and dreams leading to confusion death and perdiâ—ion dayly cryed up and entertain'd the Lords Prayer Apostles Creed all Sacraments and the 39. Articles antiquated and contemned pernitious doctrines in faith hourly accruing together with an inundation of vices and corrupted manners no faith cut fancy and opinion no hopâ— but presumption no charity but lust no God but an Idol as S. Auâ— said Ep. 64. Homini extra Ecclesiam Religio sua est cultus phantasinatum suorum aut error suus est Deâ—s suus Thus leaving the Dr. Tayl to the reclaiming and detestation of his confused doctrine I come to my main intendment CHAP. II. Of the dismall state of man of his Fall ADam the great Representative of Mankinde and the beginner of a temporal happy life in the first instance of his Creation amongst many other graces and singular endowments did receive from God Original righteousness which is not the same distributive justice one of the cardinal vertues neither that by which we are justified which is called the grace of remission of sins But this Original Justice in Adam is a certain kinde of rectitude in the whole man viz. of the body to the soule and of the sensitive appetite to reason meant by the Ecclesiast in these words Fecit Deus hominem rectum God made man upright and because this rare gift of righteousnesse has been receiv'd by Adam from God and was to be transmitted by original propagation to Adams Posterity if he had not sinned it s fitly called original By this original justice mans will was more firmly fastned to God then by grace for this unites us to our final end as a supernatural good but original righteousness unites to the same as both convenient and delectable and by this rectitude reason became subject to God the inferiour faculties to reason and the body to the soule the first subjection being the cause of the second and third for reason remained subject to God all the inferiour faculties must also remain subject which cannot be unlesse grace be conjoyn'd with original justice and this subjection of the body to the soule and of inferiour faculties to the superiour could not be a natural gift but rather a supernatural otherwise it would have remained in man after his fall whereas in damn'd soules all natural gifts doth still remaine By this supernatural gift superinduc'd Adam had a title and right to heaven which with nature was to be transfused to posteâ—ity if sin had not hindred it but the sin of Adam destroyed his original righteousnesse and lost it to us for ever it corrupted his nature and ours too and the consequent and saddest of all is by it we are borne enemies of God sons of wrath and heirs of eternall damnation carrying and deriving stil a natural pronesse afomes or nest of sin imprinted in our soules despoyled and devested by way of punishment of all the supernatural assistances which God put into our nature being left naked and in pure naturalls depriv'd of any title to heaven that is it hath in it neither strength to live a supernatural life nor title to a heavenly so as the sin which was committed in the original of mankinde by our first parent and which had a sad influence upon all his posterity brought upon Adam and us all that God threatned and no more which is eternal and temporal death with the proper effects and affections of mortality and thus we are formally and properly made sinners by Adam and in him by interpretation we all have sinned and God does truly and justly impute his to us to make us as guilty as he that did it and as much punished and liable to eternal damnation Whereas all the supernatural gifts and eudowments conferr'd on Adam were not conferr'd on him as he was an individual person but as he was a publick representative and common head of all humane nature to be transfused to posterity by a continual series of seminal generation whence original justice comes rightly so to be called neither Adam became obliged to transmit those preternatural gifts to his children by any precept or covenant other then by the same of not eating of the forbidden fruit for we are bound by no other precept to preserve grace then by the same by which we are obliged to observe Gods Law because the Author of nature had power to oblige all mankinde in Adam the fâ—â—st original and head thereof so as that he prevariting all his posterity should likewise be comprehended both in the sin and guilt thereof now the reason of original sin begins to appear But whereas Adam then has been not only all humane nature but also the seed and seminal root thereof in whose loyns all mankinde as in the original head fountain and seminary were comprehended involv'd and included though not formally yet originally radically representatively and seminally by his transgression of the first commandement impos'd under inevitable paine of eternal temporal death brought on himselfe and all mankinde both the guilt of sin and death as S. Aug. hyp art 2. saith Cum Adam peccavit natura in illo tota peccavit When Adam sinned in him all nature likewise have sinned the reason is because that sin was voluntary in order to us Adams posterity whereas for the preservatioâ— of that original righteousnesse besâ—owed upon all humane nature Adams will in a manner was accounted and reputed the will of all mankinde as a Kings will is accounted the will of the whole Kingdom and the will of a Civil Magistrate the will of all the Citizens manifestly expressed by Saint Paul in those words in quo omnes peccaverunt which words have their reference to the man not to the sin for the greek word is the masculine gender as S. Austust understood it lib. de peccatorum merit is cap. 10. his reason is Quia ait omnes homines fuerunt ille unus homo viz. Adam quod intellige non formaliter sed originaliter radicaliter seminaliter representativè quia viz. omnes homines in illo primo homine quasi radice parente principio suo contenti censi comprehensi fuerunt nam quidquid Adam fecit omnes ejus posteri fecisse censentur sicut Rex representat regnum Magistratus Civitatem Of this judgement was Origines Chrysost. Theoph. Occumen and for the most part all the Latine and Greek Fathers If you 'l ask why God was pleas'd that if Adam should sin we his posterity should contract the guilt of his sin I answer that it was done by the occult judgement and decree of God according to S. Aug. l. 5. contra Julia c. 3. S. Bernard Serm. â— de Dominica post oct. Epiphan. And if further you 'l ask why God did place our merit and demerit in the hand and will of Adam to the prejudice as it were of his dominion and power by which he could both doe and decree what ever he pleased I answer with
all the wise and learned The reason was that Adam should be the tâ—pe and figure of Christ in whose hand and will God was pleased to place our happinesse and redemption and that he for us may merit grace and glory as Adam brought upon us the guilt both of sin and punishment Before Adam was created or prevaricated God from all eternity by a conditional omniscient knowledge did foresee all future contingent things and according to the same hath will'd and decreed to certain purposes that both Adam and all his posterity should be in order to Christ and to be as the type and true figure of Christ and of all things that were to be brought to passe by Christ for God was pleas'd to manifest in Christ all his power wisedome and glory and therefore ordain'd and decreed that he should be the origin exemplar and period not only of all elects but also of his works as is clearly put down Coloss. â— 15. So that there has been not only in the real execution but also in the very divine decree of God a mutual contradependency or Anthithesis betwixt Christ and Adam Whereas Adam would not have been the first father origin and representative head of all men for that reason onely that he might transmit or convey either original righteousnesse or sin to his posterity unlesse it should have been to that end that he might be a true type and figure of Christ who was to be the common Father and Redeemer of all Gods Children This comparative Analogy and most rare and specious Antithesis betwixt God and man twixt the Creator and cerature twixt the two great representative heads and beginnings of Sin and Grace the first and second Adam is made manifest by many reasons First Even as the terrene Adam without any Father was framed from incorrupted earth even so the Celestial Adam Christ was conceived and borne by the operation of the Holy Ghost from the ever-blessed Virgin Mary Secondly As Adam was the beginning of an animal and sinfull life so Châ—ist was the true fountain and offspring of a pure spiritual life And thirdly As Eve for the propagation of monkinde was edified from a rib of Adams side even so in Christ the saving Church his Spouse which would dayly engender children for him by meanes of the great Sacraments the conduits of his blood did flow from his sacred side on Mount Calvary And as Adam by eating of the forbidden fruit did transgresse Gods command and therewith brought on all his posterity even before we could know any thing of it sin and death Even so Christ on the fatal beam of the Crosse obeying the commands of his Heavenly Father redeemed and restored us froâ— death to life Finally as through Adams viâ—iated seminal generation we are dayly borne children of wrath and heirs of damation the guilt of sin remaining still occult and hidden Evenso through Baptism institued by Christ we are dayly regeneratâ—d grace still remaining hidden and occult CHAP. III. Where the state of the question depending of the right understanding of Original Sin as touching the true sense and verball signification thereof is held forth COncerning this it will not be amisse in order to many good purposes to observe that Original sin may be considered in order to God and so it may be call'd death wrath and enmity for by it God was induced to punish both Adam and his posterity and in this sense its calleâ— in Scripture ire or wrath so S. Paul Ephes. 2. said that â—e have been by nature childen of wrath which Liâ—a expounds thus we are borne in original sin Secondly It may be compar'd to the Vision Beatifical which is true everlasting life from which original sin doth avert and turn fitly thus it s called death as S. Paul Rom. 5. By the death of one man many are dead and by the sin of one man death reign'd Thus original sin is truly call'd death for that it averted from God true life Thirdly If original sin considered as in order to the soule of man may be call'd infirmity whereas mans soule by it is rendred weak and infirme hardly able to resist illegal and lustful motions and desires This kind of infirmity the Royal Prophet complained of and did acknowledge when he said Miserere mei Domine quia infirmus sum It may likewise not unfitly be called feditas or macula a stain or imperfection for the soule by it is maculated and stain'd according to Jeremi 2. Si laveris te nitro maculata es in iniquitate tua coram me dicit Dominus It may also be called a pronenesse or propension to evill by reason that mans will disrobed of original justice through sin hath incurr'd an innate and genuine propension to sin and evill motions Gen. 6. Cuncta cogitatiâ— cordis intentae est adâ—malum omni tempore It may likewise be called a Vice diminishing natural Vertues whereas all men conceived in original sin doe feel gâ—eat reluctancy to godlinesse c. Finally original sin considered according to its proper sense and meaning hath two parts the one the mateâ—ial part viz. Concupiscence which is a kind of infirm and weak quality the other the formal part viz. the want or privation of original justice due to nature as in the actual sin of wilfull murder two things may be considered a positive thing in the soule viz. a certain deliberate act consented to by the will as is velle occidere this is intrinsecal and is quid materiale but the formal part is the privation or want of the righteousness which ought to be in that act which if had been in it the act could never be a sin So in original sin is included both the guilt of sin and of punishment the guilt of sin because its a privation of original justice a deformity curuity or obliquity in the soule the guilt of punishment which in Infants is term'd concupiscibility and in the adults actual concupiscence Hence we infer that original sin properly doth consist in the privation of original justice due to humane nature received and lost in Adam for sin ' properly is injustice and injustice nothing but the privation of justice Here we may consider that of things some are positive others privative the positive are all reall substances together with their properties and passions powers and faculties imprinted by the Almighty in their nature the privative are those that doth grant and presuppose the absence of some such reall entity as ought to be in the thing and such is sin which proproperly is no existing or real thing or entity but rather the absence of some such substance which ought to be in the creature and although it be inherent in positive things as a meer privation yet it alwayes ought to be really distinguished from them so as that sin is no other then the very want losse or privation of that good which God ingraff'd in the nature of his creature For example
Saviour Christ by whose superabundant grace his faithfull children are cleansed from all sins original and actuall and rendred far more exceeding gratious and glorious then otherwisâ— they should have been Both which effects S. Paul teacheth Rom. 8. v. 12 13 14. concluding this first polâ— with an Appendix that Adaâ— waâ— a figure of Christ to come signifying that as by the sin of Adam we all dyed so by the grace of Christ all his children doe live Touching the other effect viz. abundance of grace by Christ he addeth the great difference saying But not as the offence so also the gifâ— For if by the one mâ—nâ— died much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Jesus Christ hath abounded upon many v. 15. And not as by one sin sâ— also the gift for judgement 〈…〉 of one â—â—condemnation but grace 〈◊〉 of mâ—â—y offeâ—cesâ—â— justification v. 〈◊〉 For if 〈◊〉 the â—â—â—ence of one death reigned by one much more they that receive the abundance of grace and of the donation of justice 〈◊〉 shall reign in life by one Jesus vers. 17. Thus by S. Pauls Doctrine in that place and ver. 18 19. is verified that which the â—ue Church so solemnly singeth in the great Festivity of our redemption O certe necessarium Adae peccacatum quod Christs mirtâ— deletum est And O 〈…〉 culpa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—autum meritum habâ—re â—reâ—demptâ—rem Whereto agree many other passages in the rest of S. Paulâ— Doctrine and the same is brieâ—ly comprised in that which S. John Baptist denounc'd of our blessed Saviour saying Behold the Lamb of God behold him that taketh away the sin of the world That is principally Christ came to take away the general sin which being actual in Adam is original in the whole world and therefore is call'd the sin of the world And the same is the general doctrine of S. John Apost. Evangelist saying If wee walk in the light as God also is in the light and the blood of Jesus his son cleanseth us from all sin first from original then also from actual You may find moreover in S. Luke 10. v. 30. all mankinde devested of grace and wounded in natural faculties by Adams fall for our Saviour in a Parable saith How a certain man went down from Jerusalem unto Jericho and fell among the 〈◊〉 who spoiled him and giving him wounds went away leaving him halfe dead Of no particular man can this Parable be so properly expounded as of all mankinde in general contained in Adam our first Parent who being indued with all necessary gifts narural and supernatural going from Gods commandement yeelded to false imaginations of bettering his state as it were descending from Jerusalem the Vision of peace to Jericho signifying the Moon which is unconstant and mutable fell among theeves the Devils who spoyled and wounded him and left him halfe dead for Adam by sinning and all men in him were spoyled of original justice and all supernatural graces and wounded in natural powers of understanding and fâ—eâ—willâ— not wholly deprived of all but spoyled of the best part and wounded in the rest spiritually dead and subâ—ect both to temporal and eternal death 〈…〉 relicto leâ—t halfe dead and halfe alive though left without help by the Priest and Leviâ—e the Sacrifices and other Ministeries The result of all is this Original sin is no inherent substantial thing in man but a privation of original justice and after the laver of Regeneration and Justification by Baptism sin properly so called is no longer remaining in the regenerate yet still there remaines an inclination unto sin called concupiscence out of which sin notwithstanding cannot be produced but by our negligence and free consent All this is affirmed by many Saints and especially by S. Basil in oratione quod Deus non sit Author malorum S. Epiphanius S. Ambrose Cyprian S. Hierom S. Hilarius S. John Chrysostom c. This Doctrine was decreed in severall general Councels as hereafter shall appear But that Infants were holy from their mothers wombe and may be saved without Baptism and that therefore there is no necessity of the Laver of Regeneraon to wash away original sin was the exprest heresie of Pelagiâ—s this day held forth boldly though covertly by Dr. Tayler which perverse Doctrine was condemned by several Councels First in the East at the first Palestine Councel it was solemnly condemn'd After in the West in Efrick in the Milevitâ—â— Councel it was decreed Can. 2 That whosoever deny Baptism to new-borne Infants or aver that they contract not Original staine and sin from Adam which needeth a Regeneration Anatheâ—ia sit In the 〈◊〉 Councel turned out of Greec◠〈…〉 Pisanus and in the first Constantinople Councel in Simbolo This was decreed in the fourth Councel of Carthage where there met 217. Prelates and most learned Doctors And in the fifth Constantinople Councel Zoara Sâ—us Monachus Severus Anâ—icher Petrus Antichenus and Antymus were as Parabaptists condemned You may read in the sixth Tolletan Councel Can. 2. of the three Divine persons onely the Son of God became man for the Redemption of mankind from the debt of sin originally contracted from Adams inobedience In the second Arausâ—câ—n Councel in France Can. 2. you have what doth follow If any man shall hold that Adams sin hurted him alone and not his Posterity or that only it brought corporal 〈◊〉 not eternal death which is 〈◊〉 the cause of temporal death upon all mankind this man doth great in justice to God and downright contradicts the Apostle S Paul who teacheth that by one man sin came into the world and by sin death and so death was derived to all men Iâ— the Maguntine Councel in Germany Can. 5. we read thus The sin of our first Parent has been conveyed to all men by seminal propagation and draweth along with it punishment so as all men are guilty of Gods enmity and eternal damnation and all are become prone to sin All which Decrees were renewed in the two last general Councels Florentinum Tridentinum which in literis vniouis teacheth thus The soules of those that departed in actual or original sin only doth descend into hell there to be punished though not all alike Therefore neither our Dr. Tayler nor the Anabaptists can without impudent temerity renew or maintain this most pernicious venom of Heresie so often and so solemnly condemned From this uniform ancient Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers Saints and holy Doctors is discover'd that manifest grosse error of Doctor Tayler who doth acknowledge no inlâ—â—â—ent sin but that which is comâ—â—tted by a real proper consent of the will which is such another pitiful mistake as that this word original sin was not used or mentioned in Scripture or Fathers before by S. Augustine invented which is notoriously false whereas this is such another meer illusion as the same of the Arians who denied absolutely the word homusion to be found in
the Gospel But just as those inveterate Hereticks were confuted and convicted so is our modern Dr. Tayler For as in the Gospel we have these words I and my Father are one comes to be the same in substance as if homusion were expresly set down for where the real thing in sense substance is found there the name is included Thus what is more clearly express'd in Scripture then that our first Parent Adam was created upright viz. in a rectitude of vertues grace and faculties by which he was left capable of attaining to that final supernatural end for which he was created and likewise all his Posterity had a just title thereunto while Adam would have had continued in his obedience to God whence the word original justice is derived and evinced which may be called innated connatural native and genuine Justice Even so by S. Paul in many places All men have sinned in Adam and are denounc'd by nature children of wrath and perdition which in expresse significant terms is nothing else then that Adams actual sin has been the natural innated hereditary genuine and linâ—ally descending habitual sin of his posterity contracted by seminal generation from him which in effect is original sin superinduced and conveyed by natural generation by Gods occult decree CHAP. V. The former Doctrine proved out of the Fathers shamefully corrupted by Dr. Tayler IS it possible that a man that pretends not only to be a Christian but a Minister a Preacher of the Word a Doctor and such as is generally counted for a learned and spiritual writer among the Protestants so far to forget himselfe as most shamefully to bring Antiquity it selfe for his Doctrine and particularly those very Authors who were the greatest opposers of his Pelagian Heresie as Chrysostom S. Ignat. Martyr S. Ambrose c. Sure the Dr. cannot gain but dishonour and infamy in alledging Authors for patronage of his Errors the whole straine of whose writings are so directly opposite unto him and his Doctrine and in producing these Doctors as of his minde and judgement he doth but abuse them and they rightly understood accuse him For not one of the passages quoted out of the Fathers by him that give the least shadow of an approbation or countenance to any of those his heretical Assertions neither do I find to my remembrance throughout his whole Treatise of Original Sin one quotation taken either out of Scripture Fathers or modern Interpreters pertinently applied nor any solid thing like an Argument to prove the thing he undertakes to shew as the ingenious Reader shall clearly perceive and that all his Allegations out of Scripture and Fathers help him not at all but rather expresly speak against him Doe but take notice with what Engines doth he draw his Conclusion from the premisses of S. Dioâ—is Areopag his doctrine for nothing doth he say that looks his way but rather against him here are his words lib. de Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 3 p. 3. where he doth ascribe Adams sin to all humane nature and at last giveth a reason for it Quia natura humana cedens fraudibus Satanae vitale jugum excussit I refer the Reader to this place in the Author where he will plainly finde all along the Doctor Tayler impugned he brings S. Ignatius his doctrine to agree with his but its observable that in him there is no syllable to prove how or wherein whereas in his Epistle ad Trallianos he hath thus Christus dilexit nos dans semetipsum pro nobis ut nos sanguine suo mundaret ab antiqua impietate Here lieth the miserable mistake of the Doctor Tayle taking impiety for temporal death which is most absurd and ridiculous for impiety here by the Saint is taken for Adams sin conveyed to mankind for which Christ died S. Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 17. hath these words Delevit Christus Chirographum viz. debita nostra affigens illud cruci uti quemaâ—modum per lignum facti sumus debitores Deo per lignum accipiamus debiti remissionem Are not these words expresly against the Doctors doctrine for out of this Author every relative from Adam descendant has contracted a debt through Adams transgression for every particular individual had obligation in Adam to preserve original righteousnesse and because it was not preserv'd but lost by Adam for him and us his posterity every of us becomes indebted to God for the same which in effect is original sin the which is remitted by the sacred blood of Christ in his Sacrament of Baptism The Reader may finde more to this purpose in this Author l. 3. c. 20. and in S. Aug. lib. 1. contra Julianum c. 2. Tertullian in his Book de anima c. 40. hath Omnis anima eousque in Adam censeâ—ur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu imunda quamdiu recenseatur peccatrix autem quiae imunda Is noâ— this to make every soule a sinner alwayes before Baptism which taketh away the stain of original sin contracted by and in Adam quite contrary to Dr Taylors judgement Origines hom. 8. in Leviticum saith Quaecunque anima in carne nascitur iniquitatis peccati sorde polluitur propter quod dictum est nemo mundus a sorde nec Infans cujus est uuiâ— is diei vita super terram By this Assertion every soule born from Adams flesh is counted polluted with sin and iniquity and every Infant is proved to have the same sin inherent in him which come quite opposit to Dr. Taylers deliration in applying this iniquity and sin here meant by Origines to effects of mortality And S. Eyprian quoted by the Dr. lib. 3. Epist. 8. ad Fidum saith Recens natus nil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae prima nativitate câ—ntraxit this Saint and likewise all the rest by ancient death do mean sin and eternal death whereas from sin came death according to S. Paul stipendium peccati mors the wages of sin is death sin the precedent cause to death the subsequent effect quite contrary to the Doctors dream mistaking temporal death for the eternal I refer the ingenious Reader to S. Athanas in his Sermon upon those words Omnia mihi tradicta sunt c. and to S. Hilarius in explicatione Psal. 32. diligis misericordiam judicium in which places Doctor Taylor is confuted and impugned most manifestly as a pernicious Impostor The Doctor boldly avers that all Antiquity is on his side setting down barely two or three broken ends of Sentences grounding no Argument as indeed he cannot upon those passages for his opinion The Doctor seems rather ambitious to be accounted able to reade a piece of the Fathers Writings then able to understand them he cited the Fathers most impertinently and imperfectly endeavouring to make his owne face and impure Doctrine clean by throwing dirt in great Saints faces He did not like an honourable Guest expect a meal from them but
errour in faith contrary to holy Scripture and the generall approv'd Doctrine of the Church but to hold That Originall sin is not properly and formally but onely metonimically a sin is expresly contrary to holy Scripture and the generall approv'd Doctrine of the Church Ergo c. That it is contrary to the generall approved Doctrine of the Church is already proved out of the Doctrine of the primitive Fathers maintained by Beza de justifie lib. 1. cap. 13. where he saith Omnes homines plane reos nasci contracta jam inde à primo parâ—nte culpa and Calvin hath these expresse words Peccato Adae non per solam imputationem damnamur â—â—sed ideo quia culpae sumus rei quatenus natura nostra in illo vitiata iniquitatis reatu constringitur That it is contrary to Scripture any man that is not purblinde may see in many places especially in S. Paul's Epistle to the Romans c. 5. v. 18 19. Verse 18. As by the offence of one sin came on â—all men to condemnation so by the justifying of one the benefit abounded towards all men to the justification of life And v. 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many also be made righteous The conclusion of Saint Paul's most profound Doctrine concerning his comparison betwixt Christ and Adam begun from the twelfth Verse is fully contained in these two Verses 18 and 19. and his Divine Apostolicall Antithesis perfectly ended and compleated which Apostolicall Antithesis our D. Taylor doth abominably endeavour to cross corrupt and quite overthrow in holding that Original sin conveyed to Adam's Posterity is only figuratively a fin for S. Paul saith expresly that by one mans disobedience many were made sinners which word made sinners cannot be understood figuratively by any solid unbias'd iudgement but rather tisnate And the second Milivetan Councel in the fift age c. 2. CHAP. VII The Objections against the former Doctrine waved FIrst objection S. Chrysostome in some place averreth that none by the sin of our proto parents can be made a sinner excluded from Heaven nor liable to eternal damnation I answer that the Saint did not here exclude absolutly the sin conveyed to mankinde through the transgression of Adam but only did advertise that Adam's posterity were not made sinners upon that account onely that our first parents have committed actual sins but that their posterity also in Adam and along with him have sinned whereas all by the participation of humane nature were one man with Adam and as nature to them is conveyed so is the vice and corruption in nature by them participated for if they had not really sinned in Adam in whom as in the original and seminal root they were vertually involved they could not be made sinners by Adam's actual sin Nullus enim ut recte aiâ— Chysosto ex alieno peccato a se non participato peccator existit Deus in regenerationis lavacro mentem gratia tang it radicale peccatum evellit hominem illustriâ—rem reddit here the Saint calls Original sin washed away by baptismal regeneration radicale peccotum Objection 2. S. August lib. 16. de Civit. dei c. 18. saith we are not properly but originally onely born sinners I answer that S. August is to be understood so as that we are not born sinners by a consented act of our will properly but by the sinful act of Adam's inobedience which had a moral influence on all mankinde to bring on them the guilt of sin Objection 3. Until the Law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed where there is no Law yet death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's actual transgression who is the figure of the Messias This place is ignorantly interpreted by our Doctor thus Death reigned upon them whose sins therefore would not be so imputed as Adam's sin was because there was no Law with an expresse threatning given to them as it was to Adam I answer the same Law that was given with expresse threatning to Adam in Paradise was likewise by interpretation given in him to all his posterity and because Adam transgressed that Law all his posterity with him have transgressed according to those words of S. Paul In quo omnes peccaverunt Hence our Doctor's mistake is detected in not indeavouring to understand how that the same Law that was given to Adam did extend it self to his relative descendants and that not only temporal but also eternal death was threatned both to him and his posterity Objection 4. Taken out of those words of S. Paul By one mans disobedience many were made sinners c. Whence the Dr. Tayler doth strive to prove that if Adam's sin were imputed to his posterity as a guilt of an inherent sin then it should extend to all his posterity but out of this place it doth onely extend to many not to all Ergâ— not Original sin but temporal death is absolutely derived I answer that the B. Apostle doth use both words many and all whereas in the preceding Chapter he expresly averred that Adam's sin and Christs righteousnesse was derived and conveyed to all Adam's posterity and in this verse 19. he avers that only many were made sinners by Adam's inobedience and that by Christs righteousness many also are maderighteous Now I ask who be those that are born sinners from Adam and who be those that are regenerated in Christ through baptisme these are understood to be both all and many They were not all absolutely because Christ and Evae were not made sinners by Adam neither Infidels are by Christ justified but those onely that are in Christ regenerated and those only that are borne by seminal generation from Adam are here meant by the B. Apostle After this manner we may understand those words in Gen. 17. Patrem multarum gentium constitui te in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes c. 22. Where it 's most manifest that those who are promised to Abraham as children are counted in one place many and all in an other because they all are in some sense understood yet not absolutely all if considered in order to all humane kinde 5. Object From the 18th of Ezekel The childe shall not beare the iniquity of the father To this may be opposed another place in Exod the 20. I am a zealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children c. I thus reconcile both these places in answer to the Objection that temporal punishment as the losse of meanes and estates banishment infamy and such like children as being secundum corpus pars patris may justly suffer by the Law for the sins of their parents but eternal punishment of the guilt of sin and an exclusion from Heaven is onely inflicted on them that are properly and really made sinners propria voluntate or aliâ—nae by interpretation