especially they urge that Ezek. 18. 18, 19. where God saith, The child shall
not bear the sins of his father, and the Lord doth it to stop their prophane cail
against his wayes, as if they were not equal, because the fathers did eat sour grapes,
and the childrens teeth were set on edge. The Remonstrants are so confident, that
in their Apology, cap. 7. they say, Neither Scripture, nor Gods Truth, nor
his Justice, nor his Mercy and Equity, nor the Nature of sinne will permit
this.To answer this:Answ. First, It is not my purpose at this time to enter into that great
Debate, Whether the sins of parents are punished in their children? And it so,
How it stands with the Justice of God? It is plain, That in the second Command∣ment
it is said, That God being a jealous God, because of Idolatry, he will visit the
sins of such persons, to the third and fourth generation. The same likewise is attri∣buted
unto God, Exod. 34. 7. when his glorious Properties are described, expe∣rience
also in the destruction of Sedom and Gomorrah, as also in the drowning of
the world, doth abundantly testifie this; For no doubt there was in those places,
as God said of Ninevch, many little ones, that did not know the right hand
from the left, and so could not have any consent to the actual iniquities of their
Parents. To reconcile therefore that place of Ezek. 18. where God saith, The
child shall not bear the iniquity of his Father, with those former places, hath ex∣ercised
the thoughts of the most learned men variously, endeavouring to unty
that knot. Though I find some of late, understanding that of Ezekiel, only for
that particular occasion, as it did concern the Jews, in their particular judgment
of Captivity, who complained that for their fathers iniquities they were transport∣ed
into a strange Land; So that they think it not to be extended universally, but
limited to that people only, and at that time, and that alone to that Land of Is∣rael,
because they were driven from their own Countrey: But whether this In∣terpretation
will abide firm or no, it is certain that the Text doth not militate
against our cause in hand. For1. As hath been shewed, There is not the same reason of parents, since Adam's
fall, as of Adam; for he was a common person, and therefore Christ and he are
compared as the two fountains, and universal principles of all; For which rea∣sons
also it is that the Apostle doth here call him , The Type of
him that was to come: Insomuch that we may easily see, why there is a difference
between Adam and other parents; So that although the child dieth not for his
parents sins, yet he doth, and most for Adams. Learned men use to illustrate our
being in Adam, and sinning in him, (for which our punishment is just and due)
by that of the Apostle, Heb 7. 9, 10 where Levi is said, to pay Tyths to Mel∣chizedech
long before he was born, because he was in Abrakams lins: And although
it may be granted, that there is some disproportion, Abraham not being such a
common parent to Levi, as Adam was to all mankind; yet Sceinus his exception
is very frivolous. The Apostle saith, he useth that diminutive phrase, ,
as I may so say, which doth demonstrate, that it was not a proper saying. To this
we answer, That if you do regard Levies actual paying of Tyths, as it he had an
actual existence, then there was some impropriety, which made the Apostle use
that phrase, but not in regard of the truth of his paying in a moral consideration.
Thus when we say, All sinned in Adam, we may well use that phrase, and speak
thus, As we may so say, we did all actually will Adam's sinne, we did all actually
transgress that Commandment; Thus it is a diminutive expression in relation to
our actual existence, but not to our sinne; For by Gods Covenant we were looked
upon, as in him. Though I must consess that is a very absurd and forced expositi∣of
Catharinus (Opusc. de pecet. orig) whose opinion is, That all our origi∣nal
sinne is Adams actual sinne made ours, and referreth that expression of
Christ to Nathaneel, Joh. 1. 49. When thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee,
to Nathaneels being in Adam, while he did eat of the forbidden ruit, which
0
|