Hey on Article IX: Of Original or Birth-sin

Having now finished our Introduction to the second part of our 39 Articles, we proceed to the Articles themselves, contained 1n that Part.—In treating the ninth, we may follow our former plan, as to giving History, Explanation, Proof, and Application,

1. We

BOOK IV, ART. I x. SECT, 1. IT. 135

1. We begin with the History. And first, if we put ourselves in the place of early Christians, we cannot but think, that they must find it necessary to form some doctrine concerning the sinfulness of man. Several things in Scripture must conspire to this end. The History of Adam, the application of it by St. Paul; the lamentations of wickedness and corruption, and of man’s being even conceived in fin: and these they would naturally join to- gether; and a cause of evil being wanted, this would most naturally occur. Then justification by faith 1s grounded on the 1dea of all men’s being concluded under sin; and Christians are repre- sented as being born again, as if their natural birth was so impure, that it was to be set aside, and something was to be substituted in its place. What- ever these things in scripture may really mean, they are too solemn, and in appearance too funda- mental to be wholly passed over and neglected : some doftrine must result from them.

2. What did result, we are now to consider; but, in order to do this distinctly, we must divide the notion of original sin into wo parts. One thing implied in original fin, 1s the fare or con- dition of offenders in the fight of God; the other is a mind, or set of passions, disordered, or strongly inclining man to commit actual fin; we call this, concupiscence.— These parts are sometimes pro- fessed independently of 2 other; sometimes they are supposed to be joined together, and the vicious passions are accounted the effef of the fate, in which we are born, or of Adam’s transgression, which brought us into it. Sometimes original fin is taken as compounded perhaps of both, with-

out any attention being paid to the division“.— Were

There 1s something like these two parts in the Necessary Doctrine, Article of Justification, beginning.

136 BOOK IV, ART. IX. SECT, 111. IV,

Were I to speak of this fate of offenders as some- what analogous to a state of native /lavery, or of hereditary rebellion, if I may use such an expres- sion, when families are disgraced for rebellion, and their estates are forfeited, I should only mean to give my idea, not to prove any thing.

111. Thinking men and Philosophers seem to have been struck, in different ages, with the ap- pearance of evil; and have thought it a phæno- menon so extraordinary, as to require some parti- cular solution. (Which, by the way, must hinder any solution from appearing entirely vain and un- neceflary *.) |

Iv. What notion the Jews had of original fin seems not satisfactorily ascertained. Voltaire in- deed has no difficulties; he says, the Jews knew nothing of the matter: and others have oo the

ame :

d See Bp. Gibson’s second pastoral Letter, Sect. 3. where he translates a part of Cicero’s Tusc. Disp. 3, Pref. —I rather wonder he should not have translated a few words more, ut pene cum lace nutricis errorem suxisse videamur, For, if we sup- pose errorem to mean what was mentioned in the preceding sen- tence, (which ut seems to imply,) Cicero’s idea of prawitas et ferversitas taken in with our Mother’s milk, comes to much the same thing as ours of 6:r:/-//n. It might be proper also to read here Horace, Od. 3. 6. particularly ver. 1, 18, 33, 48.—The Delph. note on the opening of that Ode refers to Plato +I do not find the exact thought in Plato; but I find, in Lib. 2. de republ. (about one fourth from the beginning) that certain persons, called @yver:: nas parrei;, Circulatores et vates, perhaps some low sort of Priests, used to go to the doors of rich men, and tell them, that, if any e9*»pz had been committed by them or their Ancęstors (weoyorwr) they could appease the Gods by dacri- hces, and (:7wJz4;) incantations. Origen mentions Oracles to our purpole : Contra Celsum, Edit. Spencer, p. 493. quoted in Div. Leg B. v. 5.

In Shakspeare’s Tempest, Act 1, Scene 2. we have thy vile race,” where. the Note says, © Race,” in this place, seems to mean original disposition ; “ inborn qualities.” Edit. Stock- dale. See also Dacier’s Life of Pythagoras, Preface; and Vol. 2. P. 125. 199.

See Vol. 26. 4to. index, or p. 384.

fame : and it must be confessed, that Maimonides , in the 13th Century, said, that no one could be born with habits, and therefore, that original fin was a thing impossible : which does rather look as if nothing had been recorded about it by the ancient Jews (such as had come down to Maimo- nides), which the moderns thought very important; or which they thought need prevent their attacking the Christians on this head : but yet, they (the ancients) must be suppoled acquainted with the History of Adam, though they might find diffi- culties in it: they allo must know of the Curses denounced against him; and of the many com- plaints of human depravity, which are contained in their own scriptures. Some of the Jews seem to have solved the appearance of evil by a pre-existent state. And it is said, that some of them under- stood the casting away of the præputium after cir- cumcision, was casting away corruption, at least emblematically. And they not only circumcised, but baptized or washed those, whom they admitted into their religious community : for what was such cleansing wanted? Bur I do not, see how Christians can deny, that the Jews in St. Paul’s time had notions of what we have since called original sin.— For St. Paul argues with Jews from Adam’s trans- gression, to redemption by Christ : he must argue trom what was well known, to that which was to be proved: therefore, whether we suppose St. Paul to believe the history of Adam, or not, in its literal * sense, we must think, that he knew the

Jews

4 Calmet’s Dictionary, under Grace.

© John ix. 2. It is a Jew that asks, © who did fin, this man or his Parents, that he was born blind?“ So that the man im- elf might have finned, some way or other, before he was born: or the fin of his Parents might have caused his blindness. —See Macknight on the paslage.

About the Allegorical sense of the History of the Fall, see Warb. Div. Leg. B. 9. Vol. 3. p. 640. quarto.

138 BOOK IV. v.

Jews believed it. When Christians judge con- cerning the notions of the Jews in this point, they forget, that it could not appear to a Jew, of the same consequence® as it does to a Christian, who esteems it the corner-stone of his own system : I look upon it therefore as a probable conclusion, that the Jews professed the Doctrine of original fin in as great a degree as they wanted it in their Reli- gion; although those, whose writings have come down to us, may have been tempted to oppose St. Paul and the Christians on this popular ground.

v. We come next to the early Christians ; that they knew nothing of our Doctrine, though at- firmed by Voltaire, I do not grant: Let any one consult Wall“ on infant-baptism, and fee the pas- sages which he has collected from the early Fathers. —[ am mistaken if he does not allow, that they held our doctrine with as much exactness and precision as could be expected before disputes arose *. |

After the very early Christians, we may take all those together, who lived before the fifth Century.,— Here we have artless, unsystematical expressions, hke those of scripture, sometimes implying the

slate, sometimes the evil propensities, as occasion

required. The doctrine was as much brought into form as it could be without controversy. And when, at last, controversy did begin, it proceeded by the same degrees, which have been before* de- {cribed, in the case of other dodrines.—Perhaps

it The principal things to attract a Christian’s notice would

rather make a Jew desirous of evading our Doctrine. Part 1. Chap. 1, 2, 3, &c.

i This must appear probable, merely from the considerations

offered in our first Section. & Art. 1. Set. 1v. Vol. 2. p. 227. —Art. 11. Sect. 11.

MEM ooo,

GGG

P

R a Be he OS

A hk £

o

BOOK IV. ART, IX. SECT. v. 139

it would be found, from Wall’s quotations, that the doctrine grew from time to time more par- ticular. |

In this place, we may recollect what was before! mentioned with regard to the Manicheans; as they are placed as flourishing toward the close of the third Century. By setting up an original evil principle, they allow, that the existence of evil wants ac- counting for. They are, moreover, said to have considered the soul as originally pure, but as having contracted evil by its union with the material Body. Thus they accounted for what we call concupisceuce. And in saying, that by this union the soul lost its freedom, they approach near to the idea expressed in our tenth Article. — (See Lardner’s Works, Vol. 3. p. 475.) It has been thought strange, by some modern Christians, that those writers, who contended with the Manicheans, did not shew them, that the true Christian method of accounting for evil is that used in explaining the doctrine of original fin : But a good reasoner will always reason on some principles allowed by his adversaries; it would have been in vain to refer to the Old Testament, or to quotations of it in the new; for the Manicheans rejected both.— Therefore Augustin and Titus of Bostra® were more logical in arguing on topics of natural Reli- gion, than they would have been in dwelling on those of Revelation. Indeed the Hypothesis of the Manicheans, with regard to evil, was not pro- perly Christianity, even in their own ideas, but Philosophy ; Persian Philosophy, as professed long before® the Christian æra. It might as well have been

Appendix to Book 1. Sect. 1v, Vol. 1. p. 348. = See Lardner’s Works, Vol. 3. p. 388. ® In the time of Plato, it seems to have been disputed whether

Evil arose from Matter, — See Dacier’s Plato, Vol. 1. p. 163. 165. (French), |

been applied to solve the transgression itself of our first Parents, as any bad consequence of that transgression.

vi. We will now proceed to the , Century, to the age when the doctrine of Original Sin was brought, by the warmth of Controversy, to its full maturity.

Pelagius is placed in the year 405: he was an Englishman, or, more strictly perhaps, a Welch- man; his real name was Morgan, which is said to mean the same as Marigena in the Latin, or Iliaa- yioc in the Greek, He chose the Greek as best suited, probably, to all parts of the then world, He was a Monk, but that term did not always imply one belonging to a community ; only a per- son giving up worldly greatness and pleasure, and applying himself to religious pursuits. He was a man of good understanding ; learned and pious; and amiable in his disposition’. He had two followers, who were as much known as himself, Celestius, an Irishman, (Scotus”), and Fulianus, who was somewhere a Bishop. Pelagius was at Rome in 405, and lived in friendship with the best and most eminent * of the Christians ; but Rome being sacked in 410, we find him in Africa, and after- wards in Palestine ; Celestius remaining in Africa. He always wrote on the Trinity as an Orthodox Christian; and, when he wished to publish some- thing against Ori ;ginal Sin, and the necessity of Divine Grace for Salvation, he mentioned his own opinions as if they were those of other people. — After the feeds of his doctrines were thus sown, he was less reserved about them; and at length pub- licly owned them to be his. As to Original Sin,

| he

‘LY ‘TH T6 ’ FR \k iT. 8 , !

[…] 4 […] _

See Bower’s Life ar 7 —Wall’s Infant Baptism.

Part 1. Ew 19. Sect. 3. & y See Wall, Sect. 3. 4 Ibidem,

is [}

he professed, that Adam would have died, had he never offended; that he hurt only himself; and that all children are born in the same state, in which Adam was born; and in which he always remained, before his offence: yet Pelagius and his followers seem to have been sometimes so much pressed, that they gave way as far as they possibly could; even so as sometimes to have had some earance of prevarication. It seems probable, from his character, that Pelagius had only in view”, to hinder men from running into fancies injurious to the honour of God. He was however attacked and censured; and he, or his two followers above- mentioned, underwent excommunication and ba- nishment. There are reckoned up twenty-four Councils, which were held on their account, in the fifth Century, and before the death of Au- gustin: that is, we may say, between 412 and 430. How much agitated must the Christian world have then been in discussing his Doctrines! He defended himself, and sent a Creed to the Pope, which is still extant: I suppose no other intire work of his. remains, except a Letter * to Deme- trias, a female Christian, though many fragments may be found in the writings of those, who op- poled him. The notion attributed to the Pelagians in our Article, only rose out of what has now been mentioned ; the particular nature of it will appear under our explanation. | vii. The principal person who opposed Pela- gius was Augustin : Jerom indeed did labour in the same work, but not with the fame gentleness * | and

r That the Pelagians argued to this purpose, is said by Wall, 19, Sect. 1 | |

5 These works are, I think, in the last Volume of Augustin’s Works: Edit. Benedict… They are also amongst serom’s works. |

: Bower’s Lives of the Popes, Vol 1. p. 329.

and candour. Indeed the more [ fee of Augustin’s works, the more I am pleased with his character: he was certainly an open and zealous oppo- nent of Pelagius ; but I cannot with satisfaction call him an enemy: for, though he has written a great * deal against the Pelagians, he © always speaks of” Pelagius himself “ as a man of extra- ordinary capacity and * accomplishments ; and one, whom he should much admire and love, were it not for his heterodox opinions.” — It has been charged upon Augustin, that, whilst he was writing against the Manicheans, he wrote in defence of free-will, and that when he came to write against the Pelagians, he depreciated it. We know he was capable of retracting an error on perceiving it; but yet it is possible he might seem to contradict himself when he did not; as is the case with the Scriptures. The Manichean servitude of the Will is, in its nature, distinct from any scriptural notion; fo that an idea of freewill might be maintained in opposition to that, which should be no way in- consistent with our Doctrines of Original Sin and Grace. Indeed I am not aware, that Free-will, in the common sense of the word, is understood to be taken away by either of those doctrines. To examine Augustin’s works on this question, would carry us too far out of our way. I will only observe farther, that both Pelagius and Augustin seem to have been able and worthy men. In modern times, they are spoken of too hastily. The only aim of Pelagius might be, to defend the justice and goodness of God; the only aim of Augustin, to defend the Christian Religion, or keep its doctrines strictly scriptural : at the same time, Pelagius was a true Christian, and Augustin a true believer in the divine justice and goodnels.

| viii. After v Cave— Augustin. in Hist. Lit. * Wall 19. Sect. 29.

vIii. After giving my own idea of this cele- brated æra of the Pollan controversy, it is natural to mention one or two writers, from whom others may seek information relative to it. Dr. Fortin is a favourite author, but his remarks on Ecclesiasti- cal History do not quite hit my fancy: He appears to me in them, to have a kind of flippancy, which does not suit a man of his character in other re- spects; it always reminds me of a {chool-boy, who, having acquired some talent for writing, uses it in ridiculing those, from whom he has received in- struction, and who ought to be the objects of his veneration or respect. He seems, in this work, one of that class, who consider ingenuity as con- sisting in pulling to pieces every thing that is established; and liberality of mind, in striking out something singular, which shall relax habitual reverence, and indulge the presumption and petu- lence of the forward and inconsiderate. He seems to make no allowances for the customary follies and weaknesses of different ages and countries, bur to try all men, as if they had every advantage of modern improvement.

I should depend much more on the information, which is to be gathered from Wall’s History of Infant Baptism. Original Sin being one grear cause of Infant Baptism, an History of Infant- baptism is, in a manner, an History of Original Sin, This writer 1s very well informed, grave, sensible, attentive, and candid : indulgent, not only to those whole opinions he favours, but to all who deserve indulgence, whatever opinions they prefer.

1x, Not long after the rise of the Pelagians, there seem to have arisen some, who thought that the Pelagians were right in some respects, but that they had carried matters too far. These were called

| Semi-

?

144 BOOK iv. x.

Semi pelagians; probably, not by themselves. As the tenets of those who had this name have occa- fioned some dispute, we mult not enter upon the fubje& very minutely. We may conceive the title to have been given lightly, whenever any persons mitigated the Doctrines, either of the Orthodox or the Pelegians; and, as this might be done in various particulars, various opinions might come to be called Semipelagian”.—As to our present subject, it used to be called a notion of Semipela- gians, that those, who died under years of discre- tion, would be rewarded or punished according as they would have been good or bad, had they * lived. If you ask whether this is meant of baptized or unbaptized, they would answer, God decreed, that those should be baptized*, who would have behaved well. Whereas Augustin is said to have held, that God decreed that certain Infants should be bap- tized, and so they were saved or course; (I now speak only Historically).— This approaches too near the subject of Predestination to be considered at present. —And, as we shall meet the Semipela- gians again under the tenth and seventeenth Articles, we will dismiss them now. Any one may consult Mosheim, Cent. v. 2. 5. 26.

x. The Mahommedans seem to acknowledge a something of native corruption in Man, as they think it neceflary to settle some way, in which their Prophet is freed from it. An angel, I think, plucked a black grain out of his heart, or squeezed three droops of black blood from it, and then he

was cleansed from the pollution of humanity. xi. The

Of Pelagians and Semipelagians see more Art. x v11. Sect.

v. and VI. * Bower’s Life of Zosimus, p. 3 50. Vol. 1.

Wall, Chap. 19. end.

BOOK IV. xi. XIII. 145

xi. The School-men refined upon our Doctrine, and entered into curious questions concerning the nature of Original Sin, and the manner in which it descended from one generation to anotherꝰ; but, as our Article does not require any such investiga- tions, and as the Schoolmen are expressly men- tioned under the thirteenth Article, we may dismiss them for the present.

xXxII. We may proceed to the Age of the Re- formation. — The general idea 1s, that, though we differed from the Romanists in many things, we did not © differ with regard to Original Sin. Which may be right enough; yet there — to be a ver- bal difference, at least, between our present Article and the Decree of the Council of Trent“. Wie say, the infection remains after Baptism; hey say, original fin is taken away by Baptism ; but all we mean by the infection“ is concupiscence, which they allow does remain: we say, concupiscence * has the nature of Siu: they allow, that the Apostle calls it Sin; but not frifly; only because it comes of Sin, and leads to Sin; which seems to be our reason for calling it Sin. Such a difference as this seems © scarcely worth dwelling upon, though the expressions seems to be intentionally opposed . — The /late of offenders may be changed or super- seded, though the mental corruption may require a course of discipline to change it.

The Anabaptists are particularly mentioned in the Article of 1552, and in the Reformatio® 3

» One need only consult the Index to Thomas Aquinas, under Peccatum Originale. |

© See Heylin’s Historia Quinquarticularis, p. 518.

4 gession 5th, | ;

© See Rhemists on Rom. ix. 11.

“0 5th Session of the Council of Trent, was held, A. D. 1546. \ De Hzresibus, cap. 7.

VOL, 111, K

146 BOOK iv. ART 1X. SECT. xIII. XIV.

All those, seemingly, who are against infant-bap- tism, must deny original fin. Martin Luther is very strong in his expressions against those, who let down the Doctrine of origi- nal fin*, It suited his temper to be so, and his views of Justification.

Strype says, that it was common in England for men to call each other Free-wwillers and Pela- gians, by way of Opprobrium : So that introducing Pelagians into our Article would not, at the time, seem uncouth or strange ; as I fear it does now, to many readers.

X111. The Calvinists and Arminians must of course differ about Original Sin; as will appear

when we come to speak of them more particularly hereafter*. x1V. The Socinians have varied their ground considerably : The Racovian! Catechism says of Man, that he was created mortal : and then for Adam’s offence, he (man) was decreed to eternal death.—Afterwards, ** omnes homines eo quod ex eo nati sunt, eidem eternæ morti fubjaceant,” —In a subsequent chapter ®, Peccatum originis nullum prorsùòs est.” This may be acknowledging, that men are now in a „ate worse in some way than before Adam’s offence; but denying that the men-

tal corruption observable in the world, has any con- nexion with it.

Dr.

h See his Work on Genesis, Vol. 6. Folio.

• It seems enough at present to read a few Heads out of the Indexes to Calvin’s Institutes, and Arminius’s Works. — Near the end of Arminius’s Volume, there is a sort of fuzzmary of his opinions,

It might be mentioned, that our Puritans, particularly the assembly of Divines were Calvinistic; especially as John Taylor has strictures on:the Assembly’s Catechism, —See Taylor on Original Sin, p. go. &c.

De via Salutis, Cap. 1. p. 15, &c, = Cap. 10. de Libero Arbitrio.

Dr. John Taylor, the celebrated Author of a work on the Epistle to the Romans, is a very respectable writer. He has published a volume on the subject of Original Sin. His notion is, that % Death, Labour and Sorrow” came into the world by Adam’s fin, and that we, the descendants of Adam, are subject to Death, Labour and Sorrow merely on account of his Trangression. He ons“ that, in act, there is great corruption in the world, but he does not join this corruption to the History of our first Parent. He holds, that Virtue must be ? a man’s own; that no man can be virtuous or vicious for another. (Which, by the way, seems wandering from original to actual sin),

Dr.“ Priejtley {ets out with Taylor’s words, Labour, sorrow, and death ;” and supposes, that though the mind may be more feeble, and there- fore more prone to comply with some temptations,” by the body being more subject to disease,” yet as sickness does some moral good, * it is probable” upon the whole” © that our condition is more favourable to Virtue than that of Adam.” —But afterwards he seems to quit Taylor’s ground, and deny, that the Sin of Adam was imputed *© to sub- ject men to death: he seems also to make Death the recompence of actual and personal Sins.” — He 1s afraid to take Taylor’s ground; and, if I understand them right, Taylor would be very un- willing to take his; for he (Taylor) reasons copioussy on Adam’s offence as bringing death on mankind. —Either there is much «»/teadine/s among the Soci- mans, (which shews a want of satigfaction or I

am not able rightly to comprehend their opinions.

xv. It

D Taylor, pe 27, 30. 37. 164. Page gs. P Page 127, 6g 4 Famil. Illuftr. p. 11. Page 13,

K 2

148 BOOK iv. ART. ix. SECT. xv. XVI.

xv. It seems needless to offer more historical accounts here, especially as, from the connexion of this Article with those that follow it, we may ex- pect to meet with the same persons and sects again. We are to come now to the Explanation ; the in- tent of which is, to clear up the terms of our Article in such a manner, that the propositions contained in it shall be intelligible, and require nothing but such proof as the mind can easily attend to.

XVI. „Original Sin” has been usually opposed to actual Sin: it is called © birth-fin,” because men fall into it by Birth; either by being fo born as to appear in the state of offenders; or by being born in such circumstances, that their propen/ities will, in the common course of things, be disorderly. — (See Section the second). Human beings are supposed to have no concern with any other fort of Sin till they come to have some fort of self-· govern- ment. But, when members of any community are said to offend, as such, it is worth observing, that they may be all the while perfectly innocent in their individual capacity. A Corporation, or a City, a Regiment, or an University, may behave so ill as to deserve and bring on extermination; yet there may be in such worthless Body the most vir- tuous Mau that ever lived: Notwithstanding, this virtuous man may, as à citizen, be said to behave 11] or offend, because the citizens offend collectively: these two different ways of offending, in the social and individual capacities, should never be con- founded. In order to keep them distinct, I would

call the fin of the individual proper fin; and that of the member of a Body, as such, by way of contra- distinction, /mproper fin. I should hope this dis- tinction would be je, and if fo, I doubt not of its being very / Tue in solving obections to the doctrine

BOOK Iv. 149

doctrine of original Sin.—And punishment may be distinguished into proper and improper, in the same sense.—I do not expect this explanation of terms to give full satisfaction at present. Origi- nal fin is not mentioned in Scripture, in so many

words. XVII. It “ standeth,” or confisteth, © not in

the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly […] The word * following” here may mislead an English reader; it means imi- tating, acting as Adam ated, sinning after Adam’s example, The Latin is, in imitatione Adami:“ we find the English word following for imitating, in Scripture. The word © Followers,” is always, in our Bible, the English for piyras, that is, fix times; in the passage Eph. v. 1. © Be ye therefore followers of God,” and five other passages. —The Pelagians, by this idea, seem to exclude both our parts of Original Sin, the fate of offenders, and the disorder of human propen/ities ; they make it to consist in acting after a certain model or Original: and therefore, in effect, ipeak only of actual sin, and annihilate original. Augustin’s reasoning * against them agrees with this notion; and in King Edward’s intended Laws, in the Chapter against Heresy, those are censured, who reduce original sin to this, quod ex Adam delicto propositum * fit peccandi noxium exemplum, quod homines ad eandem pravitatem invitat imitandam et usur- pandam.” 1 N | XVIII. We come next to the words, © the

fault and corruption of the Nature of every man,”

P. 13»

= x „ -

150 BOOK iv.

&c. Fault in the Latin is vitium, which seems always to imply a fort of comparison between what is and what might be; or would be, if things were as they were intended to be. Sometimes the vitium, or/ fault, is defect, sometimes excess, sometimes a change, after the manner of putrefaction, or corrup- tion; so that, in some views the words, fault and corruption coincide, though fault has the more ex- tensive meaning.—** Infection“ varies the idea a little ; but language about the mind 1s all com- arative. If we consider what we mean by the Nature of any thing, we shall find it something of this sort : that combination and relative strength of its dif- ferent powers, on which the effecting of its pecu- liar end and purpose depends. The Nature of any thing is corrupted, when any of these powers is too much diminisied to answer that end; or so much encreased as to overpotwer others, and prevent their executing their proper office. The nature of a Watch 1s corrupted, when the spring is become too strong, or too weak; or when any of the wheels are clogged, retarded, accelerated, beyond the velocity intended for it by the maker. The Nature of any particular civil Government 1s Cor- rupted, when the people have diminished the con- {titutional power of the King or Senate ; or when these have diminished the constitutional power of the people; so that the political machine cannot | promote Security, &c: in that way which was in- : tended by those who framed it.—But what is the Nature of Man? He 1s a very nice and compli- cated machine; consists of a great number of powers, some of which impell, others restrain ; they are all intended to act together, each with its proper force, and in its own manner, so as to pro- mote the greatest good which can be called human. Every man sees this himself in some degree, but

the

FFF

W

F 0 ” F — * n r n

the description of the humarr constitution given by Bishop Butler in his three Sermons on human na« ture, may be recommended as the best extant, — Conscience 1s the constitutional Supreme : exten- sive prudence and benevolence have great autho- rity ; and of many passions and appetites, together with the senses, there is none which has not its proper work and department, though under con- troul of superiors, Any one who has once acquired 4 * idea of our Nature, will find no difficulty in seeing wherein consists its corruption. When

sensual pursuits prevent intellectual attainments;

when appetites overpower prudence and benevo-

lence; when passions rebel against Conscience, and

continue in a state of rebellion, then may our

Nature be said to be corrupted : or even if the in-

ferior principles are only troublesome, seditious, as it

were, and turbulent; do not yield ea/ily and freely to those powers, which ought to be superior to theirs.

In order to see the right sense of nature, natural,

&c. in common Life, (and therefore in Scripture,)

we might observe, in what sense it is said, that an

Englishman naturally speaks English : this seems to

mean, that it is according to the common course of

Nature that a person born in any country should - speak the language of that country. But here is

no idea of compulsion or necessity”; he may speak a foreign language.—The best mode of learning the j fe of words is from such common expressions as these.

As we are speaking of Nature, we may take, in this place, the expression, ** is of his own Nature inclined to evil :” it seems to mean, not that man is irrestibly impelled to evil; and that this is seen

ada tr Re Rent Ce wo ofa bye

A

. 8 2 FB R

W

r

in his constitution; in fact only it appears, that the inferior propensities have too great influence in our constitution; so constantly, that an ex- pectation is raised of finding the fame thing in future instances.

xix. The expression, © every man, that is naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam,” seems to me an expression of some nicety: The word, “ naturally,“ seems only intended to ex- dude our Saviour from original sin, his birth being supernatural; but I mean to take the expression in- dependently of this word. Does it mean only, © every man? —all men are, © engendered of the offspring of Adam :”—or does it mean, that every man is inclined to evil naturally Secanse he is sprung from the first offender?— I should rather think, that the intention of the compilers was, to leave men a liberty of assenting, who should doubt whether the disorderly propensities of man were owing to Adam’s transgression; though to omit Adam en- tirely, in this place, would have given offence to many. My reason is, because many serious and think- ing Christians have judged, that the first part of Genesis is not a literal description of at, but an allegorical * story (like the Pilgrim’s progress?); now it was probably far from the intention of our Church to exclude any such; and if this clause was made with a view to giving liberty to them, it must, though perhaps accidentally in some measure, give liberty to those, who understand, “every man that naturally 1s engendered of the offspring of Adam,” as meaning no more than, every man. |

xx. The

See Div, Leg. B. 9. in Warburton’s Works, quarto, Vol. 3. p. 640, | |

xx. The next expression we come to 1s, Ori- ginal righteousness :? — the primitive“ meaning of which is, that righteousness, which our First Parents had before their Fall.—They are not described as having offended immediately after they were

created; and if they did not, their minds must have been pure, though inexperienced ; free from shame and remorse; and their conscience cheer- ing: — and had they and their offspring con- tinued in such a state, while their experience in- creased, it 1s not conceivable, that, in later gene- rations, the lower and grofler appetites would have been disorderly in the manner we now find them: but I mean not here to reason, farther than is neces- sary for the explanation of the idea affixed tothe words © original righteousness *.“

This original righteousness, though spoken of only as in fact belonging to our first parents, must be, in its kind, such rectitude of mind, such a combination and relative strength of mental pawers, as God originally intended for man; such as he adapted to procure his greatest good. May we not therefore understand “original righteousness” in that sense ? without relation to Adam, or to man’s ever having actually been in a state of such righteousness ? And so only mean, by man’s being © far gone

from

u See Necessary Doctrine, on Free-will and Justification.— Also Heylin’s Historia Quinquart. p. 513. And first Paragraph of Homily on the Nativity.

• We might digress so far here, as to give a conjectural idea of the situation of our first Parents before their fall : some would say, it had better be omitted; but my purpose would be, to shew what the situation -:7g/ht be ; on this principle, that if any situation could be described consistent with the short account of Scripture, it would follow, that the scriptural account is not ob- jectionable.— Any one might read Archbp. King’s Sermon on the Fall, and my Poem on Redemption, v. 115—122.—lf

this be done, Div. Leg. Book 1x, (former part) should be attended to. | |

F ‘F ?

from original righteousness,” that every man is at a

great distauce from that frame of mind which our Creator intended? for us? Dr. Balguy’s manner of speaking of the act of our first Parents as of one of which we are very obscurely and imperfectly informed,” seems rather to imply, that he would not lay much stress on a state so little understood.

XX1. This seems the proper place to take some notice of the expression, © God made* man in his own image ;” as it is sometimes, though not in our Article, made a proof of actual original righte- ousness. The expression seems to me indefinite and comparative: Man might be said to be like the intelligent Creator in comparison of other earthly things. Adam begat Ser after his own“ image; that is, so that his sun should be of the same nature, and in the same situation with himself : in like manner, 2e now bear the image of Adam, as far as we are men; as Christians, we are described as tq,.be conformed to the image of Christ, which means the same as putting on the ew Man: we must labour to acquire the true Christian disposition ; and then the words of St. Paul? will be applicable to us; © as we have born the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”

Bishop Warburton Div. Leg. B. 9. makes Reason to be the image of God, in Adam.

XX11, We now come to an expression, which is more terrible in the sound than in the sense.—

It (original fin) deserveth God’s zwrath and dam-

nation.” The wrath of God can only mean * the caule,

The Golden age of the Heathens implies dissatisfaction with the present age: shews (if not borrowed — Scripture) that the idea of original righteousness is natural.

z Charge 2d, p. 200.

2 Gen. i. 27.—ix, 6. b Gen. v. 3.

© Rom. viii. 29. 4 Eph. iv. 24.

© 1 Cor, xv. 49. See Book 1, Chap. x ix. Sect. u.

cause, in God, of such effects as, in man, would be produced by wrath. It is not implied, that wrath must actually be exercised on all who are subject to original sin; they only deserve it, or are liable to it. They are called the “children i of wrath ,”—but children in scripture are not alwa supposed to inherit. The children of this world do not always inherit“ this world; nor can the children of light inherit light. Damnation is only equivalent to judgment; it does not, of itself, imply judgment after * death, nor does it imply any determinate degree of evil: It 1s as applicable to the Socinian scheme as to any other; as Taylor himself contends. (p. 29, &c).—A verdict against any one, in our civil judicatures, is judgment, or damnation, how small soever the fine. But we are going too far in speaking as if any judgment mu? be passed, or any fine levied : men are often liable to punish- ment in some theory of Law, who are never punished, or so much as sentenced to punish- ment. As is the case, in our country, with those who continue assembled after the Riot-act has been read.

XX111, Here it may be proper to take notice how many expressions of our Article are imme- diately taken from Scripture. © The flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit,” seems to be Gal. v. 17. with a reference to Rom. vii. 7. &c. and ver. 23. —* wrath,” alludes to Eph. ii. 3.—“ damnation,” refers to Rom. v. ver. 16. or 18. only we should observe, that, if we take the latter verse, our ar- tide rather softens the expression of scripture ; AE, judgment, or damnation, being a softer term than xaTaxgpau, condemnation : Peornjus oxerog

• Eph. 11. 3. h Matt. v. 5. 11 Cor xi. 29, margin. * Ver. 30.

156 BOOK iv. ART, IX. SECT. XXIV.

is taken from Rom. viii. 6. —and “ is not subje& to the Law of God,” from Rom. viii. 7,—* There is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized,” is from Mark xvi. 16. and Rom. viii. 1.— The Apostle doth confess, that concupi- scence and lust hath of itself the nature of Sin :” this may refer to several places; as Rom. vi. 12.— Rom. vii. 7. &c. but this latter seems sufficient; „ had not known Sin but by the Law, for I had not known Luft,” (mivvpiar, translated in the margin, and in other passages, concupiscence,) * ex- cept the Law had said, thou shalt not covet.” — Mr. Locke paraphrases, I had not known Lust,” J had not known concupiscence to be Sin.” — These paslages are not mentioned here as proofs, but only to give the reader a right notion of what is composed in our Article, and what is quoted. No interpretation is yet given of any paslage; yet it seems as if our propositions would scarcely be cleared from all extraneous matter, without an explanatory remark on one or two scriptural expressions; as Oeornun oxpxcs, and, © 15 not subject to the Law of God.”

XxX1v. But the word © regenerated” comes first ; which is so very near the phrase horn again,” that it may be reckoned scriptural ; © renatis? must be reckoned so, which is the word in our Latin Ar- tide : though we should fee in what sense it was used, when our Articles were compiled, Wall says, „ *tis abundantly evident, that the common

hrase of the Jews, was to call the Baptism of a Profelne. his Regeneration, or new Birth.—And the Christians did 1n all ancient times continue the use of this name for Baptism.” This remark he applies to John in. 3.—In our Article, the Latin word for © regenerated” is © renatis;” and & renatis,”

in

„ Introduction, p. lviii.

BOOK IV. xxv. 157

in this same Article, is the Latin for © baptized;” whence 1t appears, that our Article means the same thing by © regenerated,” and […] may apprehend danger from this remark, as if it let down regeneration to mean only the external form of baptism : but I do not fee how it does that; when shall we complete our contract? when shall we sign and seal? these being used for one another, does not let down contracting to the mere outward ceremony of 2 The outward part, in a symbolical act, must always imply the thing signi- fied : that is, in Baptism, putting on the eto“ man, or acquiring the true Christian disposition. When we speak of entering on any state of Life, as by manu- mission, indentures, marriage, &c. we take for granted the ordinary effects: they pass unmentioned, because it seems needless to mention them. xxv. The sense of Qeompea capxos might be sought in Lexicons, which indeed give a satis- factory account; but three verses of the paslage, from which the expression is taken, would be suf- ficient of themselves.-I mean Rom. viii. 5, 6, 7. ra rng oapxos Ogorsrw, mind the things of the flesh,” think of them, relisi them, are interested about them; this expression explains what is meant by @eonpea, the minding, &c.—the understanding and feelings are both concerned; which they are in the word Sentiment. Indeed they are naturally much connected, because we think of that which we enjoy. Hence Oęonua capxc; has been thought * well translated in our version, because Mind con- tains both understanding and feelings, or both forts of sentiments. The English and Latin ar- tides give us each four words to chuse out of; which I only mention as a specimen of the liber- ality of the compilers in interpreting; the same

That, » Eph. iv, 22, 23, 24. o Parkhurst’s Lexicon.

that, I should imagine, they intend us to use on all occasions. |

XXVI. This interest about carnal things, “ is not sulject to the Law® of God:“ that is to say, allowing the inferior propensities of our nature to take up our attention, so that we cannot attend to the higher principles, is keeping them in a state of rebellion to Nature, and the author of Nature. — The Apostle, not the Article, adds, “neither in- deed can be; which may mean, it is not possible, that such a state should be any other than a state

of Rebellion, God having fixed and settled our

constitution to be such, that conscience and en- larged self-love shall have authority over the desires of the Flesh.

do not observe any other expressions in our Article, which want clearing up, and therefore I here close the Explanation%, Nothing is affirmed concerning Death being introduced into the world by Adam’s disobedience; nor indeed about man’s being made in the image of God, though I have touched upon that expression.

XXVI1. Let us now therefore proceed to the Proof of the propositions, which our Article con- tains… . I cannot perceive more than four pro- positions.

1. Original Sin consists in the corruption of our nature, or mental constitution.

2. Into our state of corruption, there is some reason to conclude, that we were brought by the offence of our first Parents.

3. Whatever

P See Taylor on Orig. Sin, p. 123.

4 It might indeed be observed, that concupiscence having * the Nature. of Sin,“ is distinguishable from its being Sin, as murder is fin : but we have already (Se. x11.) described it as coming of fin, and leading to fin, And more will appear,

relating to concupiscence, in what follows: particularly in the latter part of Sect. xxx.

p + by […] W #4

= 6, W * E A = RJ S A uh *% „ E3 TE P N “pf

LOOK iv. ART. IX, SECT. XXVIII. 159

3. Whatever striftness of propriety there may be in calling this state a state of Sin, we have ground to consider it as making us liable to what may be called a judicial sentence.

4. Not only mere men, but Christians, are capable of sinful concupiscence, or mental cor- ruption.

xxvVIII. In the proof of the first proposition, I find a difficulty. Original Sin is not a scriptural expression, and yet all we want 1s to establish a set of doctrines on scriptural foundation. What then is the question here between us and our adversa- ries? The best idea I can acquire, is this. There is something in Scripture, which has given occasion to the expression original Sin: so that this expres- sion has become eftablihed; and all parties have made some use of it ; but it has suited best with the notions of one party to use it in one sense, and with those of another party, to use it in a different sense. The question seems to be, which speaks with the greatest propriety, or most according to the true meaning of Scripture? The Orthodox Hg it consists in mental depravity ; the Pelagian, wish- ing only to deny, that there is any such thing as depravity in any human being when he is born, speaks to this purpose; if you will have such a thing as original fin, I do not see to what you can give that name, but to fin as committed after the example of our first Parent, taken in the light of a model or original. Now therefore, if we can prove, what they wish to deny, that mental depravity is a thing, which may be called hereditary ; or that it is a thing which does depend, in some measure, upon

our Birth; we seem to prove the only thing which

is needful*, The fact is allowed, that men are ; very

r So that the first of our four propositions may stand thus: © our corrupt nature may be looked upon as, in some degree, hereditary;

160 BOOK IV. ART. IX, SECT. XXVI1T,

very corrupt ; and Dr. John Taylor allows of the word degenerate*; but he will have it, that each man’s moral corruption depends wholly upon * Aim- self. For authority of Scripture consult here, Gen. viii. 21.— Psalm li. […] Job xiv. 4.—These passages, if they are taken literally, make men, in some way or other, to have a pol- lution even from their birth; and if they are con- strued with latitude, as declamatory expressions, it does not seem easy to explain them without sup- posing a mental depravity or corruption in men, such as would not have been found in any man, had he been the fir human being.

On these scriptural expressions, reason and ex- perience will furnish the best comment. What then do we see and observe ? That human Beings have different minds, different principles and feelings, according to the circumstances in which they are born. Savages have savage principles and passions : An Algerine feels differently, from an Englishman, in treating a Captive: and so on. Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws would afford many instances, of different principles and passions handed down from generation to generation, in different societies of men. |

It may be said, mens different principles and passions depend,. not on propagation, but on educa- tion, in a large sense of the word, as including /ym- pathy, and all the effects of living together ;—con- suetudo. But first, what is the cause of Education, or {sympathy ? you must not say education is the cause, and so go back for ever … . The question,

how

hereditary ; inasmuch as it depends, in some measure, on the cir- cumstances of our Bzrth.? | s Taylor on Orig. Sin, p. 98. 125. t Taylor on Orig. Sin, p. 58, Note *. u Perhaps it would be answered, the cause of bad education 15 bad choice, bad use of powers, in those who educate; so it * in ome

BOOK Iv. XXVI11. 161

how far propagation is concerned in handing down mental depravity, was, I think, one of those which was given up*; and indeed if we know not how diseases of body descend, it is not likely that we should understand the descent of qualities of the mind. The word “ engendered,” in our article, may seem to favour the idea of descent by propa- gation; but it is scarcely intended to? require us to adopt such idea, strictly and exclusively. We are concerned, in Scripture and Articles, with popular, not philosophical language; and that seems to re- gard any thing as hereditary, which is handed down from one generation to another, in a course of Nature. It is probable, that qualities of mind are sometimes continued by propagation, as well as hy sympathy, instruction, praise and blame, &c. and it seems as if the causes of such continuance are often not clearly discerned; which may be one reason why popular language does not try to dis- tinguish them. Children resemble their Parents in features: is this by propagation, or sympathy? perhaps by neither wholly; yet it is ordinarily ascribed wholly to propagation. However, Insanity

some measure; but traditional error, and habitual mental dis- orders, cause bad education in a much greater degree.

• The authority for this was not distinctly enough noted down, and is now forgotten. Vet it may poslibly refer to what was said, dect. x1. about the Schoolmen having entered into nice- ties (particularly, I suppose, about propagation) which we do not meddle with.

y SeQt. xix. |

fact (supposed true) which night be mentioned here. He ascribes what we should rather call the joint effects of propa-

gation and sympathy, sometimes to one, and sometimes to the other. |

VOL. I11. L

162 BOOK IV. ART. Ix. SECT. XXVIII.

is a striking instance of mental disorder handed down by propagation ; and bodily qualities, which are allowed to be propagated, (Taylor, p. 192), do frequently increase or diminish the strength of mental powers. We have before referred to a pas- {age of Horace, where he makes fortitude to depend on breed. (Od. 3. 6. 33).— J have been told, that the Scrofula, which 1s reckoned the most hereditary of all bodily disorders, affects the intelle&s.—Mr. Ludlam, paraphrafing © that which is born“ of the flesh is […] which is of the breed and race of fallen man, has by birth and nature, the carnal and corrupt affections that belong to all the race of fallen man.” And this sentence 1s a

kind of reference to experience; with regard to the

breed of Animals in general. The ancients were aware of the influence of good parentage in Brutes; though they might not enter into all the niceties of modern pedigree.—Bien ne, in French, means one who has good iuclinations: and amongst us, a well- bred man means a man of polished sentiments. In good families (in different ranks) there is a some- thing, which we value, whether we are looking out for Patrons, friends, or servants; something good in the disposition; we are led to ascribe this to birth, though we know 1t is in part owing to early living with good people.—Vice may possibly di- minish it, virtue may strengthen it; but its reality is acknowledged in practice: and it arises from the circumstances in which a person is Born. The qua- lities of body and mind conveyed down by propa- gation, we do not as yet precisely understand; we cannot tell besorchand the degree, in which any quality of Parents will appear in their descend- ants; but the general notion, that all sorts of

human

a John iii. 6. o Essay on Scrip. Metaphors, p. 4. e Dit. Acad. . 8

Wm

FF

human qualities may be propagated, or transmitted to posterity, seems sufficiently established. And still more clearly the notion, that moral qualities, good and bad, descend from generation to genera- tion, in a course of Nature.

It seems to follow, from what has been said, that the prevalence (not necessary, nor invincible, but usual, probable) of inferior and sensual appetites in our constitution, may depend, and is generally understood to depend, upon the circumstances, in which we are born; and therefore, that such dis- order and irregularity may be called Original or Birth- Sin.

xx ix. Our second proposition is, © Into our state of mental corruption, there is some reason to think that we were brought by the Offence of our

first Parents.” —I say some reason, because the His-

tory of our first Parents is faint, obscure“ and im- perfect; and has been differently understood by candid and thinking Christians.

The principal authority for the opinon, that the offence of Adam was, in some degree, the cause of our corruption, 1s the reasoning of St. Paul in the fifth Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, where he compares the effects of Adam’s trans- gression with those of Christ’s obedience, This reasoning, it must be confessed, is not perfectly clear and perspicuous; yet I think a candid and attentive reader of it will at least find a very suf- ficient apology for any Church, which ould pro- fess the orthodox doctrine. We may begin with the 12th verse, and read to the end of the Chapter. The 13th and 14th verses seem intended to pre- vent any one’s thinking, that the death of men, after Adam, was owing to their own offences, or actual fins: thole between Adam and Moses,

having 4 Dr. Balguy, p. 200, as before, L 2

164 BOOK Iv. XXIX,

having no Law, might“ be looked upon as free from mortal fin: yet they died; their death must

| therefore, supposing death caused by some fin, have

been owing to Adam’s offence, and inherited from him. The 18th and 19th verses, according to our translation, are very strong; and I helieve our translation to be on the whole a very good one: not faultless, but better than any we are likely to have in this age. The passage now before us will recur very soon; therefore we may now pass on to another proof. The necessity of being * born again shews, that there was something faulty or deficient in our natural birth; and when could the fault begin, but with our first parent, if it belongs to all mankind ? © that which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which 1s born of the Spirit, is spirit :” Taylor says é, that this means no more than that the natural birth produces only the powers of a man; the spiritual birth produces * a man sanctified into the right use and application of those powers in a state of holiness.” — The dif- ference between generation and regeneration is here rightly described, supposing no fault in the parents which could affect the offspring; but this idea does not seem to me to come up to what is im- plied in the word /e,“ considering the many places of scripture, in which that word denotes the vicious prevalence of carnal appetites. Rege- neration, or entering on a Christian scheme of purifying our nature, does not seem to be described as if it were intended merely to lessen the hazard of abusing our natural powers ; but as if its pro-

per

e See some passages in Taylor, p. 44. Note; they explain how the idea of Dearh, as a penalty, is included in the scriptural notion of the word Za,

f See John iii. 5, 6.

De ed ia og OE tßñÜßͤ̃ … ˙ ͤ⏑ð:wm OT ET IS

n

a | * oy an. […] N of […] L . , LE 12 8 5 a * * 8 - LE * Q 1 r p * * t n n 9 „ e J £

r

= Y r bo £

per end were, to correct some abuse, or moral evil, already existing.

I own myself unable to believe, that, if Adam and his Race had continued faultless, we should have been, in point of disposition, passion, senti- ment, what we are now. Savages have, as was before observed, savage dispositions; can we avoid concluding, on the contrary, that, after an unin- terrupted succession of virtuous generations, our dispositions would have been virtuous ?

When I see the good produced by a few good successive generations, in one family, parish, &c. I could be in raptures at the thoughts of what we should all have been now, had our predeceffors been virtuous.

The Socinians (or at least Jon Taylor, the most eminent of of them) hold, that all generations of men have experienced sorrow, merely in conse- quence of the first Transgression. Sorrow is in the mind; the sentiments then are affected by the Fall? we are approaching very near to passions and appetites. When /orrow is excessive, or even de-

fective, it is the “ fault and corruption” of our

nature: but then sorrow is not made excessive or defective by the Fall, in the Socinian idea. lt seems however here as if it were only some appre- hension of consequences which kept us asunder:— for we do not hold, that our passions are necessarily and zuavoidably excessive or defective; but only, that from experience it is to be epected, on a foot- ing of probability, that they will be so: in the

| lame sense, in which Scripture says, © Offences

must needs come.” V | xxx. Our third proposition is, Original Sin makes men liable to Judgment.—Or, with whatever b | TI propriety „ Matt, xvili. 5.

LY”

l a 4 ©, by * FU ”— 64 + - — x not — 1 Te

== ”

166 BOOK Iv. ART. IX, SECT. xxx.

propriety original fin may be called fin, with the same may we say, that puni/hment is due to it. As proper punishment is due to proper fin, so may we look upon that evi/, which men suffer through the sins of their predecessors, and which is often popu- larly called punishment, though not in strictness of propriety*’, as due to such fins in different gene- rations taken collectively.

But there are some prejudices, which may hinder this truth from being accepted; these should be done away before the proof can have its effect. | |

It seems always to be presumed, when it is said, such conduct deserves punishment, or, it mult ex- cite the divine displeasure, that it of course it punished*. It is amazing how often this is pre- sumed, even in good writers; as if God had given up his power of remission: as if every man amenable to the Law, was punished by the Law’. I take the cause of this fallacy to be, a strong inward sentiment; an indignation at the sufferings of in- nocence, an horror at the dreadful state, in which a man’s imagination paints his brethren to be, not without a distant reference to himself: this shock throws Reason out of her seat.

Men have also a reluctance in coming into the opinion, that God will punish different generations collectively. Not so much when the thing is ex- pressed in this form, as when they come to speak of innocent men suffering for what, as individuals, they have not committed. Then their reasonings about this matter are continually warped. But is their reluctance reasonable? God does punish men

collectively

i This want of strict propriety is too much insisted on by Taylor, p. 21. See before, Se. xvi. *r!

Ludlam on Divine Mercy, p. 47. Note,

Coach 14 + OY SS WWD 3 © rb. df W

2 - s „ . 1 re

: * | - AE hae „ 3

: * ES PETR 84 , Wy TW $56. * r D rr Ag q “FT ”+ l * © 4 e þ . TY —

Co I”

• 1 Y FF. the RE LY „

[…] 6.5 r

r n

BOOK Iv. AR r. IX, SECT. xxx. 167

collectively in various ways. It appears in his Government, he confesses it in his word“. Sup- posing this unjust, that is nothing to us, at pre- sent; what the Author of Nature does, what the Scriptures declare, that is our foundation; we go no deeper. Were we defending truths of natural Religion, we might ask why the Author of Nature does fo ;—Were we defending the divine autho- rity of the Scriptures, we might ask whether what is said of Jehovah is consistent with the true cha- rafter of the one supreme wise and good Being;—

but we are not defending scripture; we are reason- ing upon it, taking its divine authority for granted. Not that it would detain us long trom our proper

business, to see, that a good Governor may nite

men together by sometimes rewarding and some-

time punishing them jointly, whenever union amongst them is that which promotes their great- est good.

Another thing to be mentioned here, as con- tinually preventing reason from having its proper effect, is, confounding two different punishments together; I mean, the punishment of the indivi- dual, and the punishment of the community. God sometimes punishes one, sometimes the other, and, as the punishment of the community affects the individual, so the punishment of the individual in some measure affects the community: but if the ideas are not kept diftin&, dispute and confusion must ensue. How often have men complained, that the punishment of the individual was unjust, when in reality there was zo punishment of the individual, but only one of the community, which affected the the individual incidentally, and

by

m Exod. xx. 5.

ee é .. eee ee i et En. ER ” — Boos - = \

[…] P W ³˙à——̃—ĩ , 7r,2Ä,.—;.,. . , , ,]§«· . […] 6: —— L * k - x : l - > n yr th […] - +» o 6 _ . — n = - Cc. *

— vi. ˙ 2 —

a 4%

[…]

—

[…] . — — —

y

• © 4 3+ a. 7. „ w-S Std

o — ®

168 BOOK 1V. ART. IX, SECT. xxx.

by a Law calculated to promote the general good.

We will now, without attempting to remove more prejudices, proceed to our proof.

It will not be denied, that there are several passages of scripture which represent men col- lectively as standing before God in the light of sinners : read Rom. iii. 9. & 19, with marginal translation : Rom. v. 6, 8, 10 —Gal. iii. 22.—If it be said, that this is meant as the effect of actual sin*, my difficulty is this; when men are spoken of as amenable to law as individuals, they should be spoken of individually; the peculiar circum- stances of each individual should be stated ; for, in that light, every man will be subject to a sen- tence of his own; one different from the rest.— And if men are spoken of as punishable collec- tively, it will make no difference whether you collect different generations, or different cotempo- raries.

/ Now, that the Scriptures do represent men as to be considered, nay as to be rewarded or punished,

callectively,

a gy 1 . P „»» | Ms Gt ; F al ed a ite ANC batt ml ihnne 323 ao e .

n To what was said, Sect. xvi, we may add here, that the sin and punishment of a Community may be what we have called a proper fin and punishment. This is the case when a community fins as a community, and is punished as a commu- nity : Sin and punishment are only what we have called in- proper, when a man, innocent as an individual, is a member of | a community which sins, and when he therefore sins only in his social capacity; and is punished only in his social capacity. — Families are communities; a member of a family may offend and suffer as such, (in family quarrels) when in his private capa- city he is kind to the inimical family, and beloved in return.— This illustration brings to one’s mind the Play of Romeo and Juliet; the more common the instance, the more it will serve to shew, that we must not turn from the distinction here offered, as abjtruje : we all make and ackowledee it continually, „ Taylor, p. 116. 254.

þ G

W

BOOK Iv. ART. I x. SECT. xxx. 169

collectively, may ? easily be proved. considered , as when Levi paid tithes in Abraham, to Mel- chizedec; rewarded, as when Abraham * was made Father of the faithful; punisied, as when God de- clares, that he himself will visit the fins* of the Fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generations :—Suppole any man of one of those generations, to be horn; would not he appear in this world in the light of a sinner ? or, at least, as one of a number which stood in that light? One might add the instances of Esau *, Canaan *, and others; but why should we go lower than our first parents? a sentence of this fort on them, is a sen- tence on the whole race of man. Taylor will not allow, that the sentence on Adam was a cur/e? : it seems clear to me, that what was pronounced upon him, was an infliction of evi, in conse- quence * of his Offence: a condemnation : and this appears from Taylor’s own reasoning * on Rom. v. 19,—It only his posterity was spoken of in this sentence, and not himself, that is in our favour;

St.

This rewarding and punishing a set of men collectively, is not inconsistent with rewarding and punishing individuals separately, at the same time. A remark is made, not unlike this, with re- gard to the eus, in Bp. Green’s 1st. Pamphlet about Methodists, p. 46. — But he seems to say, that individuals, who did not fulfil conditions, would not share in any of the benefits which the Jews had as elect, &c. that is going rather too far: But we can scarcely dwell too much upon the different rewards ( or punish- ments) which any one man may have; one resulting from all the various circumstances of his private conduct, as an invidual, others from the different situations in which he stands as member of different communities.

See Taylor on Romans, p. 32. Note.

! Heb. vii. 4.

5 Gen. xxii. 15. 18. — Gal. iii. 6. 9.— Rom. iv. 11. 16.

t Exod. xx. 5. uv Rom. ix. 13.

• Gen. ix. 25. P. 20.

= This is owned by Taylor, p. 21. and sufficiently, I think, for all our purposes. P. 33. and 3o, note.

• • oF

— n 2 OP. 9 - bs Ly

= - * » - — > 7 ml * =. Bas G — — S […] bs _ =

Er

. V f gr ũ ½8] ² — — t or

EFT = .- MS : a7

MET ” > a®

-* an wo 1 — ——ͤä —

— = TS = —— k._ -2 at.

[…] ¹ i¹L Q½ […] Ea z® *

(

St. Paul says, that by Adam’s offence, <* judg- ment came upon all men to condemnation,” — many, or the many, were made {mers „all men therefore were made liable io judgment, in some way or other. Taylor says, they were only con- demned to Death, Labour, and Sorrow; but this is saying that we do suffer in consequence of Adam’s Sin; and can our Church say any thing more strong to shew, that the generations of men are judged collectively? and therefore, that each individual appears in this world in the light of an offender ?—Stll it would probably be said, to come into the world under the sentence passed on Adam, is not to be a sinner, a man can only“ be a sinner by some choice of his own certainly not a proper sinner, as an individual; but who says he is? yet it seems to have been proved under the first of our propositions, that a man is more /ikely to have his mind in a corrupt and disorderly state for having had sinful progenitors. Taylor allows, that the Jeus are treated by their Lord collefively®, nay that the bad conduct of Adam affects his posterity : but that is all that is ncedful for our purpose ; that is owning, that all men are punished collectively; proper punishment is, in that case, on the race of man, on the community, not on the individual.— He says, Adam’s offence only affects our externa/ circumstances ; what punishment does more ? if we may reckon sorrow amongst external circumstances ? — But it does not make us vicious? it makes us rank as offenders collectively, and in fact has dit- ordered our principles, though not by a proper

compulsion.— But this matter of compulsion be-

longs to the 10th Article *.

What d Taylor, p. 58.

© P. 203. favoured and rejected, (as I e on Rom. ix. & xi. .. for Adam, ice p. 205.

4 See Taylor on Romans, Key, Paragraph 310.

Fee

• 7/6.

What is called Original Siu has before been? said to contain two different ideas; our appearing in the world in the fate of Offenders ; and our hav- ing a corrupted Nature. I will offer nothing more to prove, that our coming into the world ranked as offenders makes us liable to Judgment; but I will now endeavour to shew how our having a cor- rupted Nature makes us so.—But here we might premise something similar to what was premised before : as we said, that men might be amenable to Law, and yet Law not be executed against them; so we say, that men, whose minds are in a disorderly state, may keep continually correcting the disorder, and continually improving their prin- ciples and dispositions, without limit. And this work may be continued through any number of successive ages. In such a case, the desert of « wrath and damnation,” would continually de- crease without limit. Of the afsfance given us for this purpose, we need take no notice at present. — That a corrupted nature deserves punishment, might be left as self-evident; for a corrupted na- ture means a mind, in which the inferior principles are in a state of rebellion to their lawful superiors: But as this 1s all internal, it may be better to say something more on the subject. Our explanation has already * led us to consult Rom. vil. 7. as a proof, that * concupiscence and Juit hath, of it- I {elf, the nature of Sin,” But tome texts are more 5 clear than that. We may consider the tenth commandment ; and some parts of the Sermon on the mount, as Matt. v. 22, about being angry; ver, 28, about“ lu, and ver. 44, about love of

enemies ; *

enen emen

© Sect. 11. 3 SeR. xXx111.

5 Incesta est etiam fine stupro, quæ cupit stuprum.— quoted in Essay on Old Maids, 2. 98.

172 BOOK Iv.

enemies; and 1 John ii. 15.—* These paslages _thew, that irregular and corrupt sentiments and passions make us guilty in the sight of God, or, at least, liable to judgment and punishment.

And reason and experience coincide with decla- rations of scripture. As punishment 1s intended to prevent wickedness, every thing requires (or de- serves) punishment, which must be punished in order to prevent wickedness; this is the case with bad sentiments : and therefore we have Laws against bribery, subornation* of perjury, and seduction : exciting bad sentiments will as naturally produce bad actions, as sowing tares will produce tares : in both cases, it may be said, “ an enemy hath done“ this:“ and in both cases, the enemy deserves re-

straint and punisiment.— Who will say, that Guy

Faux suffered unjustly, though he he did not blow up our Parliament? or that he did not deserve King James’s wrath and dammation? —Some diffi- culty there is, arising from one man’s 1gnorance of another’s thoughts ; so that it 1s sometimes said, that human laws do not punish sentiments, but only overt afts; yet, in some cales, it seems to me, that sentiments are really punished, though it must be in those cases, wherein overt acts prove the reality of the sentiments.

Difficulty may also be raised from the notion, that sentiments are involuntary : but they can sel- dom in strictness be deemed so; sometimes in their nascent state they may be _ involuntary, or nearly so; but even then, they may be owing to

occasions, which we might haye avoided, or to - habits

We might add, Matt. xv. 19.—Acts vii. 21, 22.—Ephes.

iv. 22, 23.— James i. 15. i We had occasion to make this observation, Book 111.

Chap. 111. Sect. 1.

& Matt. xiii. 28.

habits which, by proper discipline, we might have conquered. —The actions of a drunken man are involuntary, but he might have kept sober.

We conclude therefore, that concupiscence has so far © the nature of Sin,“ as to make us liable to judgment. |

Ephes. ii. 3. might here be read, as joining the two parts of original fin together: the state of sinners, and the corruption of our Nature.

If any one says, that, though concupiscence has the nature of sin, that has no relation to Adam, we can only refer him to what was said under the pre- ceding proposition, _

xXxxI. In short, though the doctrine of original fin has occasioned many difficulties, and does in- volve discussions of some nicety, when it comes to be argued, yet a plain case seems to take 1a the whole of the matter.—Suppole our King to ad- dress himself to a descendant of one of the Lords, who were beheaded in the Rebellion of 1745; he might say, (and he might say it with a smile of benignity)—* You are born of a Family, which bears me no good will; and in truth I mu con- sider You and your Family collectively; you are, trom your b!irtsi therefore, a Rebel in my sight ; and for being of such a family, you are more /ikely to be really disaffeFed ;—it your parents, and atter- wards yourself, encourage your disaffection, you will be not only a native but an actual rebel: then | must pumisi you as such, on having sufficient evi- dence. But, if your Parents bring you up by -or- rectiug your disaffection, and you acquire the prin- ciples of a good subject; You have nothing OW rom

How near Dr. John Taylor comes to our representation of the probability of men being drawn into fin by the usual propen- sities of the human mind in its present late, see p. 188 ; or his Answer to objection 3d. |

174 BOOK Iv.

from me. Though, in striftness, you may be

_ amenable to the Law, at least so as to lose privileges; yet, while you give me /opes of a favourable change, I shall not carry the Law into execution against you.”

XXX11. There yet remains a fourth proposition; namely, * Christians, after baptism, are capable of concupiscence, or mental corruption.’—‘This pro- position rather belongs to the fifteenth Article than the present; we may however observe, that Baptism only puts us in a way to conquer our evil propen- sities; we may, not therefore conquer them instanta- neously”. And this agrees with the language of Scripture, Gal. 111. 17.—1 Pet. ii. 11.“ What is affirmed, is so plain, that it is only the appearance of the objection alluded to in the Article, which makes it to be expressed at all. There is no con- demnation for them, that believe and are bap- tized®;” that is, they are in a fate of safety; that sentence, under which they laid, as members of human society, 1s taken off and abolished, by vir- tue of Christianity *;—they may, indeed, by their ill conduct, defeat this plan, but this is the plan which is contrived for their good. The context of both Mark xvi. 16. and Rom. viii. 1, shews this to be right; they both take comprehensive and general views. © Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature;” then there

1s

m See Warburton on Grace, p. go, &c. about primitive Christians having immediately *þ good minds.

n And with practice. Idier who has taken the sacra- mentum, or military oath, Au not at once the steadiness of a Veteran. The Apprentice does not make himself master of

his Trade by siguing and en his Indentures.—Sett. xxIiv. End.

9 Rom. viii. 1.

[…]

De Baptismo Disp. 6. Thesis 1. — Works, Vol. C. p. 276.

m _ _Y \ þ © 4 o […] f $* < [ { Wi

1 YT Re N

rr

LEAN 4

TER n Thr 5 * 9 k 4 Tos L Et oo W * **

PER —

is only one grand division, into those that believe, and those that believe not®. The Apostle too looks over the whole world at once; Jews and Gentiles are in a state of condemnation*, but Christians are relieved from it; “ there is no con- demnation” for them. Exceptions, and failures of individuals, could not be properly mentioned on so great an occasion. Human Governors, when plan- ning enlarged schemes of policy, take the com- pliance of individuals for granted.

xxxIi II. I will not enter into more proof of the direct kind; but we have generally found it useful to give some indirect proof; that is, to an- wer some oljections.— The reasonings of our adver- saries have been already examined in some parti- culars; but still it may be worth our while to select a few objections, were it only for the pur- pose 5 illustrating and applying our more formal

roofs. b XXX1V. It has been thought, that our doctrine has fezwver supports than might have been expected from our account of its importance.—In Scripture, Taylor says, there are but five * passages, which certainly relate to it. Suppose there were no more, are ue passages of scripture to be neglected ? what- ever they may teach? The passages from Gen. iii. and Rom. v. are of very considerable length. On what ground are they to be neglected ? because, if the doctrine had been eflential, it would have occurred more frequently? I do not fee what right any man has to say that: or to judge how fre- quently God shall repeat any truth in his sacred

volume.

2 Being baptized is making a contract; that must imply ob- serving the conditions of that contract.

r See Mr. Locke’s Jast note on Chap, 7.—that is, on the verse next before the passage in question,

On Orig. Sin, p. 5, 6. 254.

176 BOOK iv. ART. IX, SECT. xxxiv.

• volume.—Becaulse, if St. Paul had not been led by a particular subje& to use certain reasoning, (in

Rom. v. &c.) we should never have heard of such a doctrine ?—This is not to be admitted: if God had not used this method of instructing us, he might have used others :’ the question therefore is not, what the state of things would have been, if « these passages had never been written but what it is © now they are written,” —Because Christ himself did not mention it in form“? but it seems agreed by all judicious * Divines, that Christ him- self meant to open his Religion only in part, and to leave the rest to be opened after the whole proof of his resurrection and ascension could be laid be- fore the world, by persons to whom he gave cre- dentials by enabling them to work miracles : fome things might more properly be opened by himself, others by his agents; shall we take upon us to determine what things were most proper to be

opened by him, and what by them ?—It we adopt no doctrines but those, which were delivered by Christ himself, we must cut off a number“ of those, which the Church has usually thought important. — This is our answer on the supposition, that there are no more paslages in Scripture to our present purpose than five: But we see, that a great many more have been of use to us: and more {till might have been added.

Some valuable authors, it must be confessed, have not dwelt much on original lin. Bishop Butler, in his Analogy, seems to be“ brief upon it. We. have not an Homily on the subject by name, tough much is said to the purpose, in the Homilies

ot

t Gibson’s 3d Pastoral Letter, p. 235. v ‘Taytor, p. 6. 254.

x See Gibson’s zd Letter, as before. y Gibson, Ibidem, p. 235.

® Part 2. Chap. 1. p. 186, iz mo.

BOOK IV. xXx. 177

of the Misery of Man, and the Nativity of our Saviour.

Dr. Balguy has only two very short expressions relating to it. Probably, some candid men have been diffident about it; or, though satisfied them- selves, have thought it the part of modesty and forbearance, to desist from pressing what was esteemed difficult, on others. And they found, that the omission of this subje& did not hinder them from proceeding to others, even to such as are connected with it; the sinfulness of the world, and the communication of evil, natural and moral, from parents to children“. :

P. S. Bishop Warburton, in his ninth Book of the Divine Legation, has shewn no desire of evad- ing any part of this subject.

xxxv. We will mention, as a second objection, that question, which is often urged by Taylor“: can any man be sinful except by choice? not as an in- dividual ; but, as a member of a community or co/- leftive body, he certainly may. A member of a corporation may vote against some abuses; and yet, if they are practiced, he, as a member, is guilty of them, and liable to be punished ; not by evils inflicted purposely upon 4im ; but by evils inflicted on the Corporation, and incidentally af- fecting

d Taylor, p. 127. 190. though the former passage rather re- lates to the tenth Article. Also p. 58.

VOL. 111. M

178 BOOK Iv. ART. IX, SECT. XXXVI.

fecting him.—And, in the case of corrupted na- ture, though no man is strictly sinful without choice, yet being born in certain circumstances will make it more difficult for him to chuse right; insomuch that, on a footing of probability, it may be said, in the language of scripture, * it is im- possible ® but that he will offend. But this is only the same as saying, if a man is drawn into bad company, he will be drawn into the commis- sion of some bad actions.

xxxvi. The generality of objectors to our doc- trine exclaim against its cruelty : or conceive it as implying cruelty (supposing it true) in the supreme Being.—But this a groundless objection. If an men come into this world as sinners, it is Ver God treats some men, or all men, collectively; but to do so is, or may be, a mark of a good Governour. If any men derive inordinate appetites from others, it is by a benevolent law, which connects different generations together. Good is hereditary, as well as evil. Indeed the law of our Nature, by which things or qualities are hereditary, has nothing to do with good and evil properly; only as qualities, which are hereditary, are good and evil; evil is hereditary accidentally, as belonging to those things or qualities, which are made hereditary by Nature. How is this then cruelty If you are still dissatis- fied, and cannot get rid of your idea of cruelty, except your individual be spared, who has only offended as member of a community, —except he also be {pared, who has offended through the impulse of irregular propensities, owing in fome measure to

| others ;

© Taylor treats this as an absolute nece/iry ; a notion which we have frequently contradicted and disclaimed. Taylor on Orig. Sin, p. 58. 131. 188.

4 Luke xvii. 1,

© Set. xxx. and Taylor, p. 205,

others; how do you know that, at the last judg- ment, they will not be spared? if it be cruel to punish them, assure yourself God will not punish them. I defy all the world to prove, that he will. Taylor allows*, that God may entail Labour and Sorrow on all men, in this world, and at last death, in consequence of Adam’s offence ; but nothing which can be punished as Sin: where would be the cruelty of this last, except in inflict- ing sorrow after death? does it then lessen the cruelty, that the evil should be suffered on this

side the grave? is not an evil equally an evil on both sides the grave?

Dr. Ogden’s second Sermon on Christian Faith

might be consulted here: particularly p. 140. 12mos. |

f On Orig. Sin, p. 27. 101. 140. |

Having, in this Section, endeavoured to enlarge our ideas of hereditary qualities; and to take the mind out of the narrow and confined track of original in and evil, into the more open and extensive way of original qualities, of different kinds, some- times evil and sometimes good; I think it may illustrate my idea of hereditary good, or original virtue, to reprint a Letter from the Duke of Fitzjames to Louis XVI. which appeared in the public prints in January 1791.— The community is a Regiment, the virtue is military virtue, but it is what was pursued and felt as virtue: the sentiments of loyalty, &c. are the counterpart to our Concupiscence. The ** original purity” mentioned has some correspondence to our ’ original righteousness.”—‘The qua- lities of the community are distin from those of the individual members: yet the individuals de/erve reward as members of the community.

An authentic Letter of the Duke of Fitzjames, just sent to

the King of the French. SIRE,

A faithful subjet, who has not the honour of being parti- cularly known to your Majesty, thinks it his duty, at this in- teresting crisis, to lay the homage of his sentiments at your Majesty’s feet. These /entiments, Sire, are hereditary in his family, and he claims no other merit than that of preserving

them M2

180 BOOK Iv.

XXXVII. A great deal of alarm has been given, as if it necessarily followed from our doctrine, : that

them in their original purity. My grandfather, a stranger in this kingdom, but of an illustrious descent, was created b your magnanimous ancestor a Peer of France; since whic period both himself and his descendants have ever been dis- tinguished for their loyalty. Of this he gave various proofs, during the course of a long and glorious life, terminated in the service of France at the siege of Philipsbourg. My father followed his example, and tran/mitted with his name the same sentiments to me, his sen.

In the midst of the public calamities, Sire, I am deeply affected by a consideration, peculiar to myself, which my con- fidence in the goodness of my King emboldens me to lay at lus feet. |

My grandfather came not alone into France His brave com- panions are now mine, and the dearest friends of my heart. He was accompanied by thirty \thousand Irishmen, who abandoned their country, fortunes, honours, to follow an unfortunate King. For the descendants of that respeQtable class of men, whom your ancestors thought worthy of protection, because they had been faithful to their Sovereign, I now entreat the same bounty from the Great Grandson of Louis XIV. It is re- ported, and seems not improbable, that the National Assembly purpose disbanding the Irish regiments as foreign troops. The blood they have /hed in the cause of France ought to have pro- cured them the advantage of being denizens of that kingdom, although their capitulation had not entitled them to that privi-

lege. Permit, Sire, that I lay at your Majesty feet the ardent with of the IJrisi regiments, as much attached to France by gra- titude, as they formerly were to the House of Stuart by love and duty. If the Assembly of France now rejects their ser- vices, they implore your Majesty’s recommendation to the Prince of your family now reigning in Spain; presuming to assure your Majesty, that the present will be worthy of being made by a King of France, and of being 3 received by a Prince of your royal Houle.

Fidelity and valour are their titles of recommendation. Of the former they expect an authentic testimonial from the French nation, setting forth that they have never once departed from their. duty, during the space of more than a century, that they have fought its battles, in which heir valour has been uniformly conspicuous. I entreat you, Sire, to listen to their request ; for myself I ask no compensation— for me there is none. The honour of commanding them is not to be repaid, It secures my glory, since to lead them against the enemy afforded a sure pledge of speedy victory. |

BOOK IV. XXXVII1. 181

that Infants dying unbaptized must suffer eternal torments. Poor harmless babes! they are perfectly sheltered from all ill treatment in the bosom of an all- Kind and powerful Creator l—can any one shew, that He is bound by the letter of any law, contrary to the spirit of it? or that he is tied up from shew- ing even mercy* where the case requires it? - Sup- pose the Theory indispensible, that Christianity alone can take off the condemnation pronounced upon our first Parent; yet, cannot God, in cases of extreme necessity, dispense with forms os ad- mission ? is it impossible that those, who have no chance of being baptized, should benefit by the Christian sacrifice ? all men are mortal, all have been condemned to death through the offence of their first Parent: is it impossible, that, as the offence came on all men to condemnation, so the free gift should come © upon all men unto justifi- cation of Life?“ - But, when men will treat extreme cases as if they were ordinary, they must involve themselves in difficulties.

Laws are made for ordinary cases, and are su- perseded by necessity. We talk of different genera and species, as if they were perfectly distinct; but we find some intermediate things, which perplex our classing: we talk of human beings having such and such qualities, rights, &c.—but we find some beings such, that we cannot decide whether they are human © or not. Of these we can only say, as far forth as they are human beings, such and such things may be predicated of them : and this we may say of Infants; as far as they have the oral qualities of an human being, so far they seem susceptible of human rewards and punishments : we

b Rom. ix. 15. i Rom. v. 18. * See Locke 3. 6. 26, on Hum. Understanding.

R 3

182 BOOK IV. XXxVI1.

we may talk abstrusely ; but, in reality, there need be no more difficulty about an infant being re- warded or punished, than there 1s about a young Lord or Emperor, who is © mewling and ’ puking in the Nurse’s arms,” and at the same time govern- ing an extensive Monarchy.

It may, moreover, be observed, that the specu- lative doctrines of scripture do not seem intended for mere speculation, or to make us judges of each other ; each man should take them as applicable to his own practice. If then you think the Theory of Christianity such, that infants are in danger, if not admitted into the community of Christians, bap- tize; but do not judge—What I have now said, thaugh I think it just, seems liable to be misap- plied; those who form hasty conclusions, may think, that I make the baptizing of infants a matter of too little importance: but this is not really the case; in practice, I think it indispen/ble®, (in case of sickness) ; but doing cur parts is a very different thing from determining what part God shall act. Nay, I not only think, that negligence may affect the Parent, but even the child: I say, may affect; to say, will affect, is to run into the error I am condemning ; what 1s omitted through negligence is very different from what is omitted through necesity. As the negligence of the Parent may deprive the child of education, health, or even life itself; or occasion his having vicious principles; no man can prove, that negligence with respect to a Sacrament will ut occasion ma- terial evil to the child, or deprive it of material good, I say not, it wil} do so; you must not say,

| th 1

| Shakspeare’s As You like it, AR 2. Scene 7. in I am only speaking ere of those, who held infant-baptism,

it will zot *,—But this affords no argument against the Doctrine under consideration.

XXXV111. We find, in disputes about original sin, passages are frequently quoted out of the eighteenth Chapter of the Book of Ezekiel, as ex- pressing, that a man’s goodness or wickedness 1s to be ascribed to himself. ** The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” On first view, we can fay, that the declarations of the prophet must be, in some way or other, reconcileable to Exod. xx. 5. otherwise both cannot come from God: therefore to argue from one of these passages, without any attention to the other, is not the way to arrive at truth.

But the case seems to be this; if any part of scripture be abused, and that abuse corrected by a subsequent writer, the correction, expressed art- lessly and warmly, will sound like a contradiction ®, Some men seem to have abused Exod. xx. 5. as expressing the influence of one generation on another.—The end and design of visiting sins of parents on children probably is, to make parental love act as an auxiliary motive to virtue: for many men will be more careful for their offspring than for themselves :—some Jews seem to have made

this plan of Providence, instead of a motive to virtue,

n There is something, I think, in Augustin very like some part of this; but I do not recalle& where: — sometimes, he, and the other ancients, run too much into determining what wi be- come of Infants, — Our church (see end of private Baptism) goes so far as to say, that Infants baptized will certainly be saved; — this is much better, I think, than any other determination of By 2 It is intended to comfort parents, and encourage

ptism.

o This I conceive to happen, when St. James corrects the per- versions of St. Paul’s Doctrine about justification by Faith. — Lardner dates Paul to Romans, 58; James, 62. But this will be a subject of discussion in Art. xi.

M 4

184 BOOK IV, ART. 1X. SECT. XX XVIII.

virtue, an excuse for vice, and a pretence for

evading their duty. We cannot be in the favour of God, say they; It is vain for us to be careful or good; our parents have already made us repro- bates. To this evasion they seem to have added insolence; in applying a taunting proverb, “ the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” Instead of using that Law of God, which connects generations, to assist virtue, they used it to overthrow virtue, and then laid the blame on God :—impudent hypocrisy { yet they said, © the way® of the Lord is not equal!” well might the prophet retort, ** are not your ways unequal r

From comparing Exod. xx. with Ezekiel xvii, it appears, that there are 7wo Laws of God’s Go- vernment ; one 1s, Parents by their conduct affect their children: the other, each man must work out his own salvation :* supposing these rules de- dared for men to act upon, they do not interfere with each - other; the first 1s for the Parent, the second for the chi/d;—and, if a man is both parent and child, they conspire, and assist each other, as motives to virtue; the man does what is right, for the sake of his offspring, and also for his own sake. The degree“, in which the parent affects the child, we know not precisely; but we know, that com- munication of good and evil from parents to

children by no means renders diligence fruitless or unnecessary”.

xXxxix. I P Ezek. xvii. 25. 29. q Sect. xxvIII.

Bp. Warburton gives a different account of this matter, Div. Leg. B. 5. Sect. 5.— 8 vo. p. 151, &c. to 160. His

notions are always well defended, but I am unable to give up my own: I have been rather at a loss with regard to Jer. xxxi. 20, 30. Can the meaning of the Prophet be, that under the new Dispensation, men should not be guilty of such impudent hypocrisy as to use the proverb about sour grapes? — The Law

of

xxxix. I fear, that our doctrine has been con- sidered, even by some * candid persons, as a Theory of little utility. But who shall call a doctrine use- less, which Scripture has published ? which gives us the most grand and comprehensive view of God’s Government, and shews us, how he treats our whole Race as one; and how he makes one generation to depend upon another?—Can that be useless, which lets us into the right way of treat- ing ourselves? which keeps us from presumption on the one hand, and despair on the other? Can that seem useless to a Christian (for with such we now argue), which makes us set an high value on our Redemption by Jesus Christ ?—lf a child is diseased from his Birth, is it useless to be aware that he is so? or to know, that he is not incurable? And, if we can come at some knowledge of these things without having recourle to our present doc- trine, yet can it ever be useless to see a subject to the bottom ? I mean, as far as man is capable of seeing it? or to endeavour to hold it on the best grounds ?

x. Lastly, * I believe it is often objected to our doctrine, in one way or other, that it %u men

of visiting sins of Parents on children might continue, in some degree, though men improved so as to leave off the use of an insolent proverb.

And the Law of making Parents to affect their children, may be inforced in different degrees at different times; without limit. If the Masaic dispensation required, that preceding generations should affect Posterity in à greater degree, than under the mere Law of Nature, yet in all ages the tau Laws subsist; and therefore our solution retains its force.

Sect. xxx iv. latter part.

t See Girtanner on the venereal disease in children; reviewed

Sep. 1790. in the Analytical Review; 8 vo. 459 pages, 1788. J might here reply to the objection, does not Christ take away original fin wholly ? how then can concupiscence remain in Christians? — but I have already mentioned this W | (Sect.

186 BOOK flv. ART. IX. SECT, XL.

men of philosophical minds, and makes them averse to Revelation. —But, if it has had this effect, I think the fault was in the minds of those, who were disgusted. The pride of Science has often hindered men from treating the doctrines of reve- lation with sufficient respect, even on their own principles; or seeing how nearly they are con- nected with natural Religion*. Shall not the true philosopher enlarge his views of things? shall he not study the Laws of God’s Government, giving particular attention to those, which are great and extensive ? shall he not study the state and condi- tion of human nature? and the provisions to be made against bad internal principles ?—Suppose he thought, that all mankind had not two common parents ; but that several tribes of men had each its own; yet {till each tribe must trace his present qualities up to some confessed origin, in the same manner that we trace ours up to Adam. Shall Horace shew, that he had the idea of improper ? fin and punishment ? shall he say, that effeminacy in the offspring 1s to be ascribed to vice in the parent?—Shall Cicero lament our early depravity ? — Shall Plato * hold, that God punishes offences down to the fourth generation, — and shall the Phi- losopher set our doctrine at nought ?

What

(Se. xxxXx11.) I am inclined to mention it here, because it is properly an objection.

See the paslages, Se. 111, Note; it might be proper ta read them again before entering upon this objection.

2 Sec Hor. Delph. Od. 3. 6. 1. Note,

BoOok Iv. xLI. 187

What Voltaire has written on this subject is filly and contemptible.

XLI. Let us now come, in the last place, to our Application :—or, to consider, what 1s the re- suIt of the foregoing remarks, in our present cir- cumstances.—It has been already“ observed, that it would be useful, in treating most of the Articles of our second part, to try how near an Article of Natural Religion would come to each Article of our church. Be this our first task. A right execution of this, will facilitate the rest. We must suppose our Pagan to say nothing but what is found in ancient heathen writings, or 1s clearly to be ga- thered by the light of Nature. On this ground, a man might say thus; —

We, at this time, cannot be such as our Crea- tor intended when he formed us. A golden age, though feigned by Poets, shews a sense of our pre- sent depravity. What is the cause? Surely, in some degree, the generations that are passed. If our Pha +a had been better, so should we. Burt how far are we to go back, in order to find the first source ? as far back as the generations of man ex- tend. It is not merely to bad examples, that we owe our moral disorder : 1n the descent of qualities from Parents to children, there is an influence much greater than that of example; whether it lie in pro- pagation, or in education, or in both. — But, while one generation after another keeps in a state of de- pravity, in what /ight can our species stand before our Creator? only in that of a criminal. He does not regard each man merely as a separate indivi-

a dual;

Voltaire’s Works, quarto, Vol. 26. p. 384. I should not have left this matter so very short, though I believe I should not have detained my hearers long upon it, had I not been unable to procure the 26th Vol. of Voltaire’s works at the tume of

giving the Lecture. d Set, x vi.

188 BOOK lv.

dual; {for he punishes the children for the faults of the Parents) ; but if he did, our depravity must incense him; and the state of our passions makes it probable, that we shall continue to offend. —W hat is to be done? We might agree upon some plan, some association, for meliorating our Nature: — And, though we must not expect to get all the benefit of such plan at once; though habitual de- fires are not to be rooted out in a moment, and purity planted in their stead, and brought to matu- rity ; yet it is to be hoped, that God would, from the fir, consider us and our undertaking in a favourable light.“ |

xXxLII. Having thus prepared the way, let us come to our proper business, and see in what sense a Christian may assent to our Article at this day.

We may suppose, in some such sense as the fol-

lowing ;

• Scripture treats men, considered before Christi- anity has had any effect, as concluded under Sin, and children of wrath : it also describes the carnal appetites as, what we find them, too prevalent and unruly : this is true description, but unruly appetites, however truly described, must be wrong. God did not create man for a state so defective: so long as we continue in it, our species must appear crimi- nal in his eyes, and therefore so must every one that helps to compole our species. Nay, each man must be punishable ugly, so long as his passions are in a state of rebellion or anarchy ; because vicious passions have the Nature of Vice. What is the cause of this evil? - the offence of our first Parents? the account of them is drawn in faint characters; yet our evil is, confessedly, in some mea- sure traced up to them; and many instances appear of God’s treating human Beings collectively; and experience shews, that faulty passions are ee

mitte

BOOK Iv. XLI1T. 189

mitted in a course of nature, from generation to generation. Example cannot solve such appear- ances; for example is only forcible, when the models are at hand. |

Our remedy for these mischiefs must lie in the Christian Religion: that, immediately on admission, reflores us to a state of favour, so far as to take off the condemnation lying upon our Species; and puts each man into a way, by which he may purify the principles and passions of his mind. Only he must be aware, that mere admission into Christi- anity will not, of course, effect a thorough refer- mation in his Heart.

xL III. The next part of our application re- lates to mutual concessions between contending parties.

We, on our part, might perhaps drop the ex- pression original sin, if that was found to be the real cause of dissension; using some harmless terms, with which no idea of dispute was asso- ciated.— We might also change any expressions, which seem to imply, that fin is a part of our nature, as reason or memory is, fixed, indelible ; into such as shewed, that the prevalence of our carnal appetites was a thing only to be expected on a footing of probability, and always voluntary in each particular instance ; and always curable. We might also change the word “ damnation,” into any word which would convey less terror to common minds, and would allow of all possible degrees We might perhaps leave more /atitude for those, who doubted whether the History of Adam was to be understood literally.

On the part of our adversaries, (I speak not of Tifidels, for the question is only about different interpretations of scripture amongst those, who ac- knowledge its authority), it might be allowed,

that

190 BOOK IV. xIIv.

that individuals, though #mocent as such, may be, agreeably to what we find in scripture, affected by what is properly the punishment of the community. — That vicious sentiments may descend from parents to children, in a course of Nature, like insanity; and that the »sual acceptation of hereditary does not pretend, in all cases, precisely to distinguish © between the effects of propagation, and living to- gether. That, when it is very probable, from ex- perience and observation, that certain passions vill prevail, it is according to custom of language and feripture, to speak of them as prevalent ; though in each aft of the mind there may be choice, and though the fate of the mind admits of continual amendment,

It seems to me as if those, who follow Taylor, might make these concessions ; and then but little matter of dispute would remain. If any should remain, moderation in carrying it on would be here peculiarly becoming: and it would allo be pratt:- cable; because all parties allow the exifence of evil, the difference 1s, about the manner of accounting for its existence. Aud this 1s a difference, which need not hinder men from uniting in finding and applying remedies for our mental disorders.

XLiv. We now come to the last thing, which is, as before, to consider, whether our researches have made any openings for Improvement, — The great subject of improvement here, must be here- aitary evil, natural and moral. The nature of this, and 1ts particular Laws, should be investigated by a series of experiments. In such investigation, the remedies would be observed with a watchful eye.—

And

© Perhaps it may be from this part of the subjeR, that Au- gustin says, “eo (peccato originali) nihil ad predicandum notius, whil ad iutelligendum secretius.“—(quottd in Encyl.)

BOOK IV. XI Iv. 191

And success in this, would lead to an analysis“ of human sentiments and passions; and to the best methods of regulating them, and producing from them their greatest good.

Improvement might be made in classing texts of scripture, which have any relation to our subje&. Some texts consider the Christian in 7keory, others in practice; and speak of him, accordingly, as good or bad: as free from condemnation * or obnoxious to it. Sometimes man is spoken of as a species, sometimes as an individual. Sometimes the entrance into Christianity means nothing more than mere admission; sometimes it implies all the consequences, which follow from it in the common course of things.—But we shall again have occasion to men- tion this classing; a great deal of dispute has arisen from the want of it.

The denunciations made * on occasion of the of- fence of our first Pareats, with regard to Labour, Agriculture, and Parturition, might afford hints for improvements in those particulars.

Labour might be improved, or the evil of it diminished, by every one’s sharing in it; with a view to health, and other ends; and by improving the condition of those, who earn a subsistence by Labour.—As also by contriving to have incite- ments to labour from some noble or affecting sen- timent; for we know, that, in the warmth of friendship, compassion, emulation, &c. the evil of labour is entirely annihilated. Amongst these in- citements should be, the hope of succels ; to which it would contribute greatly, if the materials were improved on which men labour,

This last thought leads us to improvement in Agriculture. The ground seems to resemble, in

{ome

err 0 2 — ad

ov 8 W

„„ K . _

Pope Se: ons © 7 # w as F […] Wu. A. 9 4. — 2 £ . EE CDI Gd Y

CE. “<F r

. = RW […] ’ 5-7

192 BOOK Iv. ART, IX, SECT. XLV,

some sort, the mind of man: if neglected, it gets over-run with weeds ; but attention and experience shew the best methods of extirpating them, and preventing their growth. The present generation is too well skilled in the methods of improving agriculture, for me to offer any hints concerning that subject.

Nor dare I hazard any particular remarks on the subject of Parturition. I think it does admit of improvement; and some cases have appeared, in which a strong sentiment, particularly that of shame, and a course of healthy activity, have greatly reduced its evils. These are hints of nature, which should be pursued : probably the pain and peril of child-birth” would be diminished as Labour grew more pleasing. And as yet, no particular limit appears, at which the improvement must stop.

XLVv. We may now draw towards a conclusson. And what thought is so natural, after the discussion of our grand, awful, and interesting subject, as this? that the whole History of mankind seems to consist in a departure from original perfection, and a gra- dual return to it. We may recollect what was said about a fate of nature being a state® of war… Supposing man to come out of the hand of his Creator such as he must have been intended to be, his first state would be a state of peace: but he offends, he grows corrupted, his passions grow tur- bulent, he falls into contentions ; his state of undis-

_ ciplined nature becomes a state of war. He gets involved in such evils, that civil sociely becomes necessary for his security: civil society brings on order and discipline, encourages industry and civi- lization; its benefits cause it to be enjoyed; patriotism {prings up in the mind; and the public good is pursued with ardor and affection: the result 1s

peace.

Es Sect, IX,

Peace. — How like to this is the progress of the mind 1n its moral capacity, according to the scrip- tural History so much decried! It sets out from original rig htequsness, falls, becomes depraved, suffers, is made sober ; has recourse to Christianity, is re- gulated by Christian discipline, gets corrected, meli- orated, purified : and becomes, at last, what it was originally intended to be, virtuous and happy.

Is it too visionary to hope, that the Ge pro- gression may, at one time, be experienced in those other things, to which the first dreadful condem- nation related? - Were this to be the case, Labour would become like the animated and generous exertions of the beneficent Hero, or the eager acti- vity of the hunter, or the engaging pursuits of the man of science, and the enthusiastic virtuoso,

Agriculture, by adopting what was useful, in the

field or plantation, and embellishing it with an or- namental simplicity, would make the earth, if not a perfect Eden, a beautiful Garden, delightful to

the senses, as well as replete with salutary nourish-

ment.—And the generations of man would be con- tinued and perpetuated, without danger, pain, or material inconvenience to those, who never appear more amiable than in the maternal character.

VOL. 111. N ARTICLE

4 n Lr * =»

— G YR.” <

R — th, > Pt

— WW + Te

[…] Ca Es — n SIT. 4. -

4 — — . | , - | 3 1 p „ 7% 00 wa fr Rs = . 2 . * Fe * — - = .

kt EY * Canes Sn. F.

n_—_—

ab -” - *

?

J =

— * —_

= l . […] K YE ED

[…] ; * n

p< -

IS

[…] 2 8 2 * * - […] 5 * 0 […] —

I TT

wn

ier

Notes

• Annals, Vol. 1. p. 331.
• Ep. 88, 89. or, in the new order, 156, 157, from and to Hilarius.— See the passages translated in Wall on Infant Bap- tism, p. 179. 2d. Edition, = And in Nicholls on the Article,
• Taylor on Orig. Sin, p. 127.
• Taylor, p. 124, ascribes the corruption of many men to Seth’s posterity intevmarrying with the Cainites, He did not mean to ascribe wickedness to propagation, but he mentions a
• On Orig. Sin, p. 146.
• Talking the language of common life, about good sort of men, &c. 1 seems to exclude this Theory, when it really does not: and this language is in Scripture, as well as in common writings ; it is a language, which may be allowed even to those who are perfectly Orthodox, in the ordinary intercourse of men.—Saying, Fire is hot,“ is allowable in the strictest natural Philosopher ; and his using such common expression on all common occasions, does not hinder his speaking with preci- sion when the case requires it. |
• Mr. Lecke himself is thought to have “ set himself to re- duce the fundamental doctrines of Christianity to the narrowest compass he possibly could.” (See Gibson’s 3d. Past. L. p. 231): — this is scarcely treating the doctrines with sufficient respect, it is being afraid, and almost ashamed of them.
• See Essai sur les moyens de plaire, p. 178. said to be writ- ten by Moncricff, Te: © Sect. XXX11, Gen. iii. 16, 19.