A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is, by pregnant texts of Scripture vindicated from false glosses / by Anthony Burgess.

SECT. V.

Objections against this natural Uncleanness, answered.

THe Doctrine of our natural uncleanness and sinfulness by traduction from Adam, being established out of these words, we come to answer some Objections; That as the shaking of the Tree, makes it root faster and deeper, so doubts about it, when cleared, may the more confirm us.

The first Objection, which I shall bring, seemeth in express terms to deny any such uncleanness, at least to Infants of bellevers: So that it should seem, Be∣cause

believers are clean; Therefore their children are brought clean out of them. The place that gives fuel to this Argument is known, being much vexed and dis∣cussed in these dayes, especially in the controversie about Poedobaptism, it is 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy; where it is positively said, That the children, though but of one believing Parent, are not un∣clean, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that answereth the Hebrew word in the Text; yea the contrary to this is affirmed, That they are holy.

I shall not range into all the controversal Disputes about this point, only in the general we may say, That this place doth not at all contradict my Text, for Job saith, That by nature none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean, but if God by grace doth it, that doth not oppose Job; yea, we told you, some render the later clause interrogatively; Art not thou he alone, viz. that can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Certainly, though no humane or Angelical power can thus sanctifie, yet God can; For, what do all those glorified Saints in Heaven made perfectly holy, but proclaim this, for they were once unclean, and impure, but now God hath made them fully clean without the least spot or blemish? Thus there is no contrariety between these two Texts, for one speak∣eth of what we are in a natural way, the other, what some are by a gracious and supernatural way.

But yet in the second place, It's good to have a more thorow discussion of these words, though not so amply, as polemical Divines have enlarged it; and the rather, because the Lutheran Divines do boldly and peremptorily charge it upon the Calvinists, as if they denied original sinne in all the children of belie∣vers; And although they cannot be ignorant in what sense the Calvinists do ex∣plain this holiness of believers children, yet they constantly calumniate in this point, as if something would stick upon them howsoever.

Therefore in the third place, there are three or four Interpretations, that are competitors about this Text.

The first is of those, who by uncleanness do mean a spurious bastard-brood, and by holy, a civil sanctity, as it were, that is true and legitimate; as if the Apostles meaning was, in answering the doubt of a believer, Whether they might continue in marriage with unbelievers (for in Ezra's time, all the Jews that had so married, were commanded to put away their wives?) did inform them, that their marriage would be lawful, otherwise their children would be bastards, but they were legitimate. Thus the Lutherans generally some of the Ancients are alled∣ged also, and Musculus upon second thoughts cometh off to this Interpretation, confessing he had formerly abused it against Anabaptists. But this might easily be rejected, if it were our business in hand: For,

1. Marriage even among Heathens, is true lawfull marriage, and their chil∣dren are legitimate; for although their very marriage, as all things else are un∣clean to them in a sanctified sense, because they are impure, yet marriage in it self is a lawfull thing to them, so that it is not to be judged fornication. And

2. The Apostles argument would not conclude, for those that doubted, whe∣ther their marriage was lawful, would also have doubted, whether their children were legitimate, and therefore this could not be an argument to prove their mar∣riage lawfull.

In the second place, There are some who understand this holiness of inward true inherent purity; so that their judgement is, that the Apostle saith, all godly parents have holy children, and if it fall out otherwise in some cases, they say, it's an indefinite, not an universal proposition, which if it be true, for the most part, it is enough; but experience seemeth to confute this; Neither is believer here taken strictly, for one who did in a saving way believe, but largely for one that did profess faith in Christ, and therefore is opposite to an Infidel; Now all that were not Infidels, were not presently, truly godly, though they did believe, as some are said, Joh. 2. To whom yet Christ would not commit himself.

3. Therefore there are those, who understand this of Heathenish uncleanness and Idolatry, and so they say, One born of believing Parents, is free from that, especially, if we do regard the hopes that are in his education: Therefore some expound this holiness only in respect of the designing and dedicating of such unto real holiness. Hence Estius he understands this, De filiis adultu, of children grown up; For it may be supposed, That if the unbelieving husband will not leave his wife, but abide with her, that therefore he will yeeld to her, and let her educate her children in the faith of Christ, and be no enemy, or opposet, there∣unto; and 1 Pet. 1. 3. is brought to expound this place; so that they make this holiness to be only quoad spem, and disciplinam; For the believer may by an ho∣ly godly life, gain both the unbeliever and the children; and thus Hierom is said to answer a Question proposed by Paulinus, concerning this place; Lapide consents to this, and opposeth Calvin and Beza concerning this foederal holiness, as also Tirinus on the place, because the Church is not like a civil Commonwealth, but is a supernatural Society, saith Lapide; This is no Reason; for though it be a su∣pernatural Society, yet God may give what spiritual priviledges he pleaseth to them and theirs; and therefore Salmeron, he understands this holiness of a Church-holiness, that they are esteemed children of that; And in his Comment on that place, brings that Promise, which the Calvinists use to do, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.

Hence the fourth and last Interpretation, which is justly deemed most genuine and orthodox, is to expound this holiness of a Covenant and foederal holiness, of a Church-priviledge, That being born, though but of one believing parent, yet they are not unclean, as Heathens and their children, who have no right or claim to any Church-Ordinance, but are holy by the gracious favour and Cove∣nant of God, who taketh in believers and their seed. When parents are taken in∣to the Church, their children also, or Infants are received in with them, not that all are made internally holy, only they have a right to Church-membership; and therefore the initial sign ought not to be denied to them: So that the hope of godly education, or to be candidates of the true faith, is not enough, but both are requisite, as Tertullian of old mentioned, both seminis praerogativa, and institutionis disciplina: Though therefore children of both, or one believing pa∣rent, are in this sense clean and holy, yet by nature they are unclean; neither doth this external holiness deliver them from inward contagion; Yea, suppose some should be regenerated in the very womb, as John Baptist was, yet this Text holdeth true in him; for he was by nature unclean, he had not the holy Ghost by natural descension from his parents, for then all children should be so sanctified, but it was Gods grace and power that made him clean of unclean; John Baptist therefore was conceived in sinne, and by nature a child of wrath, but the grace of God made him clean, yet not totally and perfectly, as if no uncleanness was in him; for even Job, though in so high a degree sanctified, yet speaks this truth in the Text, to himself as then, and at that time considered, not to what he was once before his conversion, but even in that renewed estate he was in, if God should cast his eyes upon him, and judge him with severity, he would find much uncleanness adhering unto him.

The second Objection is propounded by Socinus,* 1.1 who saith, It cannot be con∣ceived, that one actual transgression of Adam should infect the whole nature of man, one Act cannot contract an habit of sinne: So then he saith, It's im∣possible that one sinfull act, should all ever defile Adam, and make him totally sinfull, much lesse that it should infect the whole nature of man. And the Re∣monstrants they pursue this Argument, If (say they, Apolog, pro Confessione exam. Cens. cap. 7. pag. 85.) that one act of sinne did expel all grave in Adam, then it did it, either quatenus peccatum, as it was a sinne, and if so, then every little sinne the godly man commits, much more grosse sinnes would cast

him out of all grace, would root out the seed of God in him, which yet (say they) the Calvinists will in no wise endure; Or it cometh so from some peculiar ordination, and divine appointment of God; If so, they bid us, bring out that order, and manifest such an appointment, that one sinne onely should deprive a man of the whole Image of God, when now one sinne doth not, or cannot extirpate the habit of grace; but every godly man hath sinne and grace also in him.

To this many things are to be answered:* 1.2

First, That it is a vain and an absurd thing to give leave to our humane reason∣ings, that such a thing cannot be, when the event discovers it is so. It is plain, That upon Adam's actual transgression he was deprived of the Image of God he was created in. Adam therefore having lost that spiritual and supernatural life, we need not curiously dispute, how one stab, as it were of sin could kill him; Certainly, even the least sin is present poison, and would kill immediately, if Gods grace did not prevent.

Secondly, That one sinne may suddenly deprive the subject of all Grace it hath, appeareth plainly in those Apostate Angels, Did not the first sinne? which was in them a thought or an act of the will, (what it was it is disputed) Did not that immediately throw them out of their divine and blessed Habitati∣ons? And by that one and first sinne, was not a glorious Angel made immedi∣ately a black Devil? It is true indeed, We cannot say the Devils have original sinne, In this sense, As if because when the first Angel sinned, all the rest sinned in him, as if all their wils were bound up in him; No, They all stood upon their own bottom, they all sinned personally and voluntarily by their own actual transgression, though happily it might be by imitation and consent to him that first sinned; yet for all this, we see plainly, that in every Apostate Angel, one sinne was enough to deprive him of all the good he had, and to fill him with such inveterate enmity to all goodness, That the Devil, though of such natural light in his conscience, yet is not able to do one good work, or have the least holy thought.

Thirdly, Sinne doth expel grace, both formally, or (as some call it) effici∣ently and meritoriously also; it expels it formally, as darkness doth light, as diseases do sickness, or death, life, and meritoriously deserving, that God should deprive us of all holiness, and deny any further grace to us. The Remonstrants they call this folly and absurdity, to say, Sinne expels grace actually and meri∣toriously also; For if it do actually, what need is there of meritoriously? If a man actually put out his eyes, it's absurd to say, he deserveth by that to have them put out; Or if a man wilfully throw away his garments, making himself naked, that he deserveth to be naked. But these instances do no wayes enervate this Truth; for in that sinne doth thus actually and meritoriously also deprive us of grace, we see the hainousness of it; one sheweth, how sinne is in it's own self like poison that presently kils, and the other, how odious it is to God, that if it did not of it self deprive us of spiritual life, yet it doth so provoke God, that because of it, God would not continue his daily grace to us. Besides, though sinne doth formally expel the grace that is inherent in us, yet Gods grace with∣out us, his preventing cooperating and continuing grace, without which we could not abide a moment in the state of grace, that it chaseth away meritorious∣ly only; So that Adam in his first sinne did both chase away the Image of God in him, and deserve, that God should withdraw his assisting and preserving grace, without which he could not have continued in his good estate; yea, sinne doth so meritoriously expel grace, that could Adam by his own power, have im∣mediately recovered himself, and instated himself into the condition he was in, yet he deserved for that former transgression, that God should have outed him of all: As they say, A man that hangeth himself, if it were pos∣sible

〈…〉〈…〉 to live presently again, the Law would adjudge him to death, for 〈…〉〈…〉 of himself.

Therefore in the last place, you see, why every sinne in a godly man, no, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it be a gross sinne, doth not immediately deprive him of all grace, as we see it did in Adam, and the Apostate Angels: Not that sinne in it self would not do so in them, as well as in those, but because God entred into a gracious Cove∣nant and Promise with every believer through Christ, to perpetuate his interest and union with him; so that if he fall, he shall have grace to recover himself, neither will every spark of grace within him be suffered wholly to be extinguish∣ed, although in Adam there was a peculiar reason, why his sinne did infect all mankind, because (as Aquinas saith well) Adam in quantum fuit principium 〈◊〉〈◊〉 naturae habuit rationem causae universalis ex Adam, in that he was the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of mankind, was a kind of universal cause, and so by his corrupt act, all mankind was corrupted.

Vse Of Instruction, That nothing more is requisite on our part to be par∣taker of Adam's sinne, and to be made unclean, but natural generation and descent from Adam; It's true, there is on Gods part also a Covenant, and his imputa∣tion, otherwise Adam's sinne would not have been ours, no more than other parents; but on our parts, there is no other way of conveying it, but by natu∣ral descent from him, whereas to be in Christ, and to partake of his divine bene∣fit, there is required a supernatural work upon us, a spiritual insition, and incor∣poration of us into Christ, but to be a sinner in Adam, our very being born in a natural way, before we are able to know, or will any thing, or to discern the right hand from the left, is enough to intitle us to it: Oh then with what shame, sorrow and holy confusion of face, should we think of this our natural unclean∣ness! How vile and loathsom should we be in our eyes? Oh the distance and con∣trariety that is between so holy and pure a God, and thou an impure and unclean wretch? If our righteousnesses are menstruous rags, how abominable then is our real iniquity?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Object.
• * 1.2

  Answ.