A27059:102
Two disputations of original sin I. of original sin as from Adam, II. of…
Two disputations of original sin I. of original sin as from Adam, II. of original sin as from our nearer parents : written long ago for a more private use, and now published (with a preface) upon the invitation of Dr. T. Tully / by Richard Baxter.Two disputations of original sin I. of original sin as from Adam, II. of original sin as from our neerer parents : written long ago for a more private use, and now published (with a preface) upon the invitation of Dr. T. Tullie / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for Robert Gibbs, 1675
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
5. As [Natural] signifieth that which may be recovered, or maintained by mere natural means; so Original Righteousness is not Natural: for though to Adam it was as natural to the soul as health and beauty to the body, yet 1. He was commanded by supernatural revelation certain positive duties for the exercise and maintaining of it, and for the attainment of salvation, which was its end. 2. And now we are deprived of it, we cannot expect the restoration but by means supernatural: even by Christ, and the Spirit, and supernatural revelations.
5. As [Natural] signifieth that which may be recovered, or maintained by meer natural means; so Original Righteousness is not Natural: for though to Adam it was as natural to the soul as health and beauty to the body, yet 1. He was commanded by supernatural revelation certain positive duties for the exercise and maintaining of it, and for the attainment of salvation, which was its end. 2. And now we are deprived of it, we cannot expect the restoration but by means supernatural: even by Christ, and the Spirit, and supernatural revelations.
And that Original Righteousness is [Natural] so far as I have said, that is, concreated, and should have been propagated to posterity, if not lost by Parents, I shall here prove by several Arguments; because I find Dr. Taylor and others that deny Original sin, do build on this supposition, that Infants are deprived of this Righteousness as some superadded thing; and yet be in puris naturalibus ⟨p. 68⟩without sin. But there is no such state, nor ever was, as a state of pure nature in a rational creature, without holiness or sin; as I prove:
Arg. 1. Man was naturally able and disposed to know God to be God, and his God: go. He was naturally able and disposed to love him as God, and his God: which is the sum of his Original Righteousness.