us formally because it was Vnius inobedientia the disobedience of one man therefore in no sense could it be properly ours 6. Whensoever another mans sin is imputed to his relative therefore because it is anothers and imputed it can go no further but to effect certain evils to afflict the relative but to punish the cause not formally to denominate the descendant or relative to be a sinner for it is as much a contradiction to say that I am formally by him a sinner as that I did really do his action Now to impute in Scripture it signifies to reckon as if he had done it Not to impute is to treate him so as if he had not done it So far then as the imputation is so far we are reckoned as sinners but Adams sin being by the Apostle signified to be imputed but to the condemnation or sentence to a temporal death so far we are sinners in him that is so as that for his sake death was brought upon us And indeed the word imputare to impute does never signifie more nor alwayes so much Imputare verò frequenter ad significationem exprobrantis accedit sed citra reprehensionem sayes Laurentius valla It is like an exprobation but short of a reproof so Quintilian Imput as nobis propitios ventos secundum mare ac civitatis opulentae liberalitatem Thou doest impute that is upbraid to us our prosperous voyages and a calm Sea and the liberality of a rich City Imputare signifies oftentimes the same that computare to reckon or account Nam haec in quartâ non imputantur say the Lawyers they are not imputed that is they are not computed or reckoned Thus Adams sin is imputed to us that is it is put into our reckoning when we are sick and die we pay our Symbols the portion of evil that is laid upon us and what Marcus said I may say in this case with a little variety legata in haereditate sive legatum datum sit haeredi sive percipere sive deducere vel retinere passus est ei imputantur the the legacy whether it be given or left to the heire whether he may take it or keep it is still imputed to him that is it is within his reckoning But no reason no Scripture no Religion does inforce and no divine Attribute does permit that we should say that God did so impute Adams sin to his posterity that he di really esteem them to be guilty of Adams sin equally culpable equally hateful For if in this sense it be true that in him we sinned then we sinn'd as he did that is with the same malice in the same action and then we are as much guilty as he but if we have sinned lesse then we did not sin in him for to sinne in him could not by him be lessen'd to us for what we did in him we did by him and therefore as much as he did but if God imputed this sin lesse to us then to him then this imputation supposes it onely to be a collateral and indirect account to such purposes as he pleased of which purposes we judge by the analogy of faith by the words of Scripture by the proportion and notices of the Divine Attributes 7. There is nothing in the designe or purpose of the Apostle that can or ought to infer any other thing for his purpose is to signifie that by mans sin death entred into the world which the son of Sirach Ecclus. 25. 33. expresses thus à muliere factum est initium peccati inde est quod morimur from the woman is the beginning of sinne and from her it is that we all die and again Ecclus. 1. 24. by the envie of the Devil death came into the world this evil being Universal Christ came to the world and became our head to other purposes even to redeem us from death which he hath begun and will finish and to become to us our Parent in a new birth the Author of a spiritual life and this benefit is of far more efficacy by Christ then the evil could be by Adam and as by Adam we are made sinners so by Christ we are made righteous not just so but so and more and therefore as our being made sinners signifies that by him we die so being by Christ made righteous must at least signifie that by him we live and this is so evident to them who read Saint Pauls words Rom. 5. from verse 12. to verse 19. inclusively that I wonder any man should make a farther question concerning them especially since Erasmus and Grotius who are to be reckoned amongst the greatest and the best expositors of Scripture that any age since the Apostles and their immediat successors hath brought forth have so understood and rendred it But Madam that your Honour may read the words and their sense together and see that without violence they signifie what I have said and no more I have here subjoyned a paraphrase of them in which if I use any violence I can very easily be reproved As by the disobedience of Adam sin had it's beginning and by sin death that is the sentence and preparations the solennities addresses of death sicknesse calamity diminution of strengths Old age misfortunes and all the affections of Mortality for the destroying of our temporall life and so this mortality and condition or state of death pass'd actually upon all mankind for Adam being thrown out of paradise and forc'd to live with his Children where they had no trees of Life as he had in Paradise was remanded to his mortall naturall state and therefore death passed upon them mortally seized on all for that all have sinned that is the sin was reckoned to all not to make them guilty like Adam but Adams sinne passed upon all imprinting this real calamity on us all But yet death descended also upon Adams Posterity for their own sins for since all did sinne all should die And marvell not that Death did presently descend on all mankind even before a Law was given them with an appendant penalty viz. With the expresse intermination of death For they did do actions unnaturall and vile enough but yet these things which afterwards upon the publication of the Law were imputed to them upon their personall account even unto death were not yet so imputed For Nature alone gives Rules but does not directly bind to penalties But death came upon them before the Law for Adams sin for with him God being angry was pleased to curse him also in his Posterity and leave them also in their meere naturall condition to which yet they dispos'd themselves and had deserved but too much by committing evill things to which things although before the law death was not threatned yet for the anger which God had against mankind he left that death which he threatned to Adam expresly by implication to fall upon the Posteritie And therefore it was that death reigned from Adam to
something of it by saying that some speak more of this then the Church of England and Andrew Rivet though unwillingly yet confesses de Confessionibus nostris earum syntagmate vel Harmonia etiamsi in non nullis capitibus non planè conveniant dicam tamen melius in concordiam redigi posse quà m in Ecclesia Romana concordantiam discordantium Canonum quo titulo decretum Gratiani quod Canonistis regulas praefigit solet insigniri And what he affirmes of the whole collection is most notorious in the Article of Original Sin For my own part I am ready to subscribe the first Helvetian confession but not the second So much difference there is in the confessions of the same Church Now whereas your Lordship adds that though they are fallible yet when they bring evidence of holy Writ their assertions are infallible and not to be contradicted I am bound to reply that when they do so whether they be infallible or no I will beleeve them because then though they might yet they are not deceived But as evidence of holy Writ had been sufficient without their authority so without such evidence their authority is nothing But then My Lord their citing and urging the words of S. Paul Rom. 5. 12. is so far from being an evident probation of their Article that nothing is to me a surer argument of their fallibility then the urging of that which evidently makes nothing for them but much against them As 1. Affirming expresly that death was the event of Adam's sin the whole event for it names no other temporal death according to that saying of S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. In Adam we all die And 2. Affirming this process of death to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is and ought to be taken to be the allay or condition of the condemnation It became a punishment to them only who did sin but upon them also inflicted for Adam's sake A like expression to which is in the Psalms Psal. 106. 32 33. They angred him also at the waters of strife so that he punished Moses for their sakes Here was plainly a traduction of evil from the Nation to Moses their relative For their sakes he was punished but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as Moses had sin'd for so it followes because they provoked his spirit so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips So it is between Adam and us He sin'd and God was highly displeased This displeasure went further then upon Adam's sin for though that only was threatned with death yet the sins of his children which were not so threatned became so punished and they were by nature heirs of wrath and damnation that is for his sake our sins inherited his curse The curse that was specially and only threatned to him we when we sin'd did inherit for his sake So that it is not so properly to be called Original Sin as an original curse upon our sin To this purpose we have also another example of God transmitting the curse from one to another Both were sinners but one was the original of the curse or punishment So said the Prophet to the wife of Jeroboam 1 King 14. 16. He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin Jereboam was the root of the sin and of the curse Here it was also that I may use the words of the Apostle that by the sin of one man Jeroboam sin went out into all Israel and the curse captivity or death by sin and so death went upon all men of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men of Israel have sinned If these men had not sinned they had not been punished I cannot say they had not been afflicted for David's childe was smitten for his fathers fault but though they did sin yet unless their root and principal had sinned possibly they should not have so been punish'd For his sake the punishment came Upon the same account it may be that we may inherit the damnation or curse for Adam's sake though we deserve it yet it being transmitted from Adam and not particularly threatned to the first posterity we were his heirs the heirs of death deriving from him an original curse but due also if God so pleased to our sins And this is the full sense of the 12. verse and the effect of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But your Lordship is pleased to object that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does once signifie For as much as yet three times it signifies in or by To this I would be content to submit if the observation could be verified and be material when it were true But besides that it is so used in 2 Cor. 5. 4. your Lordship may please to see it used as not only my self but indeed most men and particularly the Church of England does read it and expound it in Mat. 26. 50. And yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with in or by if it be rendred word for word yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the Scripture signifies for as much as as you may read Rom. 8. 3. Heb. 2. 18. So that here are two places besides this in question and two more ex abundanti to shew that if it were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but said in words expresly as you would have it in the meaning yet even so neither the thing nor any part of the thing could be evicted against me and lastly if it were not only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that that sense of it were admitted which is desired and that it did mean in or by in this very place yet the Question were not at all the nearer to be concluded against me For I grant that it is true in him we are all sinners as it is true that in him we all die that is for his sake we are us'd as sinners being miserable really but sinners in account and effect as I have largely discoursed in my book But then for the place here in question it is so certain that it signifies the same thing as our Church reads it that it is not sense without it but a violent breach of the period without precedent or reason And after all I have looked upon those places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to signifie in or by and in one of them I finde it so Mar. 2. 4. but in Act. 3. 16. Phil. 1. 3. I finde it not at all in any sense but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is used for in or by in that of the Acts and in the other it signifies at or upon but if all were granted that is pretended to it no way prejudices my cause as I have already proved Next to these your Lordship seems a little more zealous and decretory in the Question upon the confidence of the 17
〈◊〉 is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 17. the reign of death this is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 21. the reign of sin in death that is the effect which Adam's sin had was only to bring in the reign of death which is already broken by Jesus Christ and at last shall be quite destroyed But to say that sin here is properly transmitted to us from Adam formally and so as to be inherent in us is to say that we were made to do his action which is a perfect contradiction Now then your Lordship sees that what you note of the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I admit and is indeed true enough and agreeable to the discourse of the Apostle and very much in justification of what I taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a punishment for sin and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes I easily subscribe to it but then take in the words of S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one sin or by the sin of one the curse passed upon all men unto condemnation that is the curse descended from Adam for his sake it was propagated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a real condemnation viz. when they should sin For though this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse of death was threatned only to Adam yet upon Gods being angry with him God resolved it should descend and if men did sin as Adam or if they did sin at all though less then Adam yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse threatned to him should pass 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the same actual condemnation which fell upon him that is it should actually bring them under the reign of death But then my Lord I beseech you let it be considered if this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must suppose a punishment for sin for the sin of him his own sin that is so condemn'd as your Lordship proves perfectly out of Ezek. 18. how can it be just that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation should pass upon us for Adam's sin that is not for his own sin who is so condemn'd but for the sin of another S. Paul easily resolves the doubt if there had been any The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reign of death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned And now why shall we suppose that we must be guilty of what we did not when without any such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is so much guilt of what we did really and personally why shall it be that we die only for Adam's sin and not rather as S. Paul expresly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned since by your own argument it cannot be in as much as all men have not sinned this you say cannot be and yet you will not confess this which can be and which S. Paul affirms to have been indeed as if it were not more just and reasonable to say that from Adam the curse descended unto the condemnation of the sins of the world then to say the curse descended without consideration of their sins but a sin must be imagined to make it seem reasonable and just to condemn us Now I submit it to the judgement of all the world which way of arguing is most reasonable and concluding You my Lord in behalf of others argue thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own Therefore every man is truly guilty of Adam's sin and that becomes his own Against this I oppose mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own therefore it did not pass upon man for Adam's sin because Adam's sin was Adam's not our own But we all have sinned we have sins of our own therefore for these the curse pass'd from Adam to us To back mine besides that common notices of sense and reason defend it I have the plain words of S. Paul Death passed upon all men for as much as all men have sinned all men that is the generality of mankinde all that liv'd till they could sin the others that died before died in their nature not in their sin neither Adam's nor their own save only that Adam brought it in upon them or rather left it to them himself being disrobed of all that which could hinder it Now for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which your Lordship renders clear from sin I am sure no man is so justified in this world as to be clear from sin and if we all be sinners and yet healed as just persons it is certain we are just by imputation only that is Christ imputing our faith and sincere though not unerring obedience to us for righteousness And then the Antithesis must hold thus By Christ comes justification to life as by Adam came the curse or the sin to the condemnation of death But our justification which comes by Christ is by imputation and acceptilation by grace and favour not that we are made really that is legally and perfectly righteous but by imputation of faith and obedience to us as if it were perfect And therfore Adam's sin was but by imputation only to certain purposes not real or proper not formal or inherent For the grace by Christ is more then the sin by Adam if therefore that was not legal and proper but Evangelical and gracious favourable and imputative much more is the sin of Adam in us improperly and by imputation * And truly my Lord I think that no sound Divine of any of our Churches will say that we are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any other sense not that Christs righteousness is imputed to us without any inherent graces in us but that our imperfect services our true faith and sincere endevours of obedience are imputed to us for righteousness through Jesus Christ and since it is certainly so I am sure the Antithesis between Christ and Adam can never be salved by making us sinners really by Adam and yet just or righteous by Christ only in acceptation and imputation For then sin should abound more then grace expresly against the honour of our blessed Saviour the glory of our redemption and the words of S. Paul But rather on the contrary is it true That though by Christ we were really and legally made perfectly righteous it follows not that we were made sinners by Adam in the same manner and measure for this similitude of S. Paul ought not to extend to an equality in all things but still the advantage and prerogative the abundance and the excess must be on the part of Grace for if sin does abound grace does much more abound and we do more partake of righteousness by Christ then of sin by
been a personal but a natural evil I am sure so the Article of our Church affirms it is the fault and corruption of our Nature And so S. Bonaventure affirms in the woâ—ds cited by your Lordship in your Letter Sicui peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis persona ita peccatum origiuis tribuitur ratione naturae Either then the Sacrament must have effect upon our Nature to purifie that which is vitiated by Concupiscence or else it does no good at all For if the guilt or sin be founded in the nature as the Article affirms and Baptism does not take off the guilt from the nature then it does nothing Now since your Lordship is pleas'd in the behalf of the objectors so warily to avoid what they thought pressing I will take leave to use the advantages it ministers for so the Serpent teaches us where to strike him by his so warily and guiltily defending his head I therefore argue thus Either Baptism does not take off the guilt of Original Sin or else there may be punishment where there is no guilt or else natural death was not it which God threatned as the punishment of Adam's fact For it is certain that all men die as well after baptism as before and more after then before That which would be properly the consequent of this Dilemma is this that when God threatned death to Adam saying On the day thou eatest of the tree thou shalt die the death he inflicted and intended to inflict the evils of a troublesome mortal life For Adam did not die that day but Adam began to be miserable that day to live upon hard labour to eat fruits from an accursed field till he should return to the earth whence he was taken Gen. 3. 17 18 19. So that death in the common sense of the word was to be the end of his labour not so much the punishment of the sin For it is probable he should have gone off from the scene of this world to a better though he had not sin'd but if he had not sin'd he should not be so afflicted and he should not have died daily till he had died finally that is till he had returned to his dust whence he was taken and whither he would naturally have gone and it is no new thing in Scripture that miseries and infelicities should be called dying or death Exod. 10. 17. 1 Cor. 15. 31. 2 Cor. 1. 10. 4. 10 11 12. 11. 23. But I only note this as probable as not being willing to admit what the Socinians answer in this argument who affirm that God threatning death to the Sin of Adam meant death eternal which is certainly not true as we learn from the words of the Apostle saying In Adam we all die which is not true of death eternal but it is true of the miseries and calamities of mankinde and it is true of temporal death in the sense now explicated and in that which is commonly received But I add also this probleme That which would have been had there been no sin and that which remains when the sin or guiltiness is gone is not properly the punishment of the sin But dissolution of the soul and body should have been if Adam had not sin'd for the world would have been too little to have entertain'd those myriads of men which must in all reason have been born from that blessing of Increase and multiply which was given at the first Creation and to have confin'd mankinde to the pleasures of this world in case he had not fallen would have been a punishment of his innocence but however it might have been though God had not been angry and shall still be even when the sin is taken off The proper consequent of this will be that when the Apostle sayes Death came in by sin and that Death is the wages of sin he primarily and literally means the solemnities and causes and infelicities and untimeliness of temporal death and not meerly the dissolution which is directly no evil but an inlet to a better state But I insist not on this but offer it to the consideration of inquisitive and modest persons And now that I may return thither from whence this objection brought me I consider that if any should urge this argument to me Baptism delivers from Original Sin Baptism does not deliver from Concupiscence therefore Concupiscence is not Original Sin I did not know well what to answer I could possibly say something to satisfie the boyes young men at a publique disputation but not to satisfie my self when I am upon my knees and giving an account to God of all my secret and hearty perswasions But I consider that by Concupiscence must be meant either the first inclinations to their object or the proper acts of Election which are the second acts of Concupiscence If the first inclinations be meant then certainly that cannot be a sin which is natural and which is necessary For I consider that Concupiscence and natural desires are like hunger which while it is natural and necessary is not for the destruction but conservation of man when it goes beyond the limits of nature it is violent and a disease and so is Concupiscence But desires or lustings when they are taken for the natural propensity to their proper object are so far from being a sin that they are the instruments of felicity for this duration and when they grow towards being irregular they may if we please grow instruments of felicity in order to the other duration because they may serve a vertue by being restrained And to desire that to which all men tend naturally is no more a sin then to desire to be happy is a sin desire is no more a sin then joy or sorrow is neither can it be fancied why one passion more then another can be in its whole nature Criminal either all or none are so when any of them growes irregular or inordinate Joy is as bad as Desire and Fear as bad as either But if by Concupiscence we mean the second acts of it that is avoidable consentings and deliberate elections then let it be as much condemned as the Apostle and all the Church after him hath sentenc'd it but then it is not Adam's sin but our own by which we are condemned for it is not his fault that we choose If we choose it is our own if we choose not it is no fault For there is a natural act of the Will as well as of the Understanding and in the choice of the supreme Good and in the first apprehension of its proper object the Will is as natural as any other faculty and the other faculties have degrees of adherence as well as the Will so have the potestative and intellective faculties they are delighted in their best objects But because these only are natural and the will is natural sometimes but not alwaies there it is that a difference can be For I consider
who are of the other side doe and will disavow most of these consequences and so doe all the World all the evils which their adversaries say do follow from their opinions but yet all the World of men that perceive such evills to follow from a proposition think themselves bound to stop the progression of such opinions from whence they beleeve such evils may arise If the Church of Rome did believe that all those horrid things were chargable upon Transubstantiation and upon worshipping of Images which we charge upon the Doctrines I doe not doubt but they would as much disowne the Proposition as now they doe the consequents and yet I doe as little doubt but that we do well to disown the first because we espy the latter and though the Man be not yet the doctrines are highly chargable with the evils that follow it may be the men espy them not yet from the doctrines they do certainly follow and there are not it the World many men who owne that is evil in the pretence but many doe such as are dangerous in the effect and this doctrine which I have reproved I take to be one of them Object 4. But if Originall sinne be not a sinne properly why are children baptized and what benefit comes to them by baptisme I Answer as much as they need and are capable of and it may as well be asked Why were all the sons of Abraham circumcised when in that Covenant there was no remission of sins at all for little things and legal impurities and irregularities there were but there being no sacrifice there but of beasts whose blood could not take away sinne it is certaine and plainly taught us in Scripture that no Rite of Moses was expiatory of sinnes But secondly This Objection can presse nothing at all for why was Christ baptized who knew no sinne But yet so it behoved him to fulfill all Righteousnesse 3. Baptisme is called regeneration or the new birth and therefore since in Adam Children are borne onely to a naturall life and a Naturall death and by this they can never arrive at Heaven therefore Infants are baptized because untill they be borne anew they can never have title to the Promises of Jesus Christ or be heirs of heaven and coheir's of Jesus 4. By Baptisme Children are made partakers of the holy Ghost and of the grace of God which I desire to be observed in opposition to the Pelagian Heresy who did suppose Nature to be so perfect that the Grace of God was not necessary and that by Nature alone they could go to heaven which because I affirm to be impossible and that Baptisme is therfore necessary because nature is insufficient and Baptisme is the great chanel of grace there ought to be no envious and ignorant load laid upon my Doctrine as if it complied with the Pelagian against which it is so essentially and so mainly opposed in the main difference of his Doctrine 5. Children are therefore Baptized because if they live they will sinne and though their sins are not pardoned before hand yet in Baptisme they are admitted to that state of favour that they are within the Covenant of repentance and Pardon and this is expresly the Doctrine of St. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concup cap. 26. cap. 33. tract 124. in Johan But of this I have already given larger accounts in my Discourse of Baptisme part 2 p. 194. in the great Exemplar 6. Children are baptized for the Pardon even of Originall sin this may be affirmed truly but yet improperly for so far as it is imputed so farr also it is remissible for the evill that is done by Adam is also taken away in Christ and it is imputed to us to very evill purposes as I have already explicated but as it was among the Jewes who believed then the sinne to be taken away when the evill of punishment is taken off so is Originall sinne taken away in Baptisme for though the Material part of the evill is not taken away yet the curse in all the sons of God is turn'd into a blessing and is made an occasion of reward or an entrance to it Now in all this I affirme all that is true and all that is probable for in the same sense as Originall staine is a sinne so does Baptisme bring the Pardon It is a sinne metonymically that is because it is the effect of one sinne and the cause of many and just so in baptisme it is taken away that it is now the matter of a grace and the opportunity of glory and upon these Accounts the Church Baptizes all her Children Object 5. But to deny Originall sinne to be a sinne properly and inherently is expressly against the words of S. Paul in the 5. Chapter to the Romanes If it bee I have done but that it is not I have these things to say 1. If the words be capable of any interpretation and can be permitted to signifie otherwise then is vulgarly pretended I suppose my self to have given reasons sufficient why they ought to be For any interpretation that does violence to right Reason to Religion to Holinesse of life and the Divine Attributes of God is therefore to be rejected and another chosen For in all Scriptures all good and all wise men doe it 2. The words in question sin and sinner and condemnation are frequently used in Scripture in the lesser sense and sin is taken for the punishment of sin and sin is taken for him who bore the evil of the sinne and sin is taken for legal impurity and for him who could not be guilty even for Christ himself as I have proved already and in the like manner sinners is used by the rule of Conjugates and denominatives but it is so also in the case of Bathsheba the Mother of Solomon 3. For the word condemnation it is by the Apostle himself limited to signifie his temporal death for when the Apostle sayes Death passed upon all men in as much as all men have sinned he must mean temporal death for eternal death did not passe upon all men and if he means eternal death he must not mean that it came for Adams sin but in as much as all men have sinned that is upon all those upon whom eternal death did come it came because they also have sinned 4. The Apostle here speaks of sin imputed therefore not of sin inherent and if imputed onely to such purposes as he here speaks of viz. to temporal death then it is neither a sin properly nor yet imputable to Eternal death so far as is or can be inplyed by the Apostles words 5. The Apostles sayes by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so that it appears that we in this have no sin of our own neither is it at all our own formally and inherently for though efficiently it was his and effectively ours as to certain purposes of imputation yet it could not be a sin to
pleased with them who offer to lead them out of it But your Lordship doth with great advantages represent an objection of some captious persons which relates not to the material part of the Question but to the rules of art If there be no such thing as Original Sin transmitted from Adam to his posterity then all that sixth chapter is a strife about a shadow a Non ens A. It is true my Lord the Question as it is usually handled is so For when the Franciscan and Dominican do eternally dispute about the conception of the Blessed Virgin whether it was with or without Original Sin meaning by way of grace and special exemption this is de non ente for there was no need of any such exemption and they supposing that commonly it was otherwise troubled themselves about the exception of a Rule which in that sense which the suppos'd it was not true at all she was born as innocent from any impurity or formal guilt as Adam was created and so was her Mother and so was all her family * When the Lutheran and the Roman dispute whether justice and original righteousness in Adam was Natural or by Grace it is de non ente for it was positively neither but negatively only he had original righteousness till he sin'd that is he was righteous till he became unrighteous * When the Calvinist troubles himself and his Parishioners with fierce declamations against natural inclinations or concupiscence and disputes whether it remains in baptized persons or whether it be taken off by Election or by the Sacrament whether to all Christians or to some few this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is no sin at all in persons baptiz'd or unbaptiz'd till it be consented to My Lord when I was a young man in Cambridge I knew a learned professor of Divinity whose ordinary Lectures in the Lady Margarets Chair for many years together nine as I suppose or thereabouts were concerning Original Sin and the appendant questions This indeed could not choose but be Andabatarum conflictus But then my discourse representing that these disputes are uselesse and as they discourse usually to be de non ente is not to be reprov'd For I professe to evince that many of those things of the sense of which they dispute are not true at all in any sense I declare them to be de non ente that is I untie their intricate knots by cutting them in pieces For when a false proposition is the ground of disputes the process must needs be infinite unless you discover the first error He that tels them they both fight about a shadow and with many arguments proves the vanity of their whole processe they if he saies true not he is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * When S. Austine was horribly puzled about the traduction of Original Sin and thought himself forc'd to say that either the Father begat the soul or that he could not transmit sin which is subjected in the soul or at least he could not tell how it was transmitted he had no way to be relieved but by being told that Original Sin was not subjected in the soul because properly and formally it was no reall sin of ours at all but that it was only by imputation and to certain purposes not any inherent quality or corruption and so in effect all his trouble was de non ente * But now some wits have lately risen in the Church of Rome and they tell us another story The soul followes the temperature of the body and so Original Sin comes to be transmitted by contact because the constitution of the body is the fomes or nest of the sin and the souls concupiscence is deriv'd from the bodies lust But besides that this fancy disappears at the first handling and there would be so many Original Sins as there are several constitutions and the guilt would not be equal and they who are born Eunuchs should be lesse infected by Adam's pollution by having lesse of concupiscence in the great instance of desires and after all concupiscence it self could not be a sin in the soul till the body was grown up to strength enough to infect it Besides all this I say while one does not know how Original Sin can be derived and another who thinks he can names a wrong way and both the waies infer it to be another kinde of thing then all the Schools of learning teach and in the whole process it must be an impossible thing because the instrument which hath all its operations by the force of the principal agent cannot of it self produce a great change and violent effect upon the principal agent does it not too clearly demonstrate that all that infinite variety of fancies agreeing in nothing but in an endless uncertainty is nothing else but a being busie about the quiddities of a dream and the constituent parts of a shadow But then My Lord my discourse representing all this to be vanity and uncertainty ought not to be call'd or suppos'd to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he that ends the question between two Schoolmen disputing about the place of Purgatory by saying they need not trouble themselves about the place for that which is not hath no place at all ought not to be told he contends about a shadow when he proves that to be true which he suggested to the two trifling litigants But as to the thing it self I do not say there is no such thing as Original Sin but it is not that which it is supposed to be it is not our sin formally but by imputation only and it is imputed so as to be an inlet to sickness death and disorder but it does not introduce a necessity of sinning nor damn any one to the flames of Hell So that Original Sin is not a Non ens unless that be nothing which infers so many real mischiefs The next thing your Lordship is pleas'd to note to me is that in your wisdome you foresee some will argue against my explication of the word Damnation in the ninth Article of our Church which affirms that Original Sin deserves damnation Concerning which My Lord I do thus and I hope fairly acquit my self 1. That it having been affirmed by S. Austin that Infants dying unbaptized are damn'd he is deservedly called Durus pater Infantum and generally forsaken by all sober men of the later ages and it will be an intolerable thing to think the Church of England guilty of that which all her wiser sons and all the Christian Churches generally abhorre I remember that I have heard that King James reproving a Scottish Minister who refus'd to give private Baptism to a dying Infant being askt by the Minister if he thought the childe should be damn'd for want of Baptism answer'd No but I think you may be damn'd for refusing it and he said well But then my Lord If Original Sin deserves damnation then may Infants be damn'd if
that they will give me my liberty because I will not be tied to him that speaks contrary things to himself and contrary to them that went before him and though he was a rare person yet he was as fallible as any of my brethren at this day He was followed by many ignorant ages and all the world knowes by what accidental advantages he acquired a great reputation but he who made no scruple of deserting all his predecessors must give us leave upon the strength of his own reasons to quit his authority All that I shall observe is this that the Doctrine of Original Sin as it is explicated by S. Austin had two parents one was the Doctrine of the Encratites and some other Hereticks who forbad Marriage and supposing it to be evill thought they were warranted to say it was the bed of sin and children the spawn of vipers and sinners And S. Austin himself and especially S. Hierom whom your Lordship cites speaks some things of marriage which if they were true then marriage were highly to be refused as being the increaser of sin rather then of children and a semination in the flesh and contrary to the spirit and such a thing which being mingled with sin produces univocal issues the mother and the daughter are so like that they are the worse again For if a proper inherent sin be effected by chaste marriages then they are in this particular equal to adulterous embraces and rather to be pardoned then allowed and if all Concupiscence be vicious then no marriage can be pure These things it may be have not been so much considered but your Lordship I know remembers strange sayings in S. Hierom in Athenag or as and in S. Austin which possibly have been countenanced and maintained at the charge of this opinion But the other parent of this is the zeal against the Pelagian Heresie which did serve it self by saying too little in this Article and therefore was thought fit to be confuted by saying too much and that I conjecture right in this affair I appeal to the words which I cited out of S. Austin in the matter of Concupiscence concerning which he speaks the same thing that I do when he is disingaged as in his books De eivitate Dei but in his Tractate de peccatorum meritis remissione which was written in his heat against the Pelagians he speaks quite contrary And who ever shall with observation read his one book of Original Sin against Pelagius his two books de Nuptiis Concupiscentia to Valerius his three books to Marcellinus de peccatorum meritis remissione his four books to Boniface contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum his six books to Claudius against Julianus and shall think himself bound to beleeve all that this excellent man wrote will not only finde it impossible he should but will have reason to say that zeal against an error is not alwaies the best instrument to finde our truth The same complaint hath been made of others and S. Jerome hath suffer'd deeply in the infirmity I shall not therefore trouble your Lordship with giving particular answers to the words of S. Jerom and S. Ambrose because besides what I have already said I do not think that their words are an argument fit to conclude against so much evidence nor against a much less then that which I have every where brought in this Article though indeed their words are capable of a fair interpretation and besides the words quoted out of S. Ambrose are none of his and for Aquinas Lombard and Bonaventure your Lordship might as well press me with the opinion of Mr. Calvin Knox and Buchannan with the Synod of Dort or the Scots Presbyteries I know they are against me and therefore I reprove them for it but it is no disparagement to the truth that other men are in error And yet of all the Schoolmen Bonaventure should least have been urg'd against me for the proverbs sake for Adam non peccavit in Bonaventura Alexander of Hales would often say that Adam never sin'd in Bonaventure But it may be he was not in earnest no more am I. The last thing your Lordship gives to me in charge in the behalf of the objectors is that I would take into consideration the Covenant made between Almighty God and Adam as relating to his posterity To this I answer that I know of no such thing God made a covenant with Adam indeed and us'd the right of his dominion over his posterity and yet did nothing but what was just but I finde in Scripture no mention made of any such Covenant as is dreamt of about the matter of original sin only the Covenant of works God did make with all men till Christ came but he did never exact it after Adam but for a Covenant that God should make with Adam that if he stood all his posterity should be I know not what and if he fell they should be in a damnable condition of this I say there is nec vola nec vestigium in holy Scripture that ever I could meet with if there had been any such covenant it had been but equity that to all the persons interessed it should have been communicated and caution given to all who were to suffer and abilities given to them to prevent the evil for else it is not a Covenant with them but a decree concerning them and it is impossible that there should be a covenant made between two when one of the parties knowes nothing of it I will enter no further into this enquiry but only observe that though there was no such covenant yet the event that hapned might without any such covenant have justly entred in at many doors It is one thing to say that God by Adam's sin was moved to a severer entercourse with his posterity for that is certainly true and it is another thing to say that Adam's sin of it self did deserve all the evill that came actually upon his children Death is the wages of sin one death for one sin but not 10000 millions for one sin but therefore the Apostle affirms it to have descended on all in as much as all men have sin'd But if from a sinning Parent a good childe descends the childs innocence will more prevail with God for kindness then the fathers sin shall prevail for trouble Non omnia parentum peccata dii in liberos convertunt sed siquis de malo nascitur bonus tanquam benè affectus corpore natus de morboso is generis pana liberatur tanquam ex improbitatis domo in aliam familâ—am datus qui vero morbo in similitudinem generis refertur atque redigitur vitiosi ei nimirum convenit tanquam haeredi debitas poeas vitii persolvere said Plutarch De iis qui sero à Numine puniuntur ex interpr Cluserii God does not alwaies make the fathers sins descend upon the children But if a good childe is born of a bad father like
a healthful body from an ill affected one he is freed from the punishment of his stock and passes from the house of wickedness into another family But he who inherits the disease he also must be heir of the punishment Quorum natura amplexa est cognatam malitiam hos Justitia similitudinem pravitatis persequens supplicio affecit if they pursue their kindreds wickedness they shall be pursued by a cognation of judgement Other waies there are by which it may come to pass that the sins of others may descend upon us He that is author or the perswader the minister or the helper the approver or the follower may derive the sins of others to himself but then it is not their sins only but our own too and it is like a dead taper put to a burning light and held there this derives light and flames from the other and yet then hath it of its own but they dwell together and make one body These are the waies by which punishment can enter but there are evils which are no punishments and they may come upon more accounts by Gods Dominion by natural consequence by infection by destitution and dereliction for the glory of God by right of authority for the institution or exercise of the sufferers or for their more immediate good But that directly and properly one should be punish'd for the sins of others was indeed practised by some Common-wealths Utilitatis specie saepissimè in repub peccari said Cicero they do it sometimes for terror and because their waies of preventing evil is very imperfect and when Pedianus secundus the Pretor was kill'd by a slave all the family of them was kill'd in punishment this was secundum veterem morem said Tacit. Annal. 14. for in the slaughter of Marcellus the slaves fled for fear of such usage it was thus I say among the Romans but habuit aliquid iniqui and God forbid we should say such things of the fountain of Justice and mercy But I have done and will move no more stones but hereafter carry them as long as I can rather then make a noise by throwing them down I shall only add this one thing I was troubled with an objection lately for it being propounded to me why it is to be beleeved that the sin of Adam could spoil the nature of man and yet the nature of Devils could not be spoiled by their sin which was worse I could not well tell what to say and therefore I held my peace THE END An Advertisement to the Reader PAg. 8 9 there are seven lines misplaced which are to be read thus pag. 8. lin 16. read till the body was grown up to strength enough to infect it and in the whole process it must be an impossible thing because the instrument which hath all its operations by the force of the principal agent cannot of it self produce a great change and violent effect upon the principal agent Besides all this I say while one does not know how Original Sin can be derived and another who thinks he can names a wrong way and both the waies infer it to be another kinde of thing then all the Schools of learning teach does it not too clearly demonstrate The names of several Treatises and Sermons written by Jer. Taylor D.D. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Course of Sermons for all the Sundaies in the year together with a Discourse of the Divine Institution Necessity and Separation of the Office Ministerial in fol. 2. Episcopacy asserted in 4. 3. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ 2. Edit in fol. 4. The Liberty of Prophesying in 4. 5. An Apologie for authorised and Set-formes of Liturgie in 4. 6. The Rule and Exercises of holy living in 12. 7. The Rule and Exercises of holy dying in 12. 8. The Golden Grove or A Manual of daily Prayers fitted to the daies of the week together with a short Method of Peace and Holiness 9. The Doctrine an practice of repentance rescued from popular Errors in a large 8. Newly published Books written by H. Hammond D. D. A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Test. by H. Hammond D.D. in fol. 2. The Practical Catechism with all other English Treatises of H. Hammond D. D. in two volumes in 4. 3. Dissertions quatuor quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur contra sententiam D. Blondelli aliorum Authore Henrico Hammond in 4. 4. A Letter of Resolution of six Queries in 12. 5. Of Schism A Defence of the Church of England against the Exceptions of the Romanists in 12. 6. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to practice by H. Hammond D. D. in 12. 7. Six books of late Controversie in defence of the Church of England in two volumes in 4. newly published Books newly published Doctor Cousins Devotions in 12. The persecuted Ministery by William Langley late of St. Maries in the City of Liechfield Minister in 4. A Discourse of Auxiliary Beauty or Artificial Handsomenesse In point of Conscience between two Ladies in 8. Lyford's Legacy or an help to young People Preparing them for the worthy receiving of the Lords Supper in 12. The Principles of Holy Christian Religion or the Catechism of the Church of England paraphrazed By R. Sherlock B. D. at Borwick Hall in Lancashire in 8. A Discourse 1. Of the Holy Spirit of God His Impressions and workings on the Souls of Men. 2. Of Divine Revelation Mediate and Immediate 3. Of Error Heresie and Schism the Nature Kindes Causes Reasons and Dangers thereof with directions for avoiding the same By R. Sherlock B. D. in 4. THE END Sueton. in vita liber c 54. Instit. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 7. Vind. Grat. l. 1. p. 1. digres 4. c. 3. Disp. 18. Inst. lib. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 23. Lib. 1. ad Bonifac. c. 2 Doctr. and Pract. of Repent Plinius ep 12.lib Psal. 56. by Bp. King Boeth lib. 3. Metr 1. 1 Kings 1. 21. Zech. 14. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Isai. 53. 10. Hebr. 9. 28. 1 Kings 1. 21. Rom. 5. 12. As by one man sinne entred into the world and Death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned 13. For untill the law sin was in the World but sin is not imputed where there is no law 14. Neverthelesse death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression who is the figure of him which was to come 15. But not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many 16. And not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift for the judgement was by one to condemnation but the free gift is of many offences unto justification 17. For if by one offence so it is in the Kings MS. or if by one mans offence death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous
he was permitted to the power of his enemy that betray'd him and put under the power of his body whose appetites would govern him and when they would grow irregular could not be mastered by any thing that was about him or born with him so that his case was miserable and naked and his state of things was imperfect and would be disordered But now Madam things being thus bad are made worse by the superinduced Doctrines of men which when I have represented to your Ladiship and told upon what accounts I reprove them your Honour will finde that I have reason There are one sort of Calvins Scholars whom we for distinctions sake call Supralapsarians who are so fierce in their sentences of predestination and reprobation that they say God look'd upon mankinde onely as his Creation and his slaves over whom he having absolute power was very gracious that he was pleased to take some few and save them absolutely and to the other greater part he did no wrong though he was pleased to damn them eternally onely because he pleased for they were his own and Qui jure suo utitur nemini facit injuriam saies the law of reason every one may do what he please with his own But this bloody and horrible opinion is held but by a few as tending directly to the dishonour of God charging on Him alone that He is the cause of mens sins on Earth and of mens eternal torments in Hell it makes God to be powerfull but his power not to be good it makes him more cruel to men then good men can be to Dogs and sheep it makes him give the final sentence of Hell without any pretence or colour of justice it represents him to be that which all the World must naturally fear and naturally hate as being a God delighting in the death of innocents for so they are when he resolves to damn them and then most tyrannically cruel and unreasonable for it saies that to make a postnate pretence of justice it decrees that men inevitably shall sin that they may inevitably but justly be damned like the Roman Lictors who because they could not put to death Sejanus daughters as being Virgins defloured them after sentence that by that barbarity they might be capable of the utmost Cruelty it makes God to be all that thing that can be hated for it makes him neither to be good nor just nor reasonable but a mighty enemy to the biggest part of mankinde it makes him to hate what himself hath made and to punish that in another which in himself he decreed should not be avoided it charges the wisdom of God with folly as having no means to glorifie his justice but by doing unjustly by bringing in that which himself hates that he might do what himself loves doing as Tiberius did to Brutus and Nero the Sons of Germanicus Variâ fraude induxit ut concitarentur ad convitia et concitati perderentur provoking them to raise that he might punish their reproachings This opinion reproaches the words and the Spirit of Scripture it charges God with Hypocrisy and want of Mercy making him a Father of Cruelties not of Mercie and is a perfect overthrow of all Religion and all Lawes and all Goverment it destroyes the very being and nature of all Election thrusting a man down to the lowest form of beasts and birds to whom a Spontaneity of doing certain actions is given by God but it is in them so naturall that it is unavoidable Now concerning this horrid opinion I for my part shall say nothing but this that he that sayes there was no such man as Alexander would tell a horrible lie and be injurious to all story and to the memory and fame of that great Prince but he that should say It is true there was such a man as Alexander but he was a Tyrant and a Blood-sucker cruel and injurious false and dissembling an enemy of mankind and for all the reasons of the world to be hated and reproached would certainly dishonour Alexander more and be his greatest enemy So I think in this That the Atheists who deny there is a God do not so impiously against God as they that charge him with foul appellatives or maintain such sentences which if they were true God could not be true But these men Madam have nothing to do in the Question of Originall Sin save onely that they say that God did decree that Adam should fall and all the sins that he sinn'd and all the world after him are no effects of choice but of predestination that is they were the actions of God rather then man But because these men even to their brethren seem to speak evil things of God therefore the more wary and temperat of the Calvinists bring down the order of reprobation lower affirming that God looked upon all mankind in Adam as fallen into his displeasure hated by God truly guilty of his sin liable to Eternal damnation and they being all equally condemned he was pleased to separate some the smaller number far and irresistibly bring them to Heaven but the far greater number he passed over leaving them to be damned for the sin of Adam and so they think they salve Gods Justice and this was the designe and device of the Synod of Dort Now to bring this to passe they teach concerning Original sin 1. That by this sin our first Parents fell from their Original righteousnesse and communion with God and so became dead in sinne and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body 2. That whatsoever death was due to our first Parents for this sin they being the root of all mankinde and the guilt of this sin being imputed the same is conveied to all their posterity by ordinary generation 3. That by this Original corruption we are utterly indisposed disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evill and that from hence proceed all actual trangressions 4. This corruption of nature remaines in the regenerate and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified yet both it self and all the motions thereof are trulie and properly sin 5. Original sin being a transgression of the righteous Law of God and contrary thereunto doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the Law and so made subject to death with all miseries spiritual temporall and eternal These are the sayings of the late Assembly at Westminster Against this heap of errors and dangerous propositions I have made my former discoursings and statings of the Question of Original sin These are the Doctrines of the Presbyterian but as unlike truth as his assemblies are to our Church for concerning him I may say Nemo tam propè proculque nobis He is the likest and the unlikest to a Son of our Church in the world he is neerest to us and furthest from us and to all the world abroad
proposition the discovery of which in truth will not make recompence for the pratling of disagreeing Persons Truth and Peace make an excellent yoke but the truth of God is alwayes to be preferred before the Peace of men and therefore our Blessed Saviour came not to send Peace but a sword That is he knew his doctrine would cause great devisions of heart but yet he came to perswade us to Peace and Unity Indeed if the truth be cleare and yet of no great effect in the lives of men in government or in the honour of God then it ought not to break the Peace That is it may not run out of its retirement to disquiet them to whom their rest is better then that knowledge But if it be brought out already it must not be deserted positively though peace goes away in its stead So that peace is rather to be deserted then any truth should be renounced or denied but Peace is rather to be procured or continued then some truth offer'd This is my sence Madam when the case is otherwise then I suppose it to be at present For as for the present case there must be two when there is a falling out or a peace broken and therefore I will secure it now for let any man dissent from me in this Article I will not be troubled at him he may doe it with liberty and with my charity If any man is of my opinion I confesse I love him the better but if he refutes it I will not love him lesse after then I did before but he that dissents and reviles me must expect from me no other kindness but that I forgive him and pray for him and offer to reclaim him and that I resolve nothing shall ever make me either hate him or reproach him and that still in the greatest of his difference I refuse not to give him the communion of a Brother I believe I shall be chidden by some or other for my easinesse and want of fierceness which they call Zeal but it is a fault of my nature a part of my Original sin Vnicuique dedit vitium Natura Creato Mî Natura aliquid semper amare dedit Propert. Some weaknesse to each man by birth descends To me too great a kindnesse Nature lends But if the Peace can be broken no more then thus I suppose the truth which I publish will do more then make recompence for the noise that in Clubs and Conventicles is made over and above So long as I am thus resolved there may be injury done to me but there can be no duell or losse of Peace abroad For a single anger or a displeasure on one side is not a breach of peace on both and a Warre cannot be made by fewer then a bargain can in which alwaies there must be two at least Object 3. But as to the thing If it be inquired 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what profit what use what edification is there what good to souls what honour to God by this new explication of the Article I answer that the usuall Doctrines of Originall sinne are made the great foundation of the horrible proposition concerning absolute Reprobation the consequences of it◠reproach God with injustice they charge God foolishly and deny his Goodness and his Wisdom in many instances and whatsoever can upon the account of the Divine Attributes be objected against the fierce way of Absolute Decrees all that can be brought for the reproof of their usuall Propositions concerning Originall sinne For the consequences are plaine and by them the necessity of my Doctrine and its usefulnesse may be understood For 1. If God decrees us to be born sinners Then he makes us to be sinners and then where is his goodnesse 2. If God does damne any for that he damnes us for what we could not help and for what himself did and then where is his Justice 3. If God sentence us to that Damnation which he cannot in justice inflict where is his Wisdome 4. If God for the sinne of Adam brings upon us a necessity of sinning where is our liberty where is our Nature what is become of all Lawes and of all Vertue and vice How can men be distinguish'd from Beasts or the Vertuous from the vitious 5. If by the fall of Adam we are so wholly ruined in our faculties that we cannot do any good but must do evill how shall any man take care of his wayes or how can it be supposed he should strive against all vice when he can excuse so much upon his Nature or indeed how shall he strive at all for if all actual sins are derived from the Originall and then is unavoidable and yet an Unresistable cause then no man can take care to avoid any actuall sinne whose cause is naturall and not to be declined And then where is his providence and Government 6. If God does cast Infants into Hell for the sinne of others and yet did not condemne Devills but for their owne sinne where is his love to mankind 7. If God chooseth the death of so many Millions of Persons who are no sinners upon their own stock and yet sweares that he does not love the death of a sinner viz. sinning with his owne choice how can that be credible he should love to kill Innocents and yet should love to spare the Criminall where then is his Mercie and where is his Truth 8. If God hath given us a Nature by derivation which is wholly corrupted then how can it be that all which God made is good for though Adam corrupted himself yet in propriety of speaking we did not but this was the Decree of God and then where is the excellency of his providence and Power where is the glory of the Creation Because therefore that God is all goodness and justice and wisedome and love and that he governs all things and all men wisely and holily and according to the capacities of their natures and Persons that he gives us a wise law and binds that law on us by promises and threatnings I had reason to assert these glories of the Divine Majestie and remove the hindrances of a good life since every thing can hinder us from living well but scar cely can all the Arguments of God and man and all the Powers of heaven and hell perswade us to strictnesse and severity Qui serere ingenuum volet agrum Liberet arva priùs sruticibus Falce rubos silicemque resecet Ut novâ fruge gravis Ceres eat He that will sow his field with hopefull seed Must every bramble every thistle weed And when each hindrance to the graine is gone A fruitfull crop shall rise of corn alone When therefore there were so many wayes made to the Devill I was willing amongst many others to stop this also and I dare say few Questions in Christendome can say half so much in justification of their owne usefulnesse and necessity I know Madam that they
Moses from the first law to the second from the time that a Law was given to one man till the time a Law was given to one nation and although men had not sinn'd so grievously as Adam did who had no excuse many helps excellent endowments mighty advantages trifling temptations communication with God himself no disorder in his faculties free will perfect immunity from violence Originall righteousnesse perfect power over his faculties yet those men such as Abel and Seth Noah and Abraham Isaac and Jacob Joseph and Benjamin who sinned lesse and in the midst of all their disadvantages were left to fall under the same sentence and this besides that it was the present Oeconomy of the Divine Providence and Government it did also like Janus looke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it looked forwards as well as backwards and became a type of Christ or of him that was to come For as from Adam evill did descend upon his naturall Children upon the account of Gods entercourse with Adam so did good descend upon the spirituall Children of the second Adam This should have been the latter part of a similitude but upon further consideration it is found that as in Adam we die so in Christ we live and much rather and much more therefore I cannot say As by one man vers 12 so by one man verse 15. But much more for not as the offence so also is the free gift for the offence of one did run over unto many and those many even as it were all all except Enoch or some very few more of whom mention peradventure is not made are already dead upon that account but when God comes by Jesus Christ to shew mercy to mankind he does it in much more abundance he may be angry to the third and fourth generation in them that hate him but he will shew mercy unto thousands in them that love him to a thousand generations and and in ten thousand degrees so that now although a comparison proportionate was at first intended yet the river here rises far higher then the fountain and now no argument can be drawn from the similitude of Adam and Christ but that as much hurt was done to humane nature by Adams sin so very much more good is done to mankinde by the incarnation of the Son of God And the first disparity and excesse is in this particular for the judgment was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one man sinning one sin that one sin was imputed but by Christ not onely one sin was forgiven freely but many offences were remitted unto justification and secondly a vast disparity there is in this that the descendants from Adam were perfectly like him in nature his own real natural production and they sinned though not so bad yet very much and therefore there was a great parity of reason that the evil which was threatened to Adam and not to his children should yet for the likeness of nature and of sin descend upon them But in the other part the case is highly differing for Christ being our Patriarch in a spiritual birth we fall infinitely short of him and are not so like him as we were to Adam and yet that we in greater unlikelinesse should receive a greater favour this was the excesse of the comparison and this is the free gift of God And this is the third degree or measure of excesse of efficacy on Christs part over it was on the part of Adam For if the sin of Adam alone could bring death upon the world who by imitation of his transgression on the stock of their own natural choice did sin against God though not after the similitude of Adams transgression much more shall we who not onely receive the aides of the spirit of grace but receive them also in an abundant measure receive also the effect of all this even to reign in life by one Jesus Christ. Therefore now to return to the other part of the similitude where I began although I have shown the great excesse and abundance of grace by Christ over the evil that did descend by Adam yet the proportion and comparison lies in the main emanation of death from one and life from the other judgement unto condemnation that is the sentence of death came upon all men by the offence of one even so by a like Oeconomy and dispensation God would not be behind in doing an act of Grace as he did before of judgmenr and as that judgement was not to condemnation by the offence of one so the free gift and grace came upon all to justification of life by the righteousnesse of one The sum of all is this by the disobedience of one man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many were constituted or put into the order of sinners they were made such by Gods appointment that is not that God could be the Author of a sin to any but that he appointed the evill which is the consequent of sin to be upon their heads who descended from the sinner so it shall be on the other side for by the obedience of one even of Christ many shall be made or constituted righteous But still this must be with a supposition of what was said before that there was a vast difference for we are made much more righteous by Christt â—hen we were sinners by Adam and the life we receive by Christ shall be greater then the death by Adam and the graces we derive from Christ shall be more and mightier then the corruption and declination by Adam but yet as one is the head so is the other one is the beginning of sinne and death and the other of life and righteousnesse Now the consequent of this discourse must needs at least be this that it is impossible that the greatest part of mankinde should be left in the eternal bonds of hell by Adam for then quite contrary to the discourse of the Apostle there had been abundance of sin but a scarcity of grace and the accesse had been on the part of Adam not on the part of Christ against which he so mightily and artificially contends so that the Presbyterian way is perfectly condemned by this discourse of the Apostle and the other more gentle way which affirmes that we were sentenc'd in Adam to eternal death though the execution is taken off by Christ is also no way countenanced by any thing in this Chapter for that the judgement which for Adams sin came unto the condemnation of the world was nothing but temporal death is here affirmed it being in no sense imaginable that the death which here Saint Paul sayes passed upon all men and which reigned from Adam to Moses should be eternal death for the Apostle speaks of that death which was threatened to Adam and of such a death which was afterwards threatened in Moses Law and such a death which fell