their election; but then for all such as die without the Covenant, the children of Pagans; they say, that by the Scripture, they cannot conclude of any hope of salvation for them. Thus you see into how many divers ways they go, who handle this Question: I might add another opinion mentioned by Vorstius, (Anti Bellar. in Qu • rt. Tom. Censur. ad Thes. Duodes ) of some, who affirm Infants do wholly perish as beasts; but (saith he) these are not to be accounted inter Evangelicos, amongst the Evangelical Churches; yet within a little while after, he reproveth Bellarmine for not touching upon all the opinions of others about Infants, saying, That there are not wanting some amongst Christians, who think either some or all Infants are through death wholly abolished, as beasts; whose Arguments (saith he) Bellarmine should have answered, but herein Vorstius seemeth to manifest his good will to the Socinian party, and though he excludeth them from the Evangelici, yet he acknowledgeth them Christiani. All that I shall speak to it shall be comprehended in these particulars:

First, That concerning Infants, there are many difficulties in Divinity, for the Scripture speaking for the most part of persons grown up, hence it is that we cannot so clearly discover the truth about them, as how Infants are justified, seeing they have no actual faith to lay hold upon Christ; as also how the Spirit of God doth work in them regeneration, and make them new creatures; for seeing it is plain that of such Infants is the kingdom of heaven, and God's promise is to the believer, and his seed; it necessarily followeth, that they are justified, and they are sanctified, though we know not how the Spirit of God doth this in them. Thus in the matter of the Resurrection and the day of Judgment, we must necessarily acknowledge, that Infants will then be raised with perfect bodies, all imperfections being then to be removed from glorified bodies, as also that they will be called to Judgment: Though the judicial process mentioned by the Evangelist instanceth only in actual sins and duties, we must then be sober in this inquisition, seeing the Scripture speaketh not so expressly of Infants, neither is the Question necessarily to be known, and therefore if we be over curious in enquiting what God will them: Let us 〈…〉 we deserve not Peter 's reproof, Joh. 20. busily asking about John, What is 〈◊〉 to thee? follow thou me; so God say, What is that to thee, how I will 〈◊〉 of Infants? thou art an adult person, do thou follow me.

Secondly, We must necessarily make a distinction between such as 〈…〉 under the Covenant, and such whose parents and their seed are strangers 〈◊〉 it, and therefore with the Remorstrants to conclude, That all Infants 〈◊〉 born of Pagans, are surely saved, is to put no difference between 〈…〉 Covenant of grace, and to be without, which yet the Scripture doth; 〈◊〉 it saith of the children of unbelievers that they are unclean, 1 Cor. 7. and Heathens they are said to be without; and therefore according to the Rule of the Scripture, we see no more visible way for the children of Heathens, then for Heathens themselves to be saved; but yet the Orthodox do add, that they leave these things to the judgment of God, and content themselves 〈◊〉 that which Paul saith, 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to do to judge those that are without: although the Apostle doth not there speak of a Doctrinal Judgment, but a Judgment of Jurisdiction, which Church Officers cannot exercise upon those that are without the Church, though this be so, we must always remember to put a difference between that general love of God to mankind, and that special grace of his to his Church, and therefore we must needs be injurious to this grace of God, if we make children without the Covenant to be partakers of the same special privilege which others within do receive, then the Gospel is no such extraordinary mercy, then the Covenant of grace is no such signal favor, then believing parents have no such cause to bless God for his merciful dispensations towards them, if Heathens children are in as prepared a way for reconciliation with God, as their posterity is.

3. Therefore the fountain and spring head of the salvation of children dying in their Infancy, is the election of God as well as in grown persons, it holdeth in them, as well as in adult persons, that election doth obtain, and he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, election and reprobation is amongst Infants dying, so as well as of those that are men, though this Doctrine be rejected by Arminians, yet believing parents who lose their children while in the blossom, are greatly to comfort their souls concerning their children so early deceased; for although they are not able to look into the Book of 〈◊〉 which is in heaven, and thereby know which child's name is written there, and which not; yet in that they are externally brought under the Covenant of grace, and so in proxime capacity to Church-Communion; they may well satisfy themselves in this, as an effect of their election, and that because God hath chosen them to eternal glory, therefore are they in time received into this grace and favor, as to be of the reputed members of Christ, and in this we must rest, not doubting but that God doth internally go along with the Ordinance; and that if the child be taken away in its Infancy, it is done both in mercy to the child, and to the parents: Of this subject it is good to peruse Peter Martyr, Comment. 1 Cor. 7.

Lastly, Therefore in this great business of the salvation of children dying in Infancy, it is election, and the Covenant of greace that maketh the difference, and not Baptism: This was Austin 's mistake of old, and the Popish error in these latter days, to lay too much upon Baptism, as if that by its very work done, opere operato, (as they say) did take away original sin, and put us into a state of grace, from which men by actual impietis might afterwards fall away; so that the errors about Baptism are extreme, either such as think it only a temporary Ordinance for the initiation of the Church at first, as the Socinians, or else such as make it to be the efficacious instrument of grace, and that from the mere work done, though there be no good actual motion, or stirring of the heart at the time, though administered to an adult person: Hence it is that by some the Ordinance of Baptism is exalted too much, as if the outward washing would save a man, not at all looking to the inward grace represented thereby, and by others it is wholly rejected as not being commanded us now in these times, or if it be so, is only commemorative of our duty not seating and obsignative of any grace of God to us, for which cause the Remonstrants say, That the Doctrine of the Sacraments as it is now delivered by Protestant Authors, is vehemently suspected by them, but we are to sail between these two rocks, neither giving it too much or too little, for we may observe that the Scripture speaketh two ways of Sacraments. First when men do rest on them, never at all attending to that grace they signify, then the Scripture doth debase them, attributeth no glory at all to them, making Sacraments to be no Sacraments, if they be not received in a right manner; Thus the Apostle saith, Circumcision is become uncircumcision to him that keepeth not the Law: and 1 Cor. 11. This is not to eat the Lord's Supper, yea unworthy receivers eat and drink their own salvation: Thus the Scripture when it attends to men's either resting upon them as if they could save, or the sinful abuse of them, by not attending to the grace signified doth speak in an undervaluing way of them; But then at other times, when it doth respect the institution of Christ, and the effects thereof, then glorious and great things are spoken of them; yet though the Scripture commends and commandeth them as the institution of Christ for supernatural effects, notwithstanding that old Rule is to be received, that not the privation, but the contempt of Sacraments doth damn; so that the after ages of the Church which came to idolize Baptism, and to put so much virtue even in the very external act done, can no ways be justified, yea so greatly did superstition grow in this kind, that they thought Baptism did also work some wonderful temporal effects; for whereas there is a traditon, (though it be justly reckoned among the vulgar errors) that the Jews have by way of punishment an offensive smell or stink inflicted upon their body, they instance in Jews baptized, that thereby were cleansed from this filthiness. The Poet Fortunatus said, Sanct. Comment. in Jer. 31. 29.

Thus absurd did many grow in their thoughts about the efficacy of Baptism; but the truth is, That although Baptism be an Ordinance appointed by God for the sealing of the remission of original sin, yet it hath not this effect in all, neither is the benefit of Baptism to be limited to that time only, but it extendeth itself to our whole life; so that we are daily to make an improvement of it both for duty and comfort. And thus much may suffice for the deciding of this Question with sobriety and modesty.

Now if any shall say upon the hearing of this damnable estate that we are plunged into by sin, as the Disciples in another case, It is good not to marry; yea that it is good to have no children; it is good to be no Parents, because our Infants do thus come into the world upon worse terms then the young ones of brute beasts, because they are the children of God's wrath, whereas the creatures are not the creatures of God's wrath. To such as shall thus conclude, I shall propound these ensuing particulars:

First, That it is just and righteous with God, to continue the propagation of mankind, though man hath thus corrupted his nature. Because Adam fell, and so all his posterity would be propagated in a damnable estate, shall he therefore destroy the whele species of men, and raze out every individuum? Seeing then its God's will, that men should increase and multiply, that there should be parents and children; for which end he hath instituted marriage, we are to regard the will of God in this way more than the adherent corruption; and the rather, because this damnable guilt doth adhere to our natures, not from God's primitive Institution, but by Adam 's voluntary transgression. It being then a duty to some to marry, it being by God appointed a remedy against sin; for thee to abstain from that way, and to desire no children under pretence of original sin, is a mere delusion.

Secondly, You are to know, That though children be born in this defiled and cursed estate, yet they are in themselves mercies and comforts, which mace our Savior say, That a woman, because of the joy that a man child is born, she forgetteth all her sorrow and pangs that she was in, John 16. 21. So that at the same time, they may be by nature children of wrath, and yet in another respect comforts and mercies in themselves; for which end God promiseth children as a mercy, and threateneth it, as a punishment, to be barren and childless.

Thirdly, Thou that art a believing parent, and hast thy child dying in its infancy, thou hast cause to assure thyself of the mercy of God to thy child, because he taketh parents and children into the same promise. Oh but I know not that God hath elected him; So neither canst thou thy own, à priori I you must begin at the lower round of the ladder, in God's Election; The effects and fruits thereof; And now what greater pledge and argument canst thou have of his salvation, then being born under the Covenant of grace? You cannot expect actual expressions of regeneration and grace from a dying Infant; therefore thou must run to the Covenant of grace, whereby God doth receive such, as his members; yea thou hast cause to admire the goodness of God to thy child, and his mercy, when so many thousands, and thousands of Pagans children dying, have no visible way of salvation; we cannot by the Scripture (as you heard) see any Ark provided for them, as God in mercy hath done for thee.

Fourthly, The consideration of God's just and severe proceedings against Pagans and their children, may make thee the more admire the grace of God in saving of thee. For how many Heathens perish in hell, who it may be never committed such gross and soul sins in their life time, as thou hast done? To be sure their Infants never committed such actual inquities, as thou hast done; yet they appear according to God's ordinary way of proceedings, to be left in that lost estate of nature. And therefore that is a good quickening meditation which Ved • lius 〈◊〉 , (Hilar. cap 3. pag. 119.) To make a godly man thankful for God's

This (I say) is a pious meditation. Though that scoffing Remonstrant prefix this expression amongst others in the front of his Book, as if it were no less then blasphemy, Vedel. Rhapsod.

Fifthly, Thou who art a parent exercised with this temptation about thy children, it grieveth thee to think thou bringest them forth to be God's enemies, and the Devils children: Let not this discourage thee, but provoke thee the more earnestly to be much in prayer for them, and to be more careful in their education. Let them be the children of thy prayers and tears, the children of thy care and godly discipline, and thou mayest comfort thyself that such shall not perish; however thou hast done thy duty, and so art to leave all to the wise and righteous God, who is not accountable to man for any of his proceedings.

That the encouragement and hopes of parents are great in the faithful discharge of their duties, notwithstanding the guilt of original sin, may further appear, as to the woman, in that famous and noble Text, 1 Tim. 2. 14, 15. But the woman being deceived was in the transgression; Notwithstanding she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they continue in the faith &c.

The Apostle having strictly charged, That women should not usurp authority over the man, for two reasons,

1. From the primitive Creation, even before sin; Adam was first formed, then Eve: So that in the state of integrity, the wife was to have been subject to her husband, even as children to parents; but it would have been without that difficulty and reluctancy which sin hath now brought upon mankind.

The other reason is, Because the woman was first in the transgression, and thereby through her original sin infected all. Now lest this should afflict women too much, and they conceive their estate desperate; the Apostle mingleth honey with this gall, he informeth them of comfortable considerations, even from that very particular; wherein they see the evident displeasure and wrath of God; and that is the sorrows and pangs they bring forth children with, She shall be saved in child-bearing.

How this is to be understood seemeth difficult. For may not maids, or such married persons that never have children be saved? How shall they do that have no children, if the woman be saved in child-bearing?

To this it is easily answered, That the Apostle doth not speak of the meritorious cause of salvation, which is Christ; for in him all believers are one; there is neither male or female, Jew or Gentile, married or unmarried, that do differ, as to justification and salvation through him. Therefore the Apostle speaketh here only of such women, as are married, and have children. Now because such might be discouraged, because of the curse laid upon the woman at first, in bringing forth of children, he addeth, That notwithstanding this she shall be saved; Those pangs and sorrows do not exclude her from salvation; therefore the Greek Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Rom. 2. 27. compared with 29. it doth not signify, she is saved by that, as a cause. For how many women are there, who through their impenitency in wicked ways will be damned, though they be the mothers of many children? It signifieth only the way and means wherein she may obtain salvation. So that what was at first in itself a curse, may now be sanctified, and so prove no impediment to their salvation. It is true, some would have this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be meant of the Virgins bearing of Christ, as if the meaning were, She shall be saved▪ by Christ born of a woman. Erasmus on the place, saith, Theophilact mentioneth this, but rejecteth it. The late Annotatour mentioneth it with approbation; but the Context doth no wise agree with this; for he speaketh of every woman in the Church bearing her children; therefore addeth, If they abide in faith and charity; neither can any argument be put upon the Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as if the Apostle meant that signal and eminent bearing of a child, when Christ was born; for if this were so, none but the Virgin Mary, and no other woman could take comfort from this place. Heinsius by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 understandeth marriage, She shall be saved in the way of marriage, which is called so (saith he) from the end of marriage, which is to have children; for (as he affirmeth) the Grecians have not one word to express marriage by, and therefore instead thereof they use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and so here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; but this hath no probability: We adhere therefore to the former Exposition; the sense whereof is, That notwithstanding Eve did through original sin bring a sad curse upon child-bearing, yet to those women that are godly, the curse is taken off; yea and doth become a sanctified means of their salvation; not of itself to everyone (for then no child-bearing woman could be damned) but if they do walk in those ways God hath commanded. Therefore it followeth, If they abide, &c. which denoteth the necessity of abiding and continuing in all holy duties. Some indeed refer this to the children, If the children continue in what is good. And if it be said, When a godly mother doth her duty, she may have notwithstanding wicked and ungodly children, and shall that prejudice her salvation? To this they answer, That for the most part the wickedness of children is laid upon the parents neglect; but if it be not, then God will accept of the mother faithfully discharging her duty, though the children do wickedly miscarry; but it is far more probable to refer it to the woman. And though the number be changed into the plural, If they abide, yet that is ordinary in Scripture, especially when the word is a collective, as in the 5 ^th Chapter of this Epistle verse. 4. where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the singular number, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the plural relateth to it. The qualification then that is necessary to all women, that would find the curse in child-bearing taken away, and original guilt accompanying that sorrow removed, is to abound in all saving graces, and to continue therein; and then that woman who is a wife and a mother of many children, let her not torment herself about the state of her children, and the condition they are born in, but quiet her soul with this Text of Scripture.

The last particular, that may satisfy the souls of such parents who may be exercised in these particulars about original sin, is to remind themselves, That the whole matter about original sin in reference to Adam, and all his posterity, is not without the wise and holy appointment of God, who would never have suffered this evil to be, could he not have raised out thereby a greater good. For although it be true, That Adam did sin from his mere internal liberty, there being no decrees or execution thereof that did necessitate him to do so; yet all this could not be without the Decree of God permitting, as also wisely ordering all things for his own glory. No doubt but God could have confirmed Adam in his holiness; yea he might have so ordered it, that every man and woman should stand or fall upon their personal account, as the Angels did: yet such was his will and Covenant, that in Adam all his posterity should be involved, and the same issue should attend both them and him. This then being the appointment of a just, wise and merciful God, we ought wholly to acquiesce, knowing that the business of man's life and death, his salvation and damnation, could not have been ordered better otherwise, though all the wisdom of men and Angels had been put together. And therefore when thou who art a parent, but tempted about the state of thy children thou hast brought forth, art turmoiling thyself in these disputes, shake off these vipers, and conclude, That God regardeth his own glory and honor, more then thou canst do; he hath taken that way wherein he will magnify his own glorious Attributes. And truly this should presently silence all thy disputations. For wouldst thou have God lose part of his glory? Wouldst thou have his honor in any degree laid in the dust, that thy will and desires may be accomplished? Far be this from thee. Surely the great and high thoughts we ought to have of God's wisdom, goodness and holiness ought to keep us from opening our mouths anymore in this point, saying, As I leave myself, so my children in the hands of God, who disposeth all things according to his own will. And as we say of the nature of God, he is that Bonum quo nihil melius cogitari potest; The same must we apply to all his dispensations likewise.

Furthermore we are to remember, That whatsoever the first Adam hath brought upon mankind, the second Adam will totally and fully remove in all that are his members: Insomuch that at the last, there shall not remain (as it were) an hoof of any of these calamities. That original corruption within thee shall no longer tempt thee incessantly like Joseph 's Mistress, saying, Come, and lie with me; we shall then in the issue of all have more cause to rejoice, because of Christ, and the benefits by him, then ever we were cast down and dejected, because of the transgression of the first Adam, and the unspeakable evil that came by him. So that if these particulars be duly considered, every believer may with comfort and quietness sit down under this truth, while men of pharisaical and self-justifying spirits rage and revile at these things.

But you will say, Grant that there is such a thing as Original Sin, and that we have delivered nothing but Scripture truth in this point, yet may we not be too tragical in exclamations about it? As there are those who err in the defect, so are there not many that do offend in the excess, that make it more heinous then it is? This is the last Question, wherewith I shall conclude this Subject. And

First, All the Popish, Arminian, Socinian party with their adherents, look upon the Calvinists, as excessive in this point; hence are there several complaints of them about this matter in all their works. But certainly, if we do regard the scope of the Scripture, it is wholly to debase man, and exalt Christ; To discover our incurable and sinful estate, that thereby Christ may be the more magnified, which is done by nothing so much, as to make known that horrid pollution, which is upon all by nature. And certainly that one Text, Genes. 6. 5. affirming, The thoughts of the imagination of a man's heart to be only evil, and that continually, speaketh more emphatically the deplored and sinful estate of man, then ever any Calvinist hath yet expressed. Yet though this be so, we grant, that some may go too far in their opinions, and expressions about original sin, though for the most part such is a man's self-fullness and self-righteousness, that Pelagianism is likelier to poison the world, then Flacci •• ism. We must know therefore that one Illyricus a Lutheran in opposition to Victorinus Strigelius a Lutheran also, but a Synergist, holding the will of man to concur actively with the grace of God to a man's conversion, and thereby extenuating original sin. This Illyricus (I say) out of a vehement opposition to that party, and the School-Doctrine about original sin, making it to be an accident in a man, did fall into another extreme, saying,

This Illyricus was a man of a very turbulent and unquiet spirit, a desperate enemy to Melancthon, whose heart it is said he broke. ( Melch. Adam in vita Illyrici. ) At first he was well reputed of by the Orthodox, and being sadly tempted in his spirit about sin, and the wrath of God, but afterwards delivered from it; it was judged so great a mercy, that thanks was given to God in the public Congregation for his behalf; but afterwards among other erroneous assertions, he maintained, We may read his whole opinion with the declaration of himself and his Arguments, in his Tractate on purpose concerning this point ( Clavis Script. 2 ^d parte Tractat. 6. de originally peccato. ) wherein he hath many absurd and monstrous expressions. Although it must be acknowledged, that with that dung and filth he hath, there is also some gold. Some there are that wholly excuse him, saying, to declare the nature of it. But whatsoever his end may be, certainly his sense and opinion, as declared in his words, is justly to be condemned and exploded. For by Adam's fall he maketh a substantial change to be made upon a man; That the Image of God is turned into the image of the Devil, not accidentally, but substantially; as when wine is made vinegar, or when the parts of a statue, or house that were built in some comely harmony, representing some glorious thing, they should be pulled down, and built into another deformed shape. As suppose the Image of some comely person should be pulled in pieces, and made the image of an horrible Dragon or Serpent. He distinguisheth of the material substance of a man, and his formal; He granteth, That the matrial substance of a man, still remaineth our body, and parts thereof, but the formal substance is altered. As when a vessel that was once made a vessel of honor, is afterwards made a vessel of dishonor; the material substance is the same, but not the formal. He doth no ways endure, that we should call original sin an accident; for he saith, This sin is a transcendent, and is in all predicaments; it's sometimes a quality, sometimes an action, &c. sometimes a substance. Neither will he distinguish between the substance, of a man, and his sin adhering thereto, between the subject and the privation in it, between the abstract and concrete: God (he saith) is angry with concretes, punisheth concretes, not abstracts; and therefore he saith, Those that distinguish between the substance of a man and his sin, do as the Alchemists separating from the oil, oleity; from a stone, lapideity; so these from Adam, Adameity. Thus he, and much more. But certainly herein he betrayeth horrible ignorance in Philosophy and Theology; for both these will necessitate us to distinguish between the substance of a man, and the sinful privation in him; otherwise Christ could not have taken the same nature with us upon him, sin only excepted; and regeneration would be a substantial change, not a qualitative: Neither by this opinion could the same substantial bodies be said to be glorified in Heaven. So that as the Leprosy in the body, is not the body; neither is original sin in man, the nature of man; and therefore when we read, that the flesh and spirit are opposite, that opposition must be understood in praedicamento qualitatis, not substantiae. The greatest support that this man hath for this error, is, because the Scripture useth substantive expressions, it is called an evil heart, a stony heart, &c. But this is because of the corruption adhering to it: As we say, a rotten tree, or a poisoned fountain; The heart as it is a fleshly substance is not evil, but as it is the principle of our motions and actions, not in a physical, but moral sense. It is true, we say, That through original sin man cometh short of his end: And so as the hand when its dead cannot do the works of an band; or salt, when it hath lost its seasoning is good for nothing: Thus it is with man in regard of any supernatural actions, yet he hath not lost anything that was substantial and essential; Only the power of the soul want the primitive rectitude they once had; and therefore whensoever they act, it is with deordination. Indeed we will grant, That Illyricus his adversary Victorinus Strigelius, did not fully express original corruption, in the Disputation between them; who compared a man to a Loadstone, of which (they say) when rubbed with Garlic, it will not draw iron; but if that be wiped off by Goats blood, it will be as attractive as before. For this similitude is not full enough: because original sin doth not only hinder the doing of good actions, but infecteth the very powers and principles of them. It is true, there are those, (as Contzen in Rom. 5.) that say, because the Calvinists hold, That concupiscence is sin, they cannot avoid Flaccianism but that is a mere calumny. We always distinguish between the nature and substance of a man; and the ataxy and disorder that doth now accompany it. Neither when we call it an accident do we thereby extenuate the nature of original sin; for we do not make it a light superficial one, but which is inbred with us, and doth diffuse itself over all the parts and powers of the soul. Neither do we say, it is a transient, temporary accident, but that which is fixed and permanent in us. Thus we see in what sense, there may be excessive expressions about original sin; otherwise we cannot say enough to affect our hearts with the loathsomeness of it, provided we keep close to the Scripture directions herein.

Thus at last by the good hand of God we are come out of these deeps into the haven; we have waded through all the several parts of this vast Subject, and are now come to the shore. It remaineth as a duty upon everyone, to hasten out of this captivity and bondage, not to stay a day or hour in this damnable estate, and above all things to take heed of such opinions, that do either lessen or nullify this sin; for this is to err in the foundation; Christ and grace, and regeneration can never be built thereupon. This Doctrine hath stood as a firm 〈◊〉 in all ages, upon which the contrary errors have dashed and broken themselves; and without this we are never able to perform those two necessary duties, To know ourselves, and to know Christ. This hath always been the Catholic Doctrine of the Church of God. Neither did the Fathers before Austin 's time generally speak otherwise, as late Writers would make us believe: Even as the Socinians say, the Ancients affirmed otherwise about Christ, than after Athanasius his time, and the Council of Nice, was usually done in the Church: Scripture, the Consent of the Church, and every man's own experience doth proclaim this truth, Quis ante prodigiosum di • cipulum Pelagii Coelestium reatu praevaricationis Adae omne genus humanum negavit astrictum? Lyr. cont. Haeres. c. 24.