recentiores ut ex concilio Florentino apparet And Alphonsus à Castro saith Unto this very day Purgatory is not believ'd by the Greeks And no less can be imagined since their prime and most learned Prelate besides what he did in the Council did also after the Council publish an Encyclical Epistle against the definition of the Council as may be seen in Binius his narrative of the Council of Florence By all which appears how notoriously scandalous is the imputation of falsehood laid upon the Dissuasive by this objector who by this time is warm with writing and grows uncivil being like a baited Bull beaten into choler with his own tail and angred by his own objections But the next charge is higher it was not only doubted of in S. Austins time and since but the Roman doctrine of Purgatory without any hesitation or doubting is against the express doctrines deliverd by divers of the Ancient Fathers and to this purpose some were remark'd in the Dissuasive which I shall now verefie and add others very plain and very considerable S. Cyprian exhorts Demetrianus to turn to Christ while this world lasts saying that after we are dead there is no place of repentance no place of satisfaction To this the letter answers It is not said when we are dead but when you are dead meaning that this is spoken to heathens not to Christians As if quando istinc excessum fuerit being spoken impersonally does not mean indefinitely all the world and certainly it may as well one as the other Christians as well as Heathens for Christians may be in the state of deadly sin and aversion from God as well as Heathens and then this admonition and reason fits them as well as the other E. W. answers that S. Cyprian means that after death there is no meritorious satisfaction he says true indeed there is none that is meritorious neither before nor after death but this will not serve his turn for S. Cyprian says that after death there is none at all no place of Satisfaction of any kind whatsoever no place of wholsome repentance And therefore it is vain to say that this Council was only given to Demetrianus who was a Heathen for if he had been a Christian he would or at least might have us'd the same argument not to put any part of his duty off upon confidence of any thing to be done or suffered after this life For his argument is this this is the time of repentance after death it is not now you may satisfie that is appease the Divine anger after this life is ended nothing of this can be done For S. Cyprian does not speak this dispensativè or by relation to this particular case but assertivè he affirms expresly speaking to the same Demetrian that when this life is finished we are divided either to the dwellings of death or of immortality And that we may see this is not spoken of impenitent Pagans only as the letter to a friend dreams S. Cyprian renews the same caution and advice to the lapsed Christians O ye my Brethen let every one confess his sin while he that hath sinn'd is yet in this world while his confession can be admitted while satisfaction and pardon made by the Priests is grateful with God If there had been any thought of the Roman Purgatory in S. Cyprians time he could not in better words have impugned it than here he does All that have sinn'd must here look to it here they must confess here beg pardon here make amends and satisfie afterwards neither one nor the other shall be admitted Now if to Christians also there is granted no leave to repent no means to satisfie no means of pardon after this life these words are so various and comprehensive that they include all cases and it is plain S. Cyprian speaks it indefinitely there is no place of repentance no place of satisfaction none at all neither to Heathens nor to Christians But now let these words be set against the Roman doctrine viz. that there is a place called Purgatory in which the souls tormented do satisfie and come not out thence till they have paid viz. by sufferings or by suffrages the utmost farthing and then see which we will follow for they differ in all the points of the Compass And these men do nothing but betray the weakness of their cause by expounding S. Cyprian to the sence of new distinctions made but yesterday in the forges of the Schools And indeed the whole affair upon which the answer of Bellarmine relies which these men have translated to their own use is unreasonable For is it a likely business that when men have committed great crimes they shall be pardon'd here by confession and the ministeries of the Church c. and yet that the venial sins though confess'd in the general and as well as they can be and the party absolved yet there should be prepared for their expiation the intolerable torments of hell fire for a very long time and that for the greater sins for which men have agreed with their adversary in the way and the Adversary hath forgiven them yet that for these also they should be cast into prison from whence they shall not come till the utmost farthing be paid that is against the design of our Blessed Saviours Counsel for if that be the case then though we and our adversaries are agreed upon the main and the debt forgiven yet nevertheless we may be delivered to the tormentors But then concerning the sence of S. Cyprian in this particular no man can doubt that shall have but read his excellent treatise of mortality that he could not did not admit of Purgatory after death before the day of judgment for he often said it in that excellent treatise which he made to comfort and strengthen Christians against the fear of death that immediately after death we go to God or the Devil And therefore it is for him only to fear to die who is not willing to go to Christ and he only is to be unwilling to go to Christ who believes not that he begins to reign with Christ. That we in the mean time die we pass over by death to immortality It is not a going forth but a pass over and when our temporal course is run a going over to immortality Let us embrace that day which assigns every one of us to our dwelling and restores those which are snatch'd from hence and are disintangled from the snares of the world to Paradise and the Heavenly kingdom There are here many other things so plainly spoken to this purpose that I wonder any Papist should read that treatise and not be cur'd of his infirmity To the same purpose is that of S. Dionys calling death the end of holy agonies and therefore it is to be suppos'd they have no more agonies to run through immediately after death To this E. W. answers that S.
rendred In him it is violent and hard a distinct period by it self without dependence or proper purpose against the faith of all copies who do not make this a distinct period and against the usual manner of speaking 2. This phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in 2 Cor. 5.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not for that we would be unclothed and so it is used in Polybius Suidas and Varinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is eâ conditione for that cause or condition and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad quid ades are the words of the Gospel as Suidas quotes them 3. Although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom or in him yet it is so very seldom or infrequent that it were intolerable to do violence to this place to force it to an unnatural signification 4. If it did always signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in him which it does not yet we might very well follow the same reading we now do and which the Apostles discourse does infer for even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does divers times signifie forasmuch or for that as is to be seen in Rom. 8.3 and Heb. 2.18 But 5. supposing all that can be and that it did signifie in whom yet the sence were fair enough as to the whole article for by him or in him we are made sinners that is brought to an evil state of things usually consequent to sinners we are us'd like sinners by him or in him just as when a sinner is justified he is treated like a righteous person as if he had never sinned though he really did sin oftentimes and this for his sake who is made righteousness to us so in Adam we are made sinners that is treated ill and afflicted though our selves be innocent of that sin which was the occasion of our being us'd so severely for other sins of which we were not innocent But how this came to pass is told in the following words 11. For until the law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no law Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression who is the figure of him that was to come By which discourse it appears that S. Paul does not speak of all minkind as if the evil occasion'd by Adams sin did descend for ever upon that account but it had a limited effect and reach'd only to those who were in the interval between Adam and Moses This death was brought upon them by Adam that is death which was threatned to Adam only went forth upon them also who indeed were sinners but not after the similitude of Adams transgression that is who sinn'd not so capitally as he did For to sin like Adam is used as a Tragical and a high expression So it is in the Prophet They like men have transgressed so we read it but in the Hebrew it is They like Adam have transgressed and yet death pass'd upon them that did not sin after the similitude of Adam for Abel and Seth and Abraham and all the Patriarchs died Enoch only excepted and therefore it was no wonder that upon the sin of Adam death entred upon the world who generally sinn'd like Adam since it passed on and reigned upon less sinners * It reigned upon them whose sins therefore would not be so imputed as Adams was because there was no law with an express threatning given to them as was to Adam but although it was not wholly imputed upon their own account yet it was imputed upon theirs and Adams For God was so exasperated with Mankind that being angry he would still continue that punishment even to the lesser sins and sinners which he only had first threatned to Adam and so Adam brought it upon them They indeed in rigour did themselves deserve it but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam they who sinn'd not so bad and had not been so severely and expresly threatned had not suffer'd so severely * The case is this Jonathan and Michal were Sauls children it came to pass that seven of Sauls issue were to be hanged all equally innocent equally culpable David took the five sons of Michal for she had left him unhandsomly Jonathan was his friend and therefore he spar'd his son Mephibosheth Here it was indifferent as to the guilt of the persons whether David should take the sons of Michal or of Jonathan but it is likely that as upon the kindness which David had to Jonathan he spar'd his son so upon the just provocation of Michal he made that evil to fall upon them of which they were otherwise capable which it may be they should not have suffered if their Mother had been kind Adam was to God as Michal to David 12. But there was in it a further design for by this dispensation of death Adam was made a figure of Christ So the Apostle expresly affirms who is the figure of him that was to come that as death pass'd upon the posterity of Adam though they sinn'd less than Adam so life should be given to the followers of Christ though they were imperfectly righteous that is not after the similitude of Christs perfection 13. But for the further clearing the Article depending upon the right understanding of these words these two things are observable 1. That the evil of death descending upon Adams posterity for his sake went no further than till Moses For after the giving of Moses's law death passed no further upon the account of Adams transgression but by the sanction of Moses's law where death was anew distinctly and expresly threatned as it was to Adam and so went forward upon a new score but introduc'd first by Adam that is he was the cause at first and till Moses also he was in some sence the author and for ever after the precedent and therefore the Apostle said well In Adam we all die his sin brought in the sentence in him it began and from him it passed upon all the world though by several dispensations 2. In the discourse of the Apostle those that were nam'd were not consider'd simply as born from Adam and therefore it did not come upon the account of Natural or Original corruption but they were consider'd as Sinners just as they who have life by Christ are not consider'd as merely children by title or spiritual birth and adoption but as just and faithful But then this is the proportion and purpose of the Apostle as God gives to these life by Christ which is a greater thing than their imperfect righteousness without Christ could have expected so here also this part of Adams posterity was punish'd with death for their own sin but this death was brought upon them by Adam that is the rather for his provocation of God by his great transgression 14. There is now remaining no difficulty but
Rom. 5.12 As by one man sin entred into the world and Death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned i. e. As by the disobedience of Adam sin had its beginning and by sin death that is the sentence and preparations the solennities and addresses of death sickness calamity dâ—â—inution of strengths Old age misfortunes and all the affections of Mortality for the destroying of our temporal life and so this mortality and condition or state of death passed actually upon all mankind for Adam being thrown out of Paradise and forced to live with his Children where they had no Trees of Life as he had in Paradise was remanded to his mortal natural 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 sin 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 sin all should die But some Greek copies leave out the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which indeed seems superfluous and of no signification but then the sence is cleareâ— and the following words are the second part of a similitude As by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin So death passed upon all men for that all have sinned But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies neutrally And the meaning is As Adam died in his own sin So death passed upon all men for their own sin in the sin which they sinned in that sin they died As it did at first to Adam by whom sin first entred and by sin death so death passed upon all men upon whom sin passed that is in the same method they who did sin should die But then he does not seem to say that all did sin for he presently subjoyns that death reigned even upon those who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression but this was upon another account as appears in the following words But others expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie masculinely and to relate to Adam viz. that in him we all sinned Now although this is less consonant to the mind of the Apostle and is harsh and improper both in the language and in the sence yet if it were so it could mean but this that the sin of Adam was of Universal obligation and in him we are reckoned as sinners obnoxious to his sentence for by his sin humane Nature was reduced to its own mortality 13. For until the law sin was in the World but sin is not imputed where there is no law And marvel not that Death did presently descend on all mankind even before a Law was given them with an appendant penalty viz. With the express intermination of death For they did do actions unnatural and vile enough but yet these things which afterwards upon the publication of the Law were imputed to them upon their personal 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 mere natural condition to which yet they disposed themselves and had deserved but too much by committing evil 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 Posterity 14. Nevertheless 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 And therefore it was that death reigned from Adam to 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 sinned 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 Original righteousness perfect power over his faculties yet those men such as Abel and Seth Noah and Abraham Isaac and Jacob Joseph and Benjamin who sinned less and in the midst of all their disadvantages were left to fall under the same sentence But it is to be observed that these words even over them that had not sinned according to some Interpretations are to be put into a Parenthesis and the following words after the similitude of Adams transgression are an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be referred to the first words thus Death reigned from Adam to Moses after the similitude of Adams transgression that is as it was at first so it was afterwards death reigned upon men who had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is like as it did in the transgression of Adam so it did afterward they in their innocence died as Adam did in his sin and prevarication and this was in the similitude of Adam As they who obtain salvation obtain it in the similitude of Christ or by a conformity to Christ so they 〈◊〉 die do die in the likeness of Adam Christ and Adam being the two representatives of mankind For this besides that it was the present Oeconomy of the Divine Providence and Government it did also like Janus look 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it looked forwards as well as backwards and became a type of Christ or of him that was to come For as from Adam evil did descend upon his natural Children upon the account of Gods entercourse with Adam so did good descend upon the spiritual Children of the second Adam 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 and the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many 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 vers 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 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 of them that love him to a thousand generations and in ten thousand degrees
expiation of them they fancy and consequently give what allowance they list to those whom they please to mislead For in innumerable Cases of Conscience it is oftner inquired whether a thing be Venial or Mortal than whether it be lawful or not lawful and as Purgatory is to Hell so Venial is to Sin a thing which men fear not because the main stake they think to be secured for if they may have Heaven at last they care not what comes between And as many men of the Roman perswasion will rather chuse Purgatory than suffer here an inconsiderable penance or do those little services which themselves think will prevent it so they chuse venial sins and hug the pleasures of trifles warming themselves at phantastick fires and dancing in the light of the Glo-worms and they love them so well that rather than quit those little things they will suffer the intolerable pains of a temporary Hell for so they believe which is the testimony of a great evil and a mighty danger for it gives testimony that little sins can be beloved passionately and therefore can minister such a delight as is thought a price great enough to pay for the sufferance of temporal evils and Purgatory it self 3. But the evil is worse yet when it is reduc'd to practice For in the decision of very many questions the answer is It is a venial sin that is though it be a sin yet there is in it no danger of losing the favour of God by that but you may do it and you may do it again a thousand thousand times and all the venial sins of the world put together can never do what one mortal sin can that is make God to be your enemy So Bellarmine expresly affirms But because there are many Doctors who write Cases of Conscience and there is no measure to limit the parts of this distinction for that which is not at all cannot be measured the Doctors differ infinitely in their sentences some calling that Mortal which others call Venial as you may see in the little Summaries of Navar and Emanuel Sà the poor souls of the Laity and the vulgar Clergy who believe what is told them by the Authors or Confessors they chuse to follow must needs be in infinite danger and the whole body of Practical Divinity in which the life of Religion and of all our hopes depends shall be rendred dangerous and uncertain and their confidence shall betray them unto death 4. To bring relief to this state of evil and to establish aright the proper grounds and measures of Repentance I shall first account concerning the difference of sins and by what measures they are so differenc'd 2. That all sins are of their own nature punishable as God please even with the highest expressions of his anger 3. By what Repentance they are cur'd and pardon'd respectively SECT II. Of the difference of sins and their measures 5. I. SINS are not equal but greater or less in their principle as well as in their event It was one of the errors of Jovinian which he learned from the Schools of the Stoicks that all sins are alike grievous Nam dicunt esse pares res Furta latrociniis magnis parva minantur Falce recisuros simili se si sibi regnum Permittant homines For they supposed an absolute irresistible Fate to be the cause of all things and therefore what was equally necessary was equally culpable that is not at all and where men have no power of choice or which is all one that it be necessary that they chuse what they do there can be no such thing as Laws or sins against them To which they adding that all evils are indifferent and the event of things be it good or bad had no influence upon the felicity or infelicity of man they could neither be differenc'd by their cause nor by their effect the first being necessary and the latter indifferent * Against this I shall not need to oppose many Arguments for though this follows most certainly from their doctrine who teach an irresistible Decree of God to be the cause of all things and actions yet they that own the doctrine disavow the consequent and in that are good Christians but ill Logicians But the Article is sufficiently cleared by the words of our B. Lord in the case of Judas whose sin as Christ told to Pilate was the greater because he had not power over him but by special concession in the case of the servant that knows his Masters will and does it not in the several condemnations of the degrees and expressions of anger in the instances of Racha and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou vain man or Thou fool by this comparing some sins to gnats and some to Camels and in proportion to these there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Luke many stripes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. James a greater condemnation * Thus to rob a Church is a greater sin than to rob a Thief To strike a Father is a higher impiety than to resist a Tutor To oppress a Widow is clamorous and calls aloud for vengeance when a less repentance will vote down the whispering murmurs of a trifling injury done to a fortune that is not sensible of smaller diminutions Nec vincit ratio tantundem ut peccet idémque Qui teneros caules alieni fregerit horti Vt qui nocturnus Divûm sacra legerit He is a greater criminal that steals the Chalice from a Church than he that takes a few Coleworts or robs a garden of Cucumers But this distinction and difference is by something that is extrinsecal to the action the greatness of the mischief or the dignity of the person according to that Omne animi vitium tanto conspectius in se Crimen habet quanto major qui peccat habetur 6. II. But this when it is reduc'd to its proper cause is because such greater sins are complicated they are commonly two or three sins wrapt together as the unchastity of a Priest is uncleanness and scandal too Adultery is worse than Fornication because it is unchastity and injustice and by the fearful consequents of it is mischievous and uncharitable Et quas Euphrates quas mihi misit Orontes Me capiant Nolo furta pudica thori So Sacriledge is theft and impiety And Apicius killing himself when he suppos'd his estate would not maintain his luxury was not only a self-murtherer but a gluttonous person in his death Nil est Apici tibi gulosius factum So that the greatness of sins is in most instances by extension and accumulation that as he is a greater sinner who sins often in the same instance than he that sins seldom so is he who sins such sins as are complicated and intangled like the twinings of combining Serpents And this appears to be so because if we take single sins as uncleanness and theft no man can tell which is the greater sin neither
may be acceptable in Jesus Christ. If I perish I perish I have deserved it but I will hope for mercy till thy mercy hath a limit till thy goodness can be numbred O my God let me not perish thou hast no pleasure in my death and it is impossible for man to suffer thy extremest wrath Who can dwell with the everlasting burning O my God let me dwell safely in the embraces of thy sweetest mercy Amen Amen Amen CHAP. IV. Of Concupiscence and Original Sin and whether or no or how far we are bound to repent of it SECT I. 1. ORIGINAL sin is so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or figuratively meaning the sin of Adam which was committed in the Original of mankind by our first Parent and which hath influence upon all his posterity Nascuntur non propriè sed originalitèr peccatores So S. Austin and therefore S. Ignatius calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old impiety that which was in the original or first Parent of mankind 2. This sin brought upon Adam all that God threatned but no more A certainty of dying together with the proper effects and affections of mortality was inflicted on him and he was reduced to the condition of his own nature and then begat sons and daughters in his own likeness that is in the proper temper and constitution of mortal men For as God was not bound to give what he never promised viz. an immortal duration and abode in this life so neither does it appear in that angry entercourse that God had with Adam that he took from him or us any of our natural perfections but his graces only 3. Man being left in this state of pure Naturals could not by his own strength arrive to a supernatural end which was typified in his being cast out of Paradise and the guarding it with the flaming sword of a Cherub For eternal life being an end above our natural proportion cannot be acquir'd by any natural means Neither Adam nor any of his posterity could by any actions or holiness obtain Heaven by desert or by any natural efficiency for it is a gift still and it is neque currentis neque operantis neither of him that runneth nor of him that worketh but of God who freely gives it to such persons whom he also by other gifts and graces hath dispos'd toward the reception of it 4. What gifts and graces or supernatural endowments God gave to Adam in his state of Innocence we know not God hath no where told us and of things unrevealed we commonly make wild conjectures But after his fall we find no sign of any thing but of a common man And therefore as it was with him so it is with us our nature cannot go to Heaven without the helps of the Divine grace so neither could his and whether he had them or no it is certain we have receiving more by the second Adam than we did lose by the first and the sons of God are now spiritual which he never was that we can find 5. But concerning the sin of Adam tragical things are spoken it destroyed his original righteousness and lost it to us for ever it corrupted his nature and corrupted ours and brought upon him and not him only but on us also who thought of no such thing an inevitable necessity of sinning making it as natural to us to sin as to be hungry or to be sick and die and the conâ—equent of these things is saddest of all we are born enemies of God sons of wrath and heirs of eternal damnation 6. In the meditation of these sad stories I shall separate the certain from the uncertain that which is reveal'd from that which is presum'd that which is reasonable from that which makes too bold reflexions upon Godâ— honour and the reputation of his justice and his goodness I shall do it in the words of the Apostle from whence men commonly dispute in this Question right or wrong according as it happens 7. By one man sin came into the world That sin entred into the world by Adam is therefore certain because he was the first man and unless he had never sinn'd it must needs enter by him for it comes in first by the first and Death by sin that is Death which at first was the condition of nature became a punishment upon that account just as it was to the Serpent to creep upon his belly and to the Woman to be subject to her Husband These things were so before and would have been so for the Apostle pressing the duty of subjection gives two reasons why the woman was to obey One of them only was derived from this sin the other was the prerogative of creation for Adam was first formed then Eve so that before her fall she was to have been subject to her husband because she was later in being she was a minor and therefore under subjection she was also the weaker vessel But it had not been a curse and if any of them had been hindred by grace and favour by Gods anger they were now left to fall back to the condition of their nature 8. Death passed upon all men That is upon all the old world who were drowned in the floud of the Divine vengeance and who did sin after the similitude of Adam And therefore S. Paul adds that for the reason In as much as all men have sinned If all men have sinned upon their own account as it is certain they have then these words can very well mean that Adam first sinned and all his sons and daughters sinned after him and so died in their own sin by a death which at first and in the whole constitution of affairs is natural and a death which their own sins deserved but yet which was hastned or ascertained upon them the rather for the sin of their progenitor Sin propagated upon that root and vicious example or rather from that beginning not from that cause but dum ita peccant similiter moriuntur If they sin so then so shall they die so S. Hierome 9. But this is not thought sufficient and men do usually affirm that we are formally and properly made sinners by Adam and in him we all by interpretation sinned and therefore think these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as all men have sinned ought to be expounded thus Death passed upon all men In whom all men have sinned meaning that in Adam we really sinn'd and God does truly and justly impute his sin to us to make us as guilty as he that did it and as much punish'd and liable to eternal damnation And all the great force of this fancy relies upon this exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie in him 10. Concerning which there will be the less need of a laborious inquiry if it be observed that the words being read Forasmuch as all men have sinned beat a fair and clear discourse and very intelligible if it be
moved God to smite would also move him to forbear which were a strange Oeconomy The words therefore are not a reason of his forbearing but an aggravation of his kindness as if he had said Though man be continually evil yet I will not for all that any more drown the world for mans being so evil and so the Hebrews note that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies although 49. But the great out-cry in this Question is upon confidence of the words of David Behold I was shapen in wickedness and in sin hath my mother conceived me To which I answer that the words are an Hebraism and signifie nothing but an aggrandation of his sinfulness and are intended for an high expression meaning that I am wholly and intirely wicked For the verification of which exposition there are divers parallel places in the holy Scriptures Thou wert my hope when I hanged yet upon my mothers breasts and The ungodly are froward even from their mothers womb as soon as they be born they go astray and speak lies which because it cannot be true in the letter must be an idiotism or propriety of phrase apt to explicate the other and signifying only a ready a prompt a great and universal wickedness The like to this is that saying of the Pharisees Thou wert altogether born in sin and dost thou teach us which phrase and manner of speaking being plainly a reproach of the poor blind man and a disparagement of him did mean only to call him a very wicked person but not that he had derived his sin originally and from his birth for that had been their own case as much as his and therefore S. Chrysostome explaining this phrase says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is as if they should say Thou hast been a sinner all thy life time To the same sence are those words of Job I have guided her the widow from my mothers womb And in this expression and severity of hyperbole it is that God aggravated the sins of his people Thou wast called a transgressor from the womb And this way of expressing a great state of misery we find us'd among the Heathen Writers for so Seneca brings in Oedipus complaining Infanti quoque decreta mors est Fata quis tam tristia sortitus unquam Videram nondum diem jam tenebar Mors me antecessit aliquis intra viscera Materna lethum praecocis fati tulit Sed numquid peccavit Something like S. Bernards Damnatus antequam natus I was condemn'd before I was born dead before I was alive and death seised upon me in my mothers womb Somebody brought in a hasty and a too forward death but did he sin also An expression not unlike to this we have in Lucian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pardon me that I was not born wicked or born to be wicked 2. If David had meant it literally it had not signified that himself was born in original sin but that his father and mother sinn'd when they begat him which the eldest son that he begat of Bathsheba for ought I know might have said truer than he in this sence And this is the exposition of Clemens Alexandrinus save only that by my mother he understands Eva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though he was conceived in sin yet he was not in the sin peccatrix concepit sed non peccatorem she sinn'd in the conception not David And in the following words he speaks home to the main article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them tell us where an infant did fornicate or how he who had done nothing could fall under the curse of Adam meaning so as to deserve the same evil that he did 3. If it did relate to his own person he might mean that he was begotten with that sanguine disposition and libidinous temper that was the original of his vile adultery and then though David said this truly of himself yet it is not true of all not of those whose temper is phlegmatick and unactive 4. If David had meant this of himself and that in regard of original sin this had been so far from being a penitential expression or a confessing of his sin that it had been a plain accusation of God and an excusing of himself As if he had said O Lord I confess I have sinn'd in this horrible murder and adultery but thou O God knowest how it comes to pass even by that fatal punishment which thou didst for the sin of Adam inflict on me and all mankind above 3000. years before I was born thereby making me to fall into so horrible corruption of nature that unless thou didst irresistibly force me from it I cannot abstain from any sin being most naturally inclin'd to all In this sinfulness hath my mother conceived me and that hath produc'd in me this sad effect Who would suppose David to make such a confession or in his sorrow to hope for pardon for upbraiding not his own folly but the decrees of God 5. But that David thought nothing of this or any thing like it we may understand by the preceding words which are as a preface to these in the objection Against thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight that thou mightest be justified in thy saying and clear when thou art judged He that thus acquits God cannot easily be supposed in the very next breath so fiercely to accuse him 6. To which also adde the following words which are a sufficient reproof of all strange sences in the other In sin hath my mother conceived me But loe thou requirest truth in the inward parts as if he had said Though I am so wicked yet thy laws are good and I therefore so much the worse because I am contrary to thy laws They require truth and sincerity in the soul but I am false and perfidious But if this had been natural for him so to be and unavoidable God who knew it perfectly well would have expected nothing else of him For he will not require of a stone to speak nor of fire to be cold unless himself be pleased to work a miracle to have them so 50. But S. Paul affirms that by nature we were the children of wrath True we were so when we were dead in sins and before we were quickned by the Spirit of life and grace We were so now we are not We were so by our own unworthiness and filthy conversation now we being regenerated by the Spirit of holiness we are alive unto God and no longer heirs of wrath This therefore as appears by the discourse of S. Paul relates not to our Original sin but to the Actual and of this sence of the word Nature in the matter of sinning we have Justin Martyr or whoever is the Author of the Questions and Answers ad Orthodoxos to be witness For answering those words of Scripture There is not any one clean who is born of a woman
the image of the Earthly we shall also bear the image of the Heavenly Now this I say That flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven neither doth corruption inherit incorruption This Discourse of the Apostle hath in it all these propositions which clearly state this whole Article There are two great heads of Mankind the two Adams the first and the second The first was framed with an earthly body the second had viz. after his resurrection when he had died unto sin once a spiritual body The first was Earthly the second is Heavenly From the first we derive an Earthly life from the second we obtain a Heavenly all that are born of the first are such as he was naturally but the effects of the Spirit came only upon them who are born of the second Adam From him who is earthly we could have no more than he was or had the spiritual life and consequently the Heavenly could not be derived from the first Adam but from Christ only All that are born of the first by that birth inherit nothing but temporal life and corruption but in the new birth only we derive a title to Heaven For flesh and blood that is whatsoever is born of Adam cannot inherit the Kingdom of God And they are injurious to Christ who think that from Adam we might have inherited immortality Christ was the Giver and Preacher of it he brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel It is a singular benefit given by God to mankind through Jesus Christ. 3. Upon the affirmation of these premises it follows That if Adam had stood yet from him we could not have by our natural generation obtained a title to our spiritual life nor by all the strengths of Adam have gone to Heaven Adam was not our representative to any of these purposes but in order to the perfection of a temporal life Christ only is and was from eternal ages designed to be the head of the Church and the fountain of spiritual life And this is it which is affirmed by some very eminent persons in the Church of God particularly by Junius and Tilenus that Christus est fundamentum totius praedestinationis all that are or ever were predestinated were predestinated in Christ Even Adam himself was predestinated in him and therefore from him if he had stood though we should have inherited a temporal happy life yet the Scripture speaks nothing of any other event Heaven was not promised to Adam himself therefore from him we could not have derived a title thither And therefore that inquity of the School-men Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ should have been incarnate was not an impertinent Question though they prosecuted it to weak purposes and with trifling arguments Scotus and his Scholars were for the affirmative and though I will not be decretory in it because the Scripture hath said nothing of it nor the Church delivered it yet to me it seems plainly the discourse of the Apostle now alledged That if Adam had not sinned yet that by Christ alone we should have obtained everlasting life Whether this had been dispensed by his Incarnation or some other way of oeconomy is not signified 4. But then if from Adam we should not have derived our title to Heaven though he had stood then neither by his Fall can we be said to have lost Heaven Heaven and Hell were to be administred by another method But then if it be enquired what evil we thence received I answer That the principal effect was the loss of that excellent condition in which God placed him and would have placed his posterity unless sin had entred He should have lived a long and lasting life till it had been time to remove him and very happy Instead of this he was thrown from those means which God had designed to this purpose that is Paradise and the trees of life he was turned into a place of labour and uneasiness of briars and thorns ill air and violent chances nova febrium terris incubuit cohors the woman was condemned to hard labour and travel and that which troubled her most obedience to her Husband his body was made frail and weak and sickly that is it was leâ—t such as it was made and left without remedies which were to have made it otherwise For that Adam was made mortal in his nature is infinitely certain and proved by his very eating and drinking his sleep and recreation by ingestion and egestion by breathing and generating his like which immortal substances never do and by the very tree of life which had not been needful if he should have had no need of it to repair his decaying strength and health 5. The effect of this consideration is this that all the product of Adam's sin was by despoiling him and consequently us of all the superadditions and graces brought upon his nature Even that which was threatned to him and in the narrative of that sad story expressed to be his punishment was no lessening of his nature but despoiling him of his supernaturals And therefore Manuel Pelaeologus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common driness of our nature and he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our Fathers sin we fell from our Fathers graces Now according to the words of the Apostle As is the earthly such are they that are earthly that is all his posterity must be so as his nature was left in this there could be no injustice For if God might at first and all the way have made man with a necessity as well as a possibility of dying though men had not sinned then so also may he do if he did sin and so it was but this was effected by disrobing him of all the superadded excellencies with which God adorned and supported his natural life But this also I add that if even death it self came upon us without the alteration or diminution of our nature then so might sin because death was in re naturali but sin is not and therefore need not suppose that Adam's nature was spoiled to introduce that 6. As the sin of Adam brought hurt to the body directly so indirectly it brought hurt to the soul. For the evils upon the body as they are only felt by the soul so they grieve and tempt and provoke the soul to anger to sorrow to envy they make weariness in religious things cause desires for ease for pleasure and as these are by the body always desired so sometimes being forbidden by God they become sins and are always apt to it because the body being a natural agent tempts to all it can feel and have pleasure in And this is also observed and affirmed by S. Chrysostom and he often speaks it as if he were pleased in this explication of the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Together with death entred a whole troop of affections or passions For when the body became mortal then of necessity it did admit desires
eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiù recenseatur Peccatrix a. quia immunda recipiens ignominiam suam ex carnis societate And this which he here calls a reproach he otherwhere calls an imperfection or a shame saying by Sathan man at first was circumvented and therefore given up unto Death and from thence all the kind was from his seed infected he made a traduction of his sentence or damnation to wit unto death which was his condemnation and therefore speaking of the woman he says the sentence remaining upon her in this life it is necessary that the guilt also should remain which words are rough and hard to be understood because after Baptism the guilt does not remain but by the following words we may guess that he means that women still are that which Eve was even snares to men gates for the Devil to enter and that they as Eve did dare and can prevail with men when the Devil by any other means cannot I know nothing else that he says of this Article save only that according to the constant sence of antiquity he affirms that the natural faculties of the Soul were not impaired Omnia naturalia animae ut substantiva ejus ipsi inesse cum ipsâ procedere atque proficere And again Hominis anima velut surculus quidam ex Matrice Adam in propaginem deducta genitalibus foeminae foveis commendata cum omni sua paratura pullulabiâ— tam in intellectu quam in sensu The soul like a sprig from Adam derived into his off-spring and put into the bed of its production shall with all its appendages spring or increase both in sence and understanding And that there is liberty of choice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which supposes liberty he proved against Marcion and Hermogenes as himself affirms in the 21 Chap. of the same Book S. Cyprian proving the effect of Baptism upon all and consequently the usefulness to Infants argues thus If pardon of sins is given to the greatest sinners and them that before sinned much against God and afterwards believed and none is forbidden to come to baptism and grace how much more must not an infant be forbidden qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contraxit qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit quod illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata Who being new born hath not sinned at all but only being born carnally of Adam he hath in his first birth contracted the contagion of the old death which comes to the remission of sin the more easily because not his own sins but the sins of another are forgiven him In which it is plainly affirmed that the Infant is innocent that he hath not sinned himself that there is in him no sin inherent that Adam's sin therefore only is imputed that all the effect of it upon him is the contagion of death that is mortality and its affections and according as the sins are so is the remission they are the infants improperly and metonymically therefore so is the remission But Arnobius speaks yet more plainly Omne peccatum corde concipitur â—re consummatur Hic autem qui nascitur sententiam Adae habet Peccatum verò suum non habet He that is born of Adam hath the sentence of Adam upon him but not the sin that is he hath no sin inherent but the punishment inflicted by occasion of it The author of the short commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul attributed to S. Ambrose speaks so much that some have used the authority of this writer to prove that there is no Original sin as Sixtus Senensis relates His words are these Mors autem dissolutio corporis est cum anima à corpore separatur est alia mors que secunda dicitur in gehenna quam non peccato Adae patimur sed ejus occasione propriâ—â— peccatis acquiritur Death is the dissolution of the Body when the Soul is separated from it There is also another death in Hell which is called the second death which we suffer not from Adam's sin but by occasion of it it is acquired by our own sins These words need no explication for when he had in the precedent words affirmed that we all sinned in the Mass of Adam this following discourse states the Question right and declares that though Adam's sin be imputed to us to certain purposes yet no man can be damned to the second Death for it it is a testimony so plain for the main part of my affirmation in this Article that as there is not any thing against it within the first 400 years so he could not be accounted a Catholick author if the contrary had been the sence or the prevailing Opinion of the Church 22. To these I shall add the clearest testimonies of S. Chrysostome It seems to have in it no small Question that it is said that by the disobedience of one many become sinners For sinning and being made mortal it is not unlikely that they which spring from him should be so too But that another should be made a sinner by his disobedience what agreement or consequent I beseech you can it have what therefore doth this word Sinner in this place signifie It seems to me to signifie the same that lyable to punishment guilty of Death does signifie because Adam dying all are made mortal by him And again Thou sayest what shall I do by him that is by Adam I perish No not for him For hast thou remained without sin For though thou hast not committed the same sin yet another thou hast And in the 29 Homily upon the same Epistle he argues thus What therefore tell me are all dead in Adam by the death of sin How then was Noah a just man in his generation How was Abraham and Job If this be to be understood of the body the sentence will be certain but if it be understood of justice and sin it will not But to sum up all he answers the great Argument used by S. Austin to prove infants to be in a state of damnation and sin properly because the Church baptizes them and Baptism is for the remission of sins Thou seest how many benefits there are of Baptism But many think that the grace of baptism consists only in the remission of sins But we have reckoned 〈◊〉 honours of baptism For this cause we baptize infants although they are not polluted with sin to wit that to them may be added sanctity justice adoption inheritance and the fraternity of Christ Divers other things might be transcribed to the same purposes out of S. Chrysostome but these are abundantly sufficient to prove that I have said nothing new in this Article Theodoret does very often consent with S.
Chrysostome even when he differs from others and in this Article he consents with him and the rest now reckoned when God made Adam and adorned him with reason he gave him one commandement that he might exercise his reason he being deceived broke the commandement and was exposed to the sentence of death and so he begat Cain and Seth and others but all these as being begotten of him had a mortal nature This kind of Nature wants many things meat and drink and cloaths and dwelling and divers arts the use of these things often-times provokes to excess and the excess begets sin Therefore the divine Apostle saith that when Adam had sinned and was made mortal for his sin both came to his stock that is death and sin for death came upon all inasmuch as all men have sinned For every man suffers the decree of death not for the sin of the first man but for his own Much more to the same purpose he hath upon the same Chapter but this is enough to all the purposes of this Question Now if any man thinks that though these give testimony in behalf of my explication of this Article yet that it were easie to bring very many more to the contrary I answer and profess ingenuously that I know of none till about S. Austin's time for that the first Ages taught the doctrine of Original sin I do no ways doubt but affirm it all the way but that it is a sin improperly that is a stain and a reproach rather than a sin that is the effect of one sin and the cause of many that it brought in sickness and death mortality and passions that it made us naked of those supernatural aides that Adam had and so more lyable to the temptations of the Devil this is all I find in antiquity and sufficient for the explication of this question which the more simply it is handled the more true and reasonable it is But that I may use the words of Solomon according to the Vulgar translation Hoc inveni quod fecerit Deus hominem rectum ipse se infinitis miscuerit quaestionibus God made man upright and he hath made himself more deformed than he is by mingling with innumerable questions 23. I think I have said enough to vindicate my sentence from Novelty and though that also be sufficient to quit me from singularity yet I have something more to add as to that particular and that is that it is very hard for a man to be singular in this Article if he would For first in the Primitive Church when Valentinus and Marcion Tatianus Julius Cassianus and the Encratites condemned marriage upon this account because it produces that only which is impure many good men and right believers did to justifie marriages undervalue the matter of Original sin this begat new questions in the manner of speaking and at last real differences were entertained and the Pelagian Heresie grew up upon this stock But they changed their Propositions so often that it was hard to tell what was the Heresie But the first draught of it was so rude so confused and so unreasonable that when any of the followers of it spake more warily and more learnedly yet by this time the name Pelagian was of so ill a sound that they would not be believed if they spake well nor trusted in their very recantations nor understood in their explications but cryed out against in all things right or wrong and in the fierce prosecution of this S. Austin and his followers Fulgentiâ—â— Prosper and others did excedere in dogmate pati aliquid humanum S. Austin called them all Pelagians who were of the middle opinion concerning infants and yet many Catholicks both before and since his time do profess it The Augustan confession calls them Pelagians who say that concupiscence is only the effect of Adam's sin and yet all the Roman Churches say it confidently and every man that is angry in this Question calls his Enemy Pelagian if he be not a Stoic or a Manichee a Valentinian or an Encratite But the Pelagians say so many things in their Controversie that like them that â—â—lk much they must needs say some things well though very many things amiss but if every thing which was said against S. Austin in these controversies be Pelagianism then all Antiquity were Pelagians and himself besides For he before his disputes in these Questions said much against what he said after as every learned man knows But yet it is certain that even after the Pelagian Heresie was conquered there were many good men who because they from every part take the good and leave the poyson were called Pelagians by them that were angry at them for being of another opinion in some of their Questions Cassian was a good and holy man and became the great rule of Monastines yet because he spake reason in his exhortations to Piety and justified God and blamed man he is called Pelagian and the Epistle ad Demetriadem and the little commentary on S. Paul's Epistles were read and commended highly by all men so long as they were supposed to be S. Hierom's but when some fancied that Faustus was the author they suspect the writings for the Man's sake and how-ever S. Austin was triumphant in the main Article against those Hereticks and there was great reason he should yet that he took in too much and confuted more than he should appears in this that though the World followed him in the condemnation of Pelagianisme yet the World left him in many things which he was pleased to call Pelagianisme And therefore when Arch-Bishop Bradwardin wrote his Books de causâ Dei against the liberty of will and for the fiercer way of absolute decrees he complains in his Preface that the whole World was against him and gone after Pelagius in causa liberi arbitrii Not that they really were made so but that it is an usual thing to affright men from their reasons by Names and words and to confute an argument by slandering him that uses it Now this is it that I and all men else ought to be troubled at if my doctrine be accused of singularity I cannot acquit my self of the charge but by running into a greater For if I say that one Proposition is taught by all the Roman Schools and therefore I am not singular in it They reply it is true but then it is Popery which you defend If I tell that the Lutherans defend another part of it then the Calvinists hate it therefore because their enemies avow it Either it is Popery or Pelagianisme you are an Arminian or a Socinian And either you must say that which no body sayes and then you are singular or if you do say as others say you shall feel the reproach of the party that you own which is also disowned by all but it self That therefore which I shall choose to say is this that the doctrine of Original sin as
seed Must every Bramble every Thistle weed And when each hindrance to the Grain is gone A fruitful crop shall rise of Corn alone When therefore there were so many ways made to the Devil I was willing amongst many others to stop this also and I dare say few Questions in Christendom can say half so much in justification of their own usefulness and necessity I know Madam that they who are of the other side do and will disavow most of these consequences and so do 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 evils to follow from a proposition think themselves bound to stop the progression of such opinions from whence they believe such evils may arise If the Church of Rome did believe that all those horrid things were chargeable upon Transubstantiation and upon worshipping of Images which we charge upon the Doctrines I do not doubt but they would as much disown the Propositions as now they do the consequents and yet I do 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 chargeable 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 in the World many men who own that which is evil in the pretence but many do 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 Original sin be not a sin properly why are children baptized And what benefit comes to them by Baptism 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 circumised 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 sin it is certain and plainly taught us in Scripture that no Rite of Moses was expiatory of sins But secondly This Objection can press nothing at all for why was Christ baptized who knew no sin But yet so it behoved him to fulfil all Righteousness 3. Baptism is called regeneration or the new birth and therefore since in Adam Children are born only to a natural life and a natural death and by this they can never arrive at Heaven therefore Infants are baptized because until they be born anew they can never have title to the Promises of Jesus Christ or be heirs of Heaven and co-heirs of Jesus 4. By Bapâ—ism 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 Heresie 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 Baptism is therefore necessary because nature is insufficient and Baptism is the great channel 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 sin and though their sins are not pardoned before-hand yet in Baptism 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 S. 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 Baptism Part 2. p. 194. in the Great Exemplar 6. Children are baptized for the Pardon even of Original Sin this may be affirmed truly but yet improperly for so far as it is imputed so far also it is remissible for the evil that is done by Adam is also taken away in Christ and it is imputed to us to very evil purposes as I have already explicated but as it was among the Jews who believed then the sin to be taken away when the evil of punishment is taken off so is Original Sin taken away in Baptism for though the Material part of the evil is not taken away yet the curse in all the sons of God is turned into a blessing and is made an occasion of reward or an entrance to it Now in all this I affirm all that is true and all that is probable for in the same sence as Original stain is a sin so does Baptism bring the Pardon It is a sin metonymically that is because it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many and just so in Baptism 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 Original Sin to be a sin properly and inherently is expresly against the words of S. Paul in the fifth Chapter to the Romans If it be 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 than 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 Holiness 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 do it 2. The words in question sin and sinner and condemnation are frequently used in Scripture in the lesser sence and sin is taken for the punishment of sin and sin is taken for him who bore the evil of the sin 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 temporal death for when the Apostle says Death passed upon all men in as much as all men have sinned he must mean temporal death for eternal death did not pass upon all men or 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 For if it had come for Adams sin then it had absolutely descended upon all men because from Adam all men descended and therefore all men upon that account were equally guilty as we see all men die naturally 4. The
so that now although a comparison proportionate was at first intended yet the river here rises far higher than 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 mankind by the incarnation of the Son of God 16. And not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift for the judgment was by one to condemnation but the free gift is of many offences unto justification And the first disparity and excess is in this particular for the judgment was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one man sinning one sin that one sin was imputed but by Christ not only 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 threatned 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 supernatural birth we fall infinitely short of him and are not so like him as we were to Adam and yet that we in greater unlikeness should receive a greater favour this was the excess of the comparison and this is the free gift of God 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 righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. And this is the third degree or measure of excess 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 only receive the aids 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. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life Therefore now to return to the other part of the similitude where I began although I have shown the great excess 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 judgment 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 judgment and as that judgment was to condemnation by the offence of one so the free gift and the grace came upon all to justification of life by the righteousness of one 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous The summ 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 evil which is the consequent of sin to be upon their heads who descended from the sinner and 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 Christ than we were sinners by Adam and the life we receive by Christ shall be greater than the death by Adam and the graces we derive from Christ shall be more and mightier than the corruption and declination by Adam but yet as one is the head so is the other one is the beginning of sin and death and the other of life and righteousness It were easie to add many particulars out of S. Paul but I shall chuse only to recite the Aethiopick version of the New Testament translated into Latin by that excellent Linguist and worthy Person Dr. Dudly Loftus The words are these And therefore as by the iniquity of one man sin entred into the world and by THAT SIN death came upon all men therefore because THAT SIN IS IMPUTED TO ALL MEN even those who knew not what that sin was Until the Law came sin remained in the world not known what it was when sin was not reckoned because as yet at that time the Commandment of the Law was not come Nevertheless death did after reign from Adam until Moses as well in those that did sin as in those that did not sin by that sin of Adam because every one was created in the similitude of Adam and because Adam was a type of him that was to come But not according to the quantity of our iniquity was the grace of God to us If for the offence of one man many are dead how much more by the grace of God and by the gift of him who did gratifie us by one man to wit Jesus Christ life hath abounded upon many Neither for the measure of the sin which was of one man was there the like reckoning or account of the grace of God For if the condemnation of sin proceeding from one man caus'd that by that sin all should be punished how much rather shall his grace purifie us from our sins and give to us eternal life If the sin of one made death to reign and by the offence of one man death did rule in us how much more therefore shall the grace of one man Jesus Christ and his gift justifie us and make us to reign in life eternal And as by the offence of one man many are condemned Likewise also by the righteousness of one man shall every son of man be justified and live And as by one man many are made sinners or as the Syriack Version renders it there were many sinners In like manner again many are made righteous * Now this reddition of the Apostles discourse in this Article is a very great light to the Understanding of the words which not the nature of the thing but the popular glosses have made difficult But here it is plain that all the notice of this Article which those Churches derived from these words of Saint Paul was this That the sin of Adam
brought death into the world That it was his sin alone that did the great mischief That this sin was made ours 〈◊〉 by inherence but by imputation That they who suffered the calamity did not know what the sin was That there was a difference of men even in relation to thiâ— sin and it passed upon some more than upon others that is some were more miserable than others That some did not sin by that sin of Adam and some did that is some there were whose manners were not corrupted by that example and some were that it was not our sin but his that the sin did not multiply by the variety of subject but was still but one sin and that it was his and not ours all which particulars are as so many verifications of the doctrine I have delivered and so many illustrations of the main Article But in verification of one great part of it I mean that concerning Infants and that they are not corrupted properly or made sinners by any inherent impurity is clearly affirmed by S. Peter whose words are thus rendred in the same Aethiopick Testament 1 Pet. 2.2 And be ye like unto newly begotten Infants who are begotten every one without sin or malice and as milk not mingled And to the same sence those words of our Blessed Saviour to the Pharisees asking who sinn'd this man or his Parents John 9. the Syriack Scholiast does give this Paraphrase some say it is an indirect question For how is it possible for a man to sin before he was born And if his Parents sinn'd how could he bear their sin But if they say that the punishment of the Parents may be upon the Children let them know that this is spoken of them that came out of Egypt and is not Universal And those words of David In sin hath my Mother conceived me R. David Kimchi and Abeâ—esra say that they are expounded of Eve who did not conceive till she had sinned But to return to the words of S. Paul The consequent of this discourse must needs at least be this that it is impossible that the greatest part of mankind 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 access 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 affirms that we were sentenced 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 judgment which for Adams sin came unto the condemnation of the world was nothing but temporal death is here affirmed it being in no sence imaginable that the death which here S. Paul says passed upon all men and which reigned from Adam to Moses should be eternal death for the Apostle speaks of that death which was threatned to Adam and of such a death which was afterwards threatned in Moses's Law and such a death which fell even upon the most righteous of Adams posterity Abel and Seth and Methuselah that is upon them who did not sin after the similitude of Adams transgression Since then all the judgment which the Apostle says came by the sin of Adam was sufficiently and plainly enough affirmed to be death temporal that God should sentence mankind to eternal damnation for Adams sin though in goodness through Christ he afterwards took it off is not at all affirmed by the Apostle and because in proportion to the evil so was the imputation of the sin it follows that Adams sin is ours metonymically and improperly God was not finally angry with us nor had so much as any designs of eternal displeasure upon that account his anger went no further than the evils of this life and therefore the imputation was not of a proper guilt for that might justly have passed beyond our grave if the sin had passed beyond a metonymy or a juridical external imputation And of this God and Man have given this further testimony that as no man ever imposed penance for it so God himself in nature did never for it afflict or affright the Conscience and yet the Conscience never spares any man that is guilty of a known sin Extemplo quodcunque malum committitur ipsi Displicet Authori He that is guilty of a sin Shall rue the crime that he lies in And why the Conscience shall be for ever at so much peace for this sin that a man shall never give one groan for his share of guilt in Adams sin unless some or other scares him with an impertinent proposition why I say the Conscience should not naturally be afflicted for it nor so much as naturally know it I confess I cannot yet make any reasonable conjecture save this only that it is not properly a sin but only metonymically and improperly And indeed there are some whole Churches which think themselves so little concerned in the matter of Original sin that they have not a word of it in all their Theology I mean the Christians in the East-Indies concerning whom Frier Luys di Vrretta in his Ecclesiastical story of Aethiopia says That the Christians in Aethiopia under the Empire of Prestre Juan never kept the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary no so entremetieron en essas Theologias del peccato Original porque mâ—nca tuvieron los entendimientes muy metafisicos antes como gente afable benigna Llana de entendimientos conversables y alaguenos seguian la dotrina de los santos antiguos y de los sagrados Concilios sin disputas ni diferencias nor do they insert into their Theology any propositions concerning Original Sin nor trouble themselves with such Metaphysical contemplations but being of an affable ingenuous gentle comportment and understanding follow the Doctrine of the Primitive Saints and Holy Councils without disputation or difference so says the story But we unfortunately trouble our selves by raising Ideas of Sin and afflict our selves with our own dreams and will not believe but it is a vision And the height of this imagination hath wrought so high in the Church of Rome that when they would do great honours to the Virgin Mary they were pleased to allow to her an immaculate conception without any Original Sin and a Holy-day appointed for the celebration of the dream But the Christians in the other world are wiser and trouble themselves with none of these things but in simplicity honour the Divine attributes and speak nothing but what is easie to be understood And indeed Religion is then the best and the world will be sure to have fewer Atheists and fewer Blasphemers when the understandings of witty men are not tempted by commanding them to believe impossible Articles and unintelligible propositions when every thing is
exemption and they supposing that commonly it was otherwise troubled themselves about the exception of a Rule which in that sence which they 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 sinn'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 chuse but be Andabatarum conflictus But then my discourse representing that these disputes are useless and as they discourse usually to be de non ente is not to be reprov'd For I profess to evince that many of those things of the sence of which they dispute are not true at all in any sence 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 tells them they both fight about a shadow and with many arguments proves the vanity of their whole process they if he says true not he is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * When S. Austin 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 real 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 follows 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 less infected by Adam's pollution by having less 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 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 ways infer it to be another kind of thing than all the Schools of learning teach 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 wisdom 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 abhor 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 child should be damn'd for want of Baptism answered 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 they die without Baptism But if it be a horrible affirmative to say that the poor babes shall be made Devils or enter into their portion if they want that ceremony which is the only gate the only way of salvation that stands open then the word Damnation in the Ninth Article must mean something less than what we usually understand by it or else the Article must be salved by expounding some other word to an allay and lessening of the horrible sentence and particularly the word Deserves of which I shall afterwards give account Both these ways I follow The first is the way of the School-men For they suppose the state of unbaptized Infants to be a poena damni and they are confident enough to say that
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 believe 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 than 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 Psalm 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 sinn'd for so it follows because they provoked his spirit so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips So it is between Adam and us He sinn'd and God was highly displeased This displeasure went further than 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 sinn'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 Kings 14.16 He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin Jeroboam 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 child 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 punished 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 sence 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 and 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 sence 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 sence 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 find it so Mat. 2.4 but in Acts 3.16 and Phil. 1.3 I find it not at all in any sence 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 18 and 19. Verses of the 5. Chapter to the Romans The summ of which as your Lordship most ingeniously summs it up is this As by one many were made sinners so by one many were made righteous that by Adam this by Christ. But by Christ we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just not by imputation only but effectively and to real purposes therefore by Adam we are really made sinners And this your Lordship confirms by the observation of the sence of two words here used by the Apostle The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a sentence of guilt or punishment for sin and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes because God punishes none but for their own sin Ezek. 18.2 From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clear from sin so your Lordship renders
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 than 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 than 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 judgment 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 mankind 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 therefore 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 than 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 sence not that Christs righteousness is imputed to us without any inherent graces in us but that our imperfect services our true faith and sincere endeavours 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 than 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 than of sin by Adam Christ and Adam are the several fountains of emanation and are compar'd aequè but not aequaliter Therefore this argument holds redundantly since by Christ we are not made legally righteous but by imputation only much less are we made sinners by Adam This in my sence is so infinitely far from being an objection that it perfectly demonstrates the main question and for my part I mean to relie upon it As for that which your Lordship adds out of Rom. 5.19 That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sinners not by imitation as the Pelagians dream but sinners really and effectively I shall not need to make any other reply but that 1. I do not approve of that gloss of the Pelagians that in Adam we are made sinners by imitation and much less of that which affirms we are made so properly and formally But made sinners signifies us'd like sinners so as justified signifies healed like just persons In
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 than 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 sence 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 sinn'd but if he had not sinn'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 mankind and it is true of temporal death in the sence 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 sinn'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 mankind 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 says Death came in by sin and that Death is the rages of sin he primarily and literally means the solemnities and causes and infelicities and untimeliness of temporal death and not merely 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 boys and young men at a publick 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 than to desire to be happy is a sin desire is no more a sin than joy or sorrow is neither can it be fancied why one passion more than another can be in its whole nature Criminal either all or none are so when any of them grows 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 chuse If we chuse it is our own if we chuse 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 always there it is that a difference can be For I consider if the first Concupiscence be a sin Original Sin for actual it is not and that this is properly personally and inherently our sin by traduction that is if our will be necessitated to sin by Adam's fall as it must needs be if it can sin when it cannot deliberate then there can be no reason told why it is more a sin to will evil than to understand it and how does that which is moral differ from that which is natural for the understanding is first and primely moved by its object and in that motion by nothing else but by God who moves all things and if that which hath nothing else to move it but the object yet is not free it is strange that the will can in any sence be free when it is necessitated by wisdom and by power and by Adam that is from within and from without besides what God and violence do and can do But in this I have not only Scripture and all the reason of the world on my side but the complying sentences of the
to be refused as being the increaser of sin rather than 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 than 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. Hierome in Athenagoras 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 confuâ—ed 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 civitate 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 believe all that this excellent man wrote will not only find it impossible he should but will have reason to say that zeal against an error is not always the best instrument to find out 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. Jerome 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 than 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 School-men 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 sinn'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 find 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 knows 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 evil 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 sinn'd But if from a sinning Parent a good child descends the childs innocence will more prevail with God for kindness than 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 poenâ liberatur tanquam ex improbitatis domo in aliam familiam datus qui verò morbo in similitudinem generis refertur atque redigitur vitiosi ei nimirum convenit tanquam haeredi debitas poenas vitii persolvere said Plutarch De iis qui serò à Numine puniuntur ex interpr Cluserii God does not always make the fathers sins descend upon the children But if a good child 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 judgment Other ways 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 ways by which punishment can enter but there are evils which are no
received 1004. Alexander III. in a Council condemned Pet. Lombard of Heresy from which sentence without repentance or leaving his opinion after 36 years he was absolved by Innocent III. 1005. Infallible The Romanists hold the Scripture for no infallible rule 381. No man affirms but J.S. that the Fathers are infallible 373 374 375. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. General Councils not infallible 392. Bellarmine confesseth that for 1500 years the Pope's judgement was not held infallible 453. Infants What punishment Adam's sin can bring upon Infants that die 714 n. 29. It was the general opinion of the Fathers before Saint Augustine that Infants unbaptized were not condemned to the pains of Hell 755 756 n. 16 17. The reason on which the Baptism of Infants is grounded 718 n. 42. Infirmity What is the state of Infirmity 771 n. 3. It excuses no man ibid. That state which some men call a state of Infirmity is a state of sin and death 777 n. 26. What are sins of infirmity 789 n. 47. Sins of infirmity consist more in the imperfection of obedience then in the commission of any evil 790 n. 51. A sin of infirmity cannot be but in a small matter 791 n. 54. What are not sins of infirmity 792 n. 55. Violence of passion excuseth none under the title of sins of infirmity 792 n. 56. Sins of infirmity not accounted in the same manner to young men as to others 793 n. 59. The greatness of the temptation doth not make sin excusable upon the account of sins of infirmity 793 n. 60. The smallest instance if observed ceases to be a sin of infirmity 794 n. 61. A man's will hath no infirmity 794 n. 62. Nothing is a sin of infirmity but what is in some sense involuntary 794 n. 63. Sins of inculpable ignorance are sins of infirmity 794 n. 64. There is no pardonable state of infirmity 797 n. 98. Job Chap. 31. v. 18. explained 721. Gospel of Saint John Chap. 3. v. 5. Vnless a man be born of water and of the holy Spirit explained 5 6 b. Chap. 6. v. 53. Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of God and drink his bloud 8 b. Chap. 8. 47. He that is of God heareth God's word 679 n. 62. Chap. 9.34 Thou wast altogether born in sin and dost thou teach us 721 n. 49. Chap. 14.17 The world cannot receive him explained 785 n. 37. Chap. 20.23 Whosoever's sins ye remit explained 816 n. 66. 1. Epistle of Saint John Chap. 5. v. 17. There is a sin not unto death explained 643 n. 31. and 809 810. Chap. 3.9 He that is born of God sinneth not nor can he explained 810. Chap. 1.9 If we confess our sins God is faithful to forgive our sins explained 830 n. 34. Chap. 5.7 The Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one explained 967 n. 4. Irenaeus He mentions an impostor that essayed to counterfeit Transubstantiation long before the Roman Church decreed it 228 § 10. Isaiah Chap. 53. v. 10. explained 712 n. 15. Judgment That of man and God proceed in several methods and relie upon different grounds 614 615 n. 15. Jurisdiction Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any Jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by delegation 82 § 21. What persons are under that of Bishops 123 § 36. Justice God's Justice and Mercy reconciled about his exacting the Law 580. Justification Of our Justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness 901 902. Guilt cannot properly and really be traduced from one person to another 902 915. Of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 903. K. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 WHat it signifieth 636 n. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of that word and its use 638 n. 12. Keys Wherein that kind of power consisteth 841 n. 58. Kings The Episcopal power encroacheth not upon the Regal 120 § 36. The seal of Confession the Romanists will not suffer to be broken to save the life of a Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. An excommunicate King the Romans teach may be deposed or killed 344 c. 3. § 3. The Pope takes upon him to depose Kings that are not heretical 345. The Roman Religion no friend to Kings 345. Their opinions so injurious to Kings are not the doctrines of private men onely 345. Father Arnald Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause that King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. L. Laiety NO Ecclesiastical presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. The Oeconomus of the Church might not be a Lay-man 164 § 50. The Laiety sometime admitted to vote in Councils 394 395. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. Latin Photius was the first authour of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Church 109 § 33. Law The Papists corrupted the Imperial Law of Justinian in the matter of Prayers in an unknown Language 304 c. 1. § 7. The difference between the Law and Gospel 574. Of the possibility of keeping the Law 576. Arguments to prove that perfect obedience to God's Law is impossible 576 577 n. 15. ad 19. In what sense it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 574. It s severity made the Gospel better received ibid. Difference between it and the Gospel 673 n. 46. and 574 575. and 580 581. Of the difference between Saint Augustine and Saint Hierome concerning the possibility of keeping the Law of God 579 n. 30 31. In what measures God exacteth it 580 581. His mercy and justice reconciled about that thing 580 581. To keep the Law naturally possible but morally impossible 580 n. 34. No man can keep the Law of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 585 n. 50. The Law of works imposed on Adam onely 587 n. 1. The state of men under the Law 778. A threefold Law in man flesh or members the mind or conscience the spirit 781 n. 29. The contention between the Law of the flesh and conscience is no sign of Regeneration but the contention between the Law of the flesh and spirit is 782 n. 31. The Law of Moses and of the Gospel were not impossible of themselves but in respect of our circumstances 580 n 33. All that which was insupportable in Moses's Law was nothing but the want of Repentance ibid. Laws indirectly occasion sin 771 n. 6. Lawful Every thing that is lawful or the utmost of what is lawful not always 〈◊〉 to be done 856 857. Life The necessity of good life 799 n. 25. The natural evils of man's life 734 n. 82. Loose What in the promise of Christ is signified by binding and loosing 836 n. 45 46 47. Saint Luke Chap. 22.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 153 § 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Text what it meaneth ibid. 154. Chap. 15.7 explained 801 n. 5. Chap. 11.41 explained 848. Chap. 13.14 explained 786 40. Lukewarmness How it comes to be a
habit can equally in the merits of Christ be the disposition to a pardon as an act can for an act and is certainly much better than any one act can be because it includes many single acts of the same nature and it is all them and their permanent effect and change wrought by them besides So that it is certainly the better and the surer way But now the Question is not whether it be the better way but whether it be necessary and will not the lesser way suffice To this therefore I answer that since no man can be acceptable to God as long as sin reigns in his mortal body and since either sin must reign or the Spirit of Christ must reign for a man cannot be a Neuter in this war it is necessary that sins kingdom be destroyed and broken and that Christ rule in our hearts that is it is necessary that the first and the old habits be taken off and new ones introduc'd For although the moral revocation of a single act may be a sufficient disposition to its pardon because the act was transient and unless there be a habit or something of it nothing remains yet the moral revocation of a sinful habit cannot be sufficient because there is impressed upon the soul a viciousness and contrariety to God which must be taken off or there can be no reconciliation For let it be but considered that a vicious habit is a remanent aversation from God an evil heart the evil treasure of the heart a carnal mindedness an union and principle of sins and then let it be answered whether a man who is in this state can be a friend of God or reconcil'd to him in his Son who lives in a state so contrary to his holy Spirit of Grace The guilt cannot be taken off without destroying its nature since the nature it self is a viciousness and corruption 39. VI. Either it is necessary to extirpate and break the habit or else a man may be pardon'd while he is in love with sin For every vicious habit being radicated in the will and being a strong love inclination and adhesion to sin unless the natural being of this habit be taken off the enmity against God remains For it being a quality permanent and inherent and its nature being an aptness and easiness a desire to sin and longing after it to retract this by a moral retractation and not by a natural also is but hypocrisie for no man can say truly I hate the sin I have committed so long as the love to sin is inherent in his will and then if God should pardon such a person it would be to justifie a sinner remaining such which God equally hates as to condemn the innocent He will by no means acquit the guilty It was part of his Name which he caused to be proclaimed in the Camp of Israel And if this could be otherwise a man might be in the state of sin and the state of grace at the same time which hitherto all Theology hath believ'd to be impossible 40. VII This whole Question is clear'd by a large discourse of S. Paul For having under the person of an unregenerate man complain'd of the habitual state of prevailing sin of one who is a slave to sin sold under sin captive under a law of sin that is under vile inclinations and high pronenesses and necessities of sinning so that when he is convinc'd that he ought not to do it yet he cannot help it though he fain would have it help'd yet he cannot obey his own will but his accursed superinduc'd necessities and his sin within him was the ruler that and not his own better choice was the principle of his actions which is the perfect character of an habitual sinner he inquires after a remedy for all this which remedy he calls a being delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the body of this death The remedy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace of God through Jesus Christ for by Christ alone we can be delivered But what is to be done the extermination of this dominion and Empire of concupiscence the breaking of the kingdom of sin That being the evil he complains of and of which he seeks remedy that is to be remov'd But that we may well understand to what sence and in what degree this is to be done in the next periods he describes the contrary state of deliverance by the parts and characters of an habit or state of holiness which he calls a walking after the Spirit opposed to a walking after the flesh It was a law in his members a law of sin and death Now he is to be made free by a contrary law the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus That is as sin before gave him law so now must the Spirit of God whereas before he minded the things of the flesh now he minds the things of the spirit that is the carnal-mindedness is gone and a spiritual-mindedness is the principle and ruler of his actions This is the deliverance from habitual sins even no other than by habitual graces wrought in us by the spirit of life by the grace of our Lord Jesus And this whole affair is rarely well summ'd up by the same Apostle As ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness If ye were servants before so ye must be now it is but justice and reason that at least as much be done for God as for the Devil It is not enough morally to revoke what is past by a wishing it had not been done but you must oppose a state to a state a habit to a habit And the Author of the Book of Baruch presses it further yet As it was your mind to go astray from God so being returned seek him ten times more It ought not to be less it must be as S. Chrysostom expresses it A custom against a custom a habit opposed to a habit that the evil may be driven out by the good as one nail is by another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Procopius In those things where you have sinned to profit and to increase and improve to their contraries that is the more comely way to pardon 41. VIII Either a habit of vertue is a necessary disposition to the pardon of a habit of vice or else the doctrine of mortification of the lusts of the flesh of all the lusts of all the members of the old man is nothing but a counsel and a caution of prudence but it contains no essential and indispensable duty For mortification is a long contention and a course of difficulty it is to be done by many arts and much caution and a long patience and a diligent observation by watchfulness and labour the work of every day and the employment of all the prudence and all the advices of good men and the
sinned he should have been immortal by grace that is by the use of the Tree of life and now being driven from the place where the Tree grew was left in his own natural constitution that is to be sick and die without that remedy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was mortal of himself and we are mortal from him Peccando Adam posteros morti subjecit universos huic delicto obnoxios reddit said Justin Martyr Adam by his sin made all his posterity liable to the sin and subjected them to death One explicates the other and therefore S. Cyprian calls Original sin Malum domesticum contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contractum His sin infected us with death and this infection we derive in our birth that is we are born mortal Adams sin was imputed to us unto a natural death in him we are sinners as in him we die But this sin is not real and inherent but imputed only to such a degree So S. Cyprian affirms most expresly infans recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd secundum Adam carnalitèr natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ nativitate contraxit An infant hath not sinn'd save only that being carnally born of Adam in his first birth he hath contracted the contagion of the old death 20. This evil which is the condition of all our natures viz. to die was to some a punishment but to others not so It was a punishment to all that sinn'd both before Moses and since upon the first it fell as a consequent of Gods anger upon Adam as I before discours'd upon the latter it fell as a consequent of that anger which was threatned in Moses law But to those who sinned not at all as Infants and Innocents it was merely a condition of their nature and no more a punishment than to be a child is It was a punishment of Adams sin because by his sin humane Nature became disrob'd of their preternatural immortality and therefore upon that account they die but as it related to the persons it was not a punishment not an evil afflicted for their sin or any guiltiness of their own properly so called 21. We find nothing else in Scripture express'd to be the effect of Adams sin and beyond this without authority we must not go Other things are said but I find no warrant for them in that sence they are usually suppos'd and some of them in no sence at all The particulars commonly reckoned are that from Adam we derive an Original ignorance a proneness to sin a natural malice a fomes or nest of sin imprinted and plac'd in our souls a loss of our wills liberty and nothing is left but a liberty to sin which liberty upon the summ of affairs is expounded to be a necessity to sin and the effect of all is we are born heirs of damnation 22. Concerning Original or Natural ignorance it is true we derive it from our Parents I mean we are born with it but I do not know that any man thinks that if Adam had not sinn'd that sin Cain should have been wise as soon as his Navel had been cut Neither can we guess at what degree of knowledge Adam had before his fall Certainly if he had had so great a knowledge it is not likely he would so cheaply have sold himself and all his hopes out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge But concerning his posterity indeed it is true a child cannot speak at first nor understand and if as Plato said all our knowledge is nothing but memory it is no wonder a child is born without knowledge But so it is in the wisest men in the world they also when they see or hear a thing first think it strange and could not know it till they saw or heard it Now this state of ignorance we derive from Adam as we do our Nature which is a state of ignorance and all manner of imperfection but whether it was not imperfect and apt to fall into forbidden instances even before his fall we may best guess at by the event for if he had not had a rebellious appetite and an inclination to forbidden things by what could he have been tempted and how could it have come to pass that he should sin Indeed this Nature was made worse by sin and became devested of whatsoever it had extraordinary and was left naked and mere and therefore it is not only an Original imperfection which we inherit but in the sence now explicated it is also an Original corruption And this is all As natural death by his sin became a curse so our natural imperfection became natural corruption and that is Original sin Death and imperfection we derive from Adam but both were natural to us but by him they became actual and penal and by him they became worse as by every evil act every principle of evil is improv'd And in this sence this Article is affirmed by all the Doctors of the ancient Church We are miserable really sinners in account or effect that properly this improperly and are faln into so sad a state of things which we also every day make worse that we did need a Saviour to redeem us from it For in Original sin we are to consider the principle and the effects The principle is the actual sin of Adam This being to certain purposes by Gods absolute dominion imputed to us hath brought upon us a necessity of dying and all the affections of mortality which although they were natural yet would by grace have been hindred Another evil there is upon us and that is Concupiscence this also is natural but it was actual before the fall it was in Adam and tempted him This also from him is derived to us and is by many causes made worse by him and by our selves And this is the whole state of Original sin so far as is fairly warrantable But for the other particulars the case is wholly differing The sin of Adam neither made us 1. Heirs of damnation Nor 2. Naturally and necessarily vicious 23. I. It could not make us Heirs of damnation This I shall the less need to insist upon because of it self it seems so horrid to impute to the goodness and justice of God to be author of so great a calamity to Innocents that S. Austins followers have generally left him in that point and have descended to this lesser proportion that Original sin damns only to the eternal loss of the sight of Gods glorious face But to this I say these things 24. I. That there are many Divines which believe this alone to be the worm that never dies and the fire that never goeth out that is in effect this and the anguish for this is all the Hell of the damned And unless infants remain infants in the resurrection too which no man that I know affirms or unless they be senseless and inapprehensive it is not to be imagined but that all that know
we by his fall received evil enough to undo us and ruine us all but yet the evil did so descend upon us that we were left in powers and capacities to serve and glorifie God Gods service was made much harder but not impossible mankind was made miserable but not desperate we contracted an actual mortality but we were redeemable from the power of Death sin was easie and ready at the door but it was resistable our Will was abused but yet not destroyed our Understanding was cosened but yet still capable of the best instructions and though the Devil had wounded us yet Gâ—d senâ— his Son who like the good Samaritan poured Oyl and Wine into our wounds and we were cured before we felt the hurt that might have ruined us upon that Occasion It is sad enough but not altogether so intolerable and decretory as some would make it which the Sibylline Oracle describes to be the effect of Adam's sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man was the work of God fram'd by his hands Him did the Serpent cheat that to deaths bands He was subjected for his sin for this was all He tasted good and evil by his fall But to this we may superadd that which Plutarch found to be experimentally true Mirum quod pedes moverunt ad usum rationis nullo autem fraeno passiones The foot moves at the command of the Will and by the Empire of reason but the passions are stiff even then when the knee bends and no bridle can make the Passions regular and temperate And indeed Madam this is in a manner the summ total of the evil of our abused and corrupted nature Our soul is in the body as in a Prison it is there tanquam in alienâ domo it is a sojourner and lives by the bodies measures and loves and hates by the bodies Interests and Inclinations that which is pleasing and nourishing to the body the soul chuses and delights in That which is vexatious and troublesome it abhorrs and hath motions accordingly for Passions are nothing else but acts of the Will carried to or from material Objects and effects and impresses upon the man made by such acts consequent motions and productions from the Will It is a useless and a groundless proposition in Philosophy to make the Passions to be the emanations of distinct faculties and seated in a differing region for as the reasonable soul is both sensitive and vegetative so is the Will elective and passionate the region both of choice and passions that is When the Object is immaterial or the motives such the act of the Will is so merely intellectual that it is then spiritual and the acts are proper and Symbolical and the act of it we call election or volition but if the Object is material or corporal the acts of the Will are passion that is adhesion and aversation and these it receives by the needs and inclinations of the body An Object can diversifie an act but never distinguish faculties And if we make it one faculty that chuses a reasonable object and another that chuses the sensual we may as well assign a third faculty for the supernatural and religious and when to chuse a sensual object is always either reasonable or unreasonable and every adherence to pleasure and mortification or refusing of it is subject to a command and the matter of duty it will follow that even the passions also are issues of the Will by passions meaning the actions of prosecution or refusal of sensitive objects the acts of the Concupiscible and Irascible appetite not the impresses made by these upon the body as trembling redness paleness heaviness and the like and therefore to say the passions rule the will is an improper saying but it hath no truth in its meaning but this that the Will is more passionate than wise it is more delighted with Bodily pleasures than Spiritual but as the understanding considers both and the disputation about them is in that faculty alone so the choice of both is in the will alone Now because many of the bodies needs are naturally necessary and the rest are made so by being thought needs and by being so naturally pleasant and that this is the bodies day and it rules here in its own place and time therefore it is that the will is so great a scene of passion and we so great servants of our bodies This was the great effect of Adams sin which became therefore to us a punishment because of the appendant infirmity that went along with it for Adam being spoiled of all the rectitudes and supernatural heights of grace and thrust back to the form of nature and left to derive grace to himself by a new Oeconomy or to be without it and his posterity left just so as he was left himself 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 have reproved them you will find that I have reason There are one sort of Calvin's Scholars whom we for distinctions sake call Supralapsarians who are so fierce in their sentences of predestination and reprobation that they say God looked upon mankind only 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 only because he pleased for they were his own and Qui jure suo utitur nemini facit injuriam says 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 powerful but his power not to be good it makes him more cruel to men than 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 says 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
is worth a little Peace every day of the week and caeteris paribus Truth is to be preferred before Peace not every trifling truth to a considerable peace But if the truth be material it makes recompence though it brings a great noise along with it and if the breach of Peace be nothing but that men talk in Private or declaim a little in publick truly Madam it is a very pitiful little 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 always 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 divisions of heart but yet he came to perswade us to Peace and Unity Indeed if the truth be clear and yet of no great effect in the lives of men in government o◠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 than 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 than any truth should be renounced or denied but Peace is rather to be procured or continued than some Truth offered This is my sence Madam when the case is otherwise than 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 do it with liberty and with my charity If any man is of my opinion I confess I love him the better but if he refuses it I will not love him less after than 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 easiness 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 weakness to each man by birth descends To me too great a kindness Nature lends But if the peace can be broken no more than thus I suppose the truth which I publish will do more than 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 duel or loss of Peace abroad For a single anger or a displeasure on one side is not a breach of Peace on both and a War cannot be made by fewer than a bargain can in which always 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 usual Doctrines of Original sin 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 usual Propositions concerning Original sin For the consequences are plain and by them the necessity of my Doctrine and its usefulness 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 goodness 2. If God does damn any for that he damns 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 Wisdom 4. If God for the sin of Adam brings upon us a necessity of sinning where is our liberty where is our Nature what is become of all Laws and of all Vertue and vice How can Men be distinguished from Beasts or the Vertuous from the vicious 5. If by the fall of Adam we are so wholly ruined in our faculties that we cannot do any good but must do evil how shall any man take care of his ways 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 Original and which is unavoidable and yet an Unresistible cause then no man can take care to avoid any actual sin whose cause is natural and not to be declined And then where is his Providence and Government 6. If God does cast Infants into Hell for the sin of others and yet did not condemn Devils but for their own sin where is his love to mankind 7. If God chuseth the death of so many Millions of Persons who are no sinners upon their own stock and yet swears that he does not love the death of a sinner viz. sinning with his own choice how can that he credible he should love to kill Innocents and yet should love to spare the Criminal Where then is his Mercy 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 wisdom 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 Majesty and remove the hinderances of a good life since every thing can hinder us from living well but scarcely can all the Arguments of God and man and all the Powers of Heaven and Hell perswade us to strictness and severity Qui serere ingenuum volet agrum Liberet arva priùs fruticibus Falce rubos silicemque resecet Vt novâ fruge gravis Ceres eat Boeth lib. 3. Metr 1. He that will sow his field with hopeful
it and in opposition to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendred that is guilty criminal persons really and properly This is all which the wit of man can say from this place of S. Paul and if I make it appear that this is invalid I hope I am secure To this then I answer That the Antithesis in these words here urg'd for there is another in the Chapter and this whole argument of S. Paul is full and intire without descending to minutes Death came in by one man much more shall life come by one man if that by Adam then much more this by Christ by him to condemnation by this man to justification This is enough to verifie the argument of S. Paul though life and death did not come in the same manner to the several relatives as indeed they did not of which afterwards But for the present it runs thus By Adam we were made sinners by Christ we are made righteous As certainly one as the other though not in the same manner of dispensation By Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 death reigned by this man the reign of death shall be destroyed and life set up in stead of it by him we were us'd as sinners for in him we died but by Christ we are justified that is us'd as just persons for by him we live This is sufficient for the Apostles argument and yet no necessity to affirm that we are sinners in Adam any more than by imputation for we are by Christ made just no otherwise than by imputation In the proof or perswasion I will use no indirect arguments as to say that to deny us to be just by imputation is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and of the Socinian Conventicles but expresly dislik'd by all the Lutheran Calvinist and Zuinglian Churches and particularly by the Church of England and indeed by the whole Harmony of Confessions This I say I will not make use of not only because I my self do not love to be press'd by such prejudices rather than arguments but because the question of the imputation of righteousness is very much mistaken and misunderstood on all hands They that say that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification do it upon this account because they know all that we do is imperfect therefore they think themselves constrain'd to flie to Christ's righteousness and think it must be imputed to us or we perish The other side considering that this way would destroy the necessity of holy living and that in order to our justification there were conditions requir'd on our parts think it necessary to say that we are justified by inherent righteousness Between these the truth is plain enough to be read Thus Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us for justification directly and immediately neither can we be justified by our own righteousness but our Faith and sincere endeavours are through Christ accepted in stead of legal righteousness that is we are justified through Christ by imputation not of Christs nor our own righteousness but of our faith and endeavours of righteousness as if they were perfect and we are justified by a Non-imputation viz. of our past sins and present unavoidable imperfections that is we are handled as if we were just persons and no sinners So faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness not that it made him so legally but Evangelically that is by grace and imputation And indeed My Lord that I may speak freely in this great question when one man hath sinn'd his descendants and relatives cannot possibly by him or for him or in him be made sinners properly and really For in sin there are but two things imaginable the irregular action and the guilt or obligation to punishment Now we cannot in any sence be said to have done the action which another did and not we the action is as individual as the person and Titius may as well be Cajus and the Son be his own Father as he can be said to have done the Fathers action and therefore we cannot possibly be guilty of it for guilt is an obligation to punishment for having done it the action and the guilt are relatives one cannot be without the other something must be done inwardly or outwardly or there can be no guilt * But then for the evil of punishment that may pass further than the action If it passes upon the innocent it is not a punishment to them but an evil inflicted by right of Dominion but yet by reason of the relation of the afflicted to him that sinn'd to him it is a punishment But if it passes upon others that are not innocent then it is a punishment to both to the first principally to the Descendents or Relatives for the others sake his sin being imputed so far How far that is in the present case and what it is the Apostle expresses thus It was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 18. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 16. a curse unto condemnation or a judgment unto condemnation that is a curse inherited from the principal deserv'd by him and yet also actually descending upon us after we had sinn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the judgment passed upon Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was on him but it prov'd to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a through condemnation when from him it passed upon all men that sinn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes differ in degrees so the words are used by S. Paul otherwhere 1 Cor. 11.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a judgment to prevent a punishment or a less to fore-stall a greater in the same kind so here the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass'd further the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was fulfilled in his posterity passing on further viz. that all who sinn'd should pass under the power of death as well as he but this became formally and actually a punishment to them only who did sin personally to them it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 17. the reign of death this is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 21. the reign of sin in death that is the effect which Adams 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
in the words of the 19. verse By one mans disobedience many were made sinners Concerning which I need not make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or many whom sometimes S. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and many that is all from Adam to Moses but they are but many and not all in respect of mankind exactly answering to the All that have life by Christ which are only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those many that believe and are adopted into the Covenant of believers by this indeed it is perceivable that this was not a natural title or derivation of an inherent corruption from Adam for that must have included All absolutely and universally But that which I here dwell and rely upon is this 15. Sin is often in Scripture us'd for the punishment of sin and they that suffer are called sinners though they be innocent So it is in this case By Adams disobedience many were made sinners that is the sin of Adam pass'd upon them and sate upon their heads with evil effect like that of Bathsheba I and my son shall be accounted sinners that is evil will befall us we shall be used like sinners like Traitors and Usurpers So This shall be the sin of Egypt said the Prophet This shall be the punishment so we read it And Cain complaining of the greatness of his punishment said Mine iniquity is greater than I can bear * And to put it past all doubt not only punishment is called sin in Scripture but even he that bears it Him that knew no sin God hath made sin that we might be the righteousness of God in him and the Prophet Isaiah speaking of Christ saith Posuit peccatum animam suam He hath made his soul a sin that is obnoxious to the punishment of sin Thus it is said that Christ shall appear the second time without sin that is without the punishment of sin unto salvation for of sin formally or materially he was at first as innocent as at the second time that is pure in both And if Christ who bare our burthen became sin for us in the midst of his purest innocence that we also are by Adam made sinners that is suffer evil by occasion of his demerit infers not that we have any formal guilt or enmity against God upon that account Facti peccatores in S. Paul by Adam we are made sinners answers both in the story and in the expression to Christus factus peccatum pro nobis Christ was made sin for us that is was expos'd to the evil that is consequent to sin viz. to its punishment 16. For the further explication of which it is observable that the word sinner and sin in Scripture is us'd for any person that hath a fault or a legal impurity a debt a vitiosity defect or imperfection For the Hebrews use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for any obligation which is contracted by the Law without our fault Thus a Nazarite who had touch'd a dead body was tied to offer a sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sin and the reason is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he had sinn'd concerning the dead body and yet it was nothing but a legal impurity nothing moral And the offering that was made by the leprous or the menstruous or the diseased in profluvio seminis is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for sin and yet it might be innocent all the way 17. Thus in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is said that our blessed Lord who is compared to the High-Priest among the Jews did offer first for his own sins by which word it is certain that no sin properly could be meant for Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knew no sin but it means the state of his infirmity the condition of his mortal body which he took for us and our sins and is a state of misery and of distance from Heaven for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven whither Christ was not to go till by offering himself he had unclothed himself of that imperfect vesture as they that were legally impure might not go to the Temple before their offering and therefore when by death he quit himself of this condition it is said he died unto sin Parallel to this is that of S. Paul in the fifth Chapter to the Hebrews where the state of infirmity is expresly called sin The High-Priest is himself also compassed with infirmity and by reason hereof he ought as for the people so also for himself to offer for sins This is also more expresly by S. Paul called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the likeness of the sin of the flesh and thus Concupiscence or the first motions and inclinations to sin is called sin and said to have the nature of sin that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the likeness it may be the material part of sin or something by which sin is commonly known And thus Origen observes that an oblation was to be offered even for new born children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they were not clean from sin But this being an usual expression among the Hebrews bears its sence upon the palm of the hand and signifies only the legal impurity in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the new born babes and their Mothers were involv'd Even Christ himself who had no Original sin was subject to this purification So we read in S. Luke and when the days of her purification were accomplish'd but in most books and particular in the Kings MS. it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the days of their purification But the things of this nature being called offerings for sins and the expression usual among the Jews I doubt not but hath given occasion to the Christian Writers to fancy other things than were intended 18. Having now explicated those words of S. Paul which by being misunderstood have caused strange devices in this Article we may now without prejudice examine what really was the effect of Adams sin and what evil descended upon his posterity 19. Adams sin was punish'd by an expulsion out of Paradise in which was a Tree appointed to be the cure of diseases and a conservatory of life There was no more told as done but this and its proper consequents He came into a land less blessed a land which bore thistles and briars easily and fruits with difficulty so that he was forc'd to sweat hard for his bread and this also I cannot say did descend but must needs be the condition of his children who were left to live so and in the same place just as when young Anthony had seis'd upon Marcus Cicero's land the Son also lost what he never had And thus death came in not by any new sentence or change of nature for man was created mortal and if Adam had not