uncircumcised It is therefore a poor and a weak shift of the Examiners who to illude the force of that Scripture I was conceived in sinne and born in iniquity do not shunne to tell us that Davids father was a pious man in Israel and his mother was a godly Matron and being both of them well grown in grace before they begat this their youngest sonne they were more like to convey grace and holinesse if that be communicable than sinne unto him Be like then these new Divines think the grace of God runnes in a blood at least wise that it is a more probable truth than to beleeve the propagation of the sin of the nature Now you come to open the text and here say you If we had all committed sinne in Adam then of what use were these words by the offence of one I do not finde such a saying parallelled viz that one mans offence can be called all mens act that followed him and that without their knowledge and consent page 131. If in this point you would seriously ponder the Scripture you will have your doubts resolved The words of the Apostle are plain by the disobedience of one many were made sinners How came they to be sinners to have the guilt of sinne imputed and original sinne derived with all the effects and fruits thereof but by the disobedience of one man If that be true which is affirmed by you that one mans disobedience cannot be called all mens act by the strictnesse and rigour of such a position you will take away the very ground and strength of the Apostles argument and destroy the parallel which he doth draw between Adam and Christ The whole tenor of his discourse is turned upon this hing as the disobedience of one man is the act of all the posterity that came after him so the obedience of one man is the act of all the posterity that beleeve in him And whereas you say you cannot finde such a passage as this parallelled in Scripture I would entreat you to consider the temporal judgments of God as they have been poured upon several families The house of Eli were to suffer for many generations when all that came of that linage did not know what Eli did neither did they give consent to the sinnes of Hophni and Phinehas yet for all this it is clear that the sinne did redound to the posterity 1 Sam. 2.32 Now you come to acquaint us with some of your observations and you tell us I have heard say and true it is that what being we had in Adam we had it assoon as himself and so if we had done the same actions he had done nothing before us page 131. In this I do agree with you that it is true that the whole nature of man as it hath in time subsisted in thousands and millions did originally subsist in Adam as in the common root I do agree also that what Adam did as the first publick man he did it in our stead yet if you will go to moments and scruples of time we must say also that in order of existence Adam had a being before us we must say that Adams personal sinne was before the pollution of nature but our nature is first polluted in the corrupted masse before we come to commit sin in person nay before we come personally to exist You have a second answer to the words of the text you say If we had all committed that sinne in Adam that he was called to account for then we should have sinned after the same similitude but we sinned not after the same similitude and so we committed not the same sinne And here also I yield according to the strictnesse of termes that we could not siune after the similitude of Adams transgression for Adam sinned by a deliberate will and by a free choyce so could not we Yet neverthelesse though we could not sinne after the same similitude we might sinne in him as the first publick man For proof of this read but the words of the text Neverthelesse death reigned from Adam to Moses even ever them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression verse 14. The Apostle speaketh of Infants for two thousand five hundred years from the fall of Adam to the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai Here I demand how could death reign over the Infants aforesaid No Law was then publickly given upon Mount Sinai and the Infants had no understanding neither could they give any consent of will How then could death justly reign over them seeing they never committed any sinne in their own persons Though they did not yet they sinned in the first man and by the reign of death universally over all men over Infants as well as others the Apostle proveth this assertion How weakly then do the Examiners of the late Confession argue when they say surely If the Apostle had beleeved any such thing as the reigning of death over all men by the first mans sinne he would not have omitted that and onely mentioned from Adam to Moses page 81. Though he doth mention the reign of death from Adam to Moses this doth not imply any thing to the contrary but that death hath reigned ever since The words are plain death hath passed over all men to condemnation But there was lesse reason for it that death should reigne from Adam to Moses when the Law was not publickly delivered especially over Infants that never sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression But seeing experience hath plainly shewed in this whole interval of time that death hath reigned over Infants by this medium the Apostle proveth them to have been guilty of sinne How guilty of sinne Not in their own persons for they never committed any but onely in Adam the common root of all mankind And so that universal affirmation is made good by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and death hath passed over all men to condemnation The universality of death doth prove the universality of sinne in the first man But you further stand upon a priviledge to interpret the words of the text why in such a case as this say you may not I have the same priviledge to give an exposition of these words in whom all have sinned seeing no sound Scripture can be given to evince the conscience of any certainty of committing sinne in Adam page 133. For that freedome of expounding one Scripture by the accounts of another ☜ by my consent you shall have it for I think the strongest Demonstration in divine matters is drawn from the harmony of Scripture And upon these grounds we do proceed because the whole Gospel in a manner is concerning the regenerating work of the Spirit Hence we do argue that the nature is defiled And because the promise is to beleevers and their seed in the last dispensation we do hereupon conclude the right to the seal as I have already proved against you in
no actual transgression And for this reason we say that all Infants are exempt from the guilt of actual sinne because they are not capable of the knowledge of a Law But this is not our question the point in hand is concerning the guilt of original sinne Suppose there were no Law given personally and individually to infants yet the Law once given to Adam is sufficient to involve all his children in the sin of the nature till they come to be freed by Christ Therefore in sense we affirme that not onely the Ephesians but also all others are dead in trespasses and sinnes But let us further enquire into the meaning of the words and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others Doth not the Apostle go here to the corruption of nature as to the Fountain and whereas you say that the Ephesians by the course of their lives living in rebellion against God were naturally the children of wrath Do not you by this affirmation yield the cause For admit that the Ephesians did by their own free act live in disobedience against God yet all comes to one issue when they did it by a natural propension received from Adam the common root of the corruption of nature But you further say It cannot be expected that those who never committed any actions of disobedience should have this text applied to them but infants neither did nor could commit any acts of rebellion Therefore this will not prove that infants were so the children of wrath by nature page 152. This expression that infants were not so the children of wrath by nature is as Logicians call it an ignorance of the elench For we do not say that Infants in every respect are so the children of wrath as those Ephesians who lived in wilful disobedience It is enough for us to affirme that they are any way the children of wrath so farre at least as they do partake of the corruption of the nature For the clearing of the point let us distinguish three sorts of men that are lyable to wrath The first are such as reject Christ in the publick tenders of the Gospel If I had not come and spoken unto them they should have had no sinne but now they have no cloak for their sinne Joh. 12.48 In this sense we say that not onely Infants but also the natural Ephesians themselves were free from the guilt of sinne For if infants as you affirme cannot sinne nor men neither if they can truly maintain that they rceived no Law In this sense the Ephesians themselves who served divers lusts and pleasures could not sinne because the Gospel was not preached and Christ was not tendered to them The Apostle saith they were at that time strangers from the Common-Wealth of Israel and aliens from the Covenant of promise Secondly they are lyable to wrath who though they never had the Gospel preached yet do wilfully hold the truth in unrighteousnesse Rom. 1.19.20 21. In this sense the Ephesians before their conversion did serve divers lusts and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others The sinnes of their lives though they were their own voluntary acts yet they were the proper and genuine fruit of their sinful and depraved nature In this as in the former sense I do willingly yield that infants cannot sinne as those that disobey the Gospel because they have no discoveries of Christ in the publick Ministry of the Word Neither can they sinne as did the Gentiles which went against the general convictions of the Godhead in the conscience and wilfully held the truth in unrighteousnesse Thirdly they are lyable to wrath who though they never committed actual sinne yet do partake of the sinne of the nature and of the guilt of that sinne If this be not so what is the meaning of the words and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others In a sense then it is true that so farre as men are by nature so far they are the children of wrath Here then two objections come to be answered the one in respect of infants the other in respect of them who live out of the bounds of the visible Church First in the case of infants some may say they must unavoidably lie under wrath if this once be admitted that by nature they are the children of wrath I answer the consequences is not good for though by nature they are lyable to wrath yet they do not unavoidably lie under a necessity of perishing As for example David by his murther and adultery Peter by the denial of his Master and Paul by persecuting of the Church did fall under wrath yet wrath did not seize upon them So infants though by nature they are the children of wrath yet that wrath due unto the sinne of the nature doth not lay hold upon them because Christ hath satisfied the justice of God Secondly if it be further alledged that they which live out of the bosome of the visible Church must lie under a necessity of perishing not onely because by nature they are the children of wrath but because they want the Gospel the means of their salvation Here I answer though they want the most effectual outward means yet they do not simply want all the means Nay I may affirme there is no man whose eyes are truly opened thorough the conviction of the Spirit to see his lost condition who is under an absolute necessity of perishing For God who is a God of grace and mercy is ready to help them that come to him in a sense of their misery We have a proof for this in the words of Hanain the Prophet to Asah the King the eyes of the Lord run to and fro through the whole earth to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect towards him 1 Chr. 16.9 He doth not speak in the case of Asah or of the family of David alone but the words are more general the eyes of the Lord go thorough the whole earth to help all those whosoever they be that have perfect hearts toward him From whence I gather that men are not left under an unavoidable necessity of perishing Thus I have gone thorough all the arguments brought by Mr. Everard to prove the purity of the natural birth and where the Examiners have pitched upon the same reasons I have taken them in for company What is proper and peculiar to them alone shall be handled in the ensuing discourse The second Book containeth the Answer to the Examiners of the late Assemblies Confession SECT 1. IN the Chapter concerning Original sinne they do first endeavour to bring such Scriptures as seem to make for their own purpose And here they pitch upon that image of God that man is said to retain since his fall Gen. 9. Our answer is though men may be said to have that image and may carry the resemblance thereof yet this doth not disprove their being born in original sinne Notwithstanding
this Scripture First seeing they will not have the nature of man to be defiled in Adam how is this common nature called by the title of one man seeing it containeth such an infinite number of men Secondly how did sin by this one man enter into the world For this common nature of one man must either be nature pure or nature impure If they will have this to be meant of nature pure then this necessarily must be the meaning of the text by one common pure natural man sin entered into the world and death by sin c. As this is a strange and wild interpretation in it self so it doth cast the blame only upon God for making such a nature that by it generally death should passe upon all men to condemnation But if to amend the matter they shall say that he made the nature of Adam in creation and the nature of every man pure in natural generation but it is their own fault that they corrupt themselves Here the plaister is not wide enough for the sore for the Apostle gives the reason why death passeth upon all men because in one all have sinned But now if it be true as these Censors say that in one common nature all have not sinned but those only that fall through their personal disobedience Here I would have them to shew why doth death passe upon all men and how will this satisfie the sense of the Apostle By their account then only they should be lyable to death who were guiltie of disobedience in their pure nature But let us suppose that they say by one common nature impure sin entred into the world and then this will be a grosse tautologie Besides if the whole nature of man be impure there must be some cause of the general depravation of nature which will bring us to the disobedience of the first man and so they will lose their cause Further I demand if by one man they understand the common nature of all how will they preserve the Emphasis of the Apostle in opposing one man to all men He plainly saith that death hath passed upon all men but how thorough the means of one man Again how will they make it good that by the disobedience of one many were made sinners in case they take one man for the common nature of men The acts of obedience or disobedience are usually attributed to particular persons that live under some Law But they have a better faculty to cavil at the truth than positively to maintain their own heterogeneal doctrines Let us hear then what cavils they have against the true interpretation of the words First say they this one by whom sinne entred into the world is not meant by our first parent Adam for the Apostle shews that he was not the original or first sinner 1 Tim. 2.14 For Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression According to your doctrine then the Apostle should have said by one woman sinne entred into the world page 78. Indeed the scope of his doctrine in that text is to shew that the woman was more immediately tempted by Satan and she was first in the transgression yet in the matter of propagating original sinne it is as true also that by one man sinne entred into the world For Adam and Eve make but one root in the propagation of the kind and therefore in the institution of marriage it is said for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh Gen. 2 24. In the case then of Propagation Adam and Eve go but for one and Adam is here immediately opposed to Christ so farre forth as he is the root of all his posterity Secondly say they these words And death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are thus to be rendred in as much or so farre forth as all have sinned page 78. Well let the words be rendred which way they will the scope of the text and the connexive particle for do plainly shew that they contain the reason of the general passage of death upon every individual man And therefore we must necessarily and unavoidably come to the disobedience of the first man in whom as in the common root all have sinned Thirdly they thus except If the Apostle had beleeved any such thing as the reigning of death upon all men by the first mans sinne he would not have omitted that and onely mentioned from Adam to Moses page 81. Though he doth speak of the reign of death from Adam to Moses he doth not hereby restrain it to that particular time onely For he plainly saith that death passed upon all men absolutely and universally in all times but he doth mention the time from Adam to Moses in special because then it seemed to be more rational and congruous that sinne should not be imputed because no Law was then publickly delivered yet in this time he affirmeth that all universally were under the reign of death not onely Cain the builders of Babel the people of the old world and the Cities of Sodom all which were destroyed for their personal sinnes but he plainly affirmeth that death reigned over infants in all that interval of time though they never sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression If infants be under the raign of death we must necessarily suppose that sinne must be the cause thereof but infants cannot commit any sinne personally Therefore they must be supposed to be guilty of sinne through the disobedience of Adam And this makes good the main argument of the Apostle by one man sinne entred into the world he doth argue from the effect to the cause because death hath universally past upon all by the disobedience of one therefore all were involved in the guilt of that disobedience Fourthly say they the nineteenth verse is more plain against universal corruption by the first mans disobedience for there the Apostle useth the word many and saith by one mans disobedience many not all were made sinners therefore all did not fall in the first individual Adam page 82. Though the word many be equivocal yet in the sense of the text it must necessarily be meant of every individual man because death hath absolutely passed upon every man no one excepted therefore it necessarily followeth that this passage by the disobedience of one many were made sinners must be meant of every individual man But here they have a cavil the word many in the latter part of the verse must have the same latitude allowed for the Apostle setteth down a full comparison of equals in that verse Here the verse must be thus interpreted that as by one mans disobedience all were made sinners so by one mans obedience all were made righteous page 82. Neither will this help the matter for it is not necessary that there should be the same latitude in the collation betwixt the first and the second
deserved it And so you lose your cause Thirdly the Apostle saith Lust when it hath conceived it bringeth forth sinne and sinne when it is finished bringeth forth death Jam. 1.13 14. To avoid the force of this Scripture you tell us That sinne doth not bring forth death as lust doth bring forth sinne sinne is lusts natural seed but death hath no conceptions by any seed of sinne page 94. But Sir I would entreat you to leave all windings and shifts deale plainly with the words of the text The Apostle saith sinne when it is finished bringeth forth death I do here put it upon you to give a down-right answer seeing the words of the Apostle are so plain If sinne doth any way bring forth death then we must needs conclude that sinne is the cause of death and this is the true meaning of the Apostle But seeing you bind so much upon the Lords institution who hath threatned death to the sinner let us come to the original text In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death And here setting the Lords prohibition aside I do willingly yield that there was no evil in the tree of knowledge of good and evil if we go to evil in the intrinsecal nature thereof but the Lord having forbidden it it was evil to go against his Command In this sense I say though death was threatned by God yet Adams own personal sinne was the meritorious cause of death to himself and to all his posterity And this is the ground of the Apostles speech By one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and death hath past over all men unto condemnation You labour in many pages together to prove that Adams sinne was no cause of his condemnation and when all comes to all This is your chief ground that the Lord in his institution did ordain to punish sin and sinners with death and therefore sinne is not the meritorious cause of death Good Sir may not both stand together as social causes what do you think of the two Malefactors that were hanged upon the Cross the one on the right hand and the other on the left hand of our Saviour Were they not both put to death by the sentence of the Law yet for all this they were the cause of their own condemnation The converted thief will tell you as much Doest thou not fear God seeing thou art in the same condemnation And we indeed justly suffer for we receive the due reward of our deeds Luke 23.40 41. In like manner I say though death was inflicted upon Adam as the just judgment of God yet Adams sinne was the cause of his own condemnation Now whereas you call death a righteous branch It is true if you look to the sentence of the just Judge who hath appointed death as the punishment of sinne yet if you look unto the nature of death he is an enemy The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death 1 Cor. 15.26 Further in the book of the Revelation we read that after the Beast the false Prophet and the Dragon were cast into the lake of fire then death it self was cast into the lake of fire Rev. 20.14 What is the meaning of this but that the Lord Christ is Head and King of the Church and will tread down all his enemies in the several and respective times appointed for their destruction and then last of all death it self shall come to be destroyed If death then be an enemy the last enemy and shall be destroyed as an enemy how can you affirme that it is a righteous Branch Further you argue That death cannot be the fruit of sinne seeing God hath pleased to punish sinne with death sinne and punishment for sinne agree no more than light and darknesse page 91. If this be your opinion I pray you tell me what do you think of that case where God doth punish one sinne with another He gave up the Gentiles to vile affections that they might receive in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet Rom. 1.23 24. If one sinne may be the punishment of another why do you put such a difference betwixt sinne and punishment as betwixt light and darknesse you have another evasion to help you our you say The very voice or death is enough to scare a sinner from his sinnes therefore death is not the natural fruit of sinne page 95. Give me leave to observe the same way of reasoning The Devil if he should visibly appear the very sight of him would be enough to scare a sinner from his sins Therefore a wicked sinner when he doth commit sinne doth not fulfill the lusts of his father the Devil which is to go point blank against the Scripture John 8.44 After this you come to answer a weak and incongruous objection of your own making you feign an adversary to reason in this wile If there had been no sinne there had been no punishment therefore pun shmext must be produced by sinne page 949. In this you deceive your self we do not argue so loosely to make every antecedent a necessary cause of that which cometh after for then by the like reason you might argue as you do If there had been no Law there had been no transgression therefore transgression is produced by the Law We say that sin doth not go before death as a meet antecedent or occasion only but as the meritorious cause of death the Apostle saith sinne bringeth forth death as the cause doth the effect and the wages of sinne is death when the work is done the wages is to be paid Last of all you come to the particular examples of Corah of Herod of Ananias and Sapphira and from thence you reason If death be the natural fruit of sinne why are not all Rebels punished as Corah all proud men as well as Herod all guilty of the sinne of equivocation as well as Ananias This is the substance of your argument page 99 100. To all which I make this answer unlesse they repent they shall meet with the same righteous judgment of God The Lord is free in the execution of judgment as upon those eighteen on whom the Tower in Siloah fel yet that it may appear to you that death is the natural fruit of sinne and that sinne is the meritorious cause of death our Saviour shuts up the matter with these words unlesse you repent you shall all likewise perish Luke 13.1 2 3 4 5. But you go on and strike still upon the same string If I should allow as much demerit in Adams disobedience to bring death as Christ had merit in his obedience both active and passive to bring life into the world yet it would not amount to such a pitch to be the onely cause For though the obedience of Christ was the cause of the coming of life into the world yet the appointment of God was as principal a cause as the obedience of Christ And so though sinne
the words of the Apostle Rom. 5.12 by one man sinne entred into the world c. You should finde that all then were in one publick man and sinned in him and this is the reason which the Apostle giveth why death passed universally upon all men because in one all have sinned his one act was the act of all But for more abundant confirmation let us consider the scope of the text The drift of the Apostle is to draw a parallel between both the Adams Frist in those points wherein they do agree Secondly in those wherein they do disagree For the points of agreement the most remarkable to the purpose in hand are these First the two Adams are described as two persons which are the roots to their several and respective posterities The first Adam is a root to all his branches and the second Adam is a root to all branches I marvail then what delusion hath seized upon the Examiners who do positively maintain that the first Adam is not here intended as he was the Father of us all Secondly they are described by the plurality of branches as the first Adam had a multiplicity of branches out of him so the second Adam had a plurality of branches out of him And therefore the Apostle doth elegantly proceed in the collation as by the offence of one many be dead so the gift of grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many As by one mans offence death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of grace shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ And so the Apostle doth compare one Adam to one Christ Adam the root of all his branches Christ the root of all his branches Thirdly they are set forth by the passage of the common sap out of each root into its branches respectively And therefore the Apostle speaketh concerning the first Adam by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and death passed over all men The common sap then that passed out of the first man into all his branches is first sinne and then death by sinne By sinne is here principally meant original sinne and all other sinnes that flow from this as the fountain But if further enquiry be made concerning the passage of sin death into all the branches that come of Adam the passage is not all at one and the same instant It is now five thousand six hundred years since the fall of Adam and in all this time original sinne hath been in continual flux and succession As in several generations men come to be born so they actually participate of the sap that comes from the first root The like may be said of the second Adam and of his branches They which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse shall reigne in life by one Jesus Christ ver 17. The sap then that cometh from Christ as the common root is grace and spiritual life this doth flow out of him into all his branches And for the passage thereof it is not all at one time but as men come to receive the gift of righteousnesse and to be born anew they come to the actual fruition thereof For let the death of Christ be never so largely tendred to the lost sonnes of men there is no actual participation of him till he be received by faith The words of the text are most emphatical and significant They which receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousnesse shall reigne in life As who would say in plainer termes they only shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ who do particularly receive the gift of righteousnesse which is generally offered This is the undoubted meaning of the text And therefore for you to say that we could not sinne in Adam our soules and bodies not being in him how do you answer the scope of the text by the disobedience of one many were made sinners by one man sinne entred into the world Adam is here set forth as the root of all his branches and al the branches were in him as the first publick man What can you or the Examiners say to this 2ly you say that we had no Law in Adam Now where there is no Law there is no transgression if we had received any Law it must have been made known to us but there was none made known to us and therefore there was no Law page 127. To this I rejoyn ☜ if there was no Law given to us in Adam how come we to be guilty of his transgression how come we to bear the burden of his sinne why doth the Apostle speak so plainly by the disobedience of one many were made sinners We must then necessarily come to affirme this for a truth that the Law was given to Adam as a publick man and in him to all his posterity And whereas you say that there was no Law made known to us at that time therefore we had no interest in the Law why do not you infer by the like reason when the second Adam the Lord Jesus Christ suffered death upon the Crosse because at that very time the merit of his death was not made known you had no part or portion in that death which was one thousand six hundred years before you were born If you will be loth to stand to the latter to lose your priviledge by the second Adam I pray you give us leave to maintain the dammage that was brought in by the first Adam And yet further to take away all scruples from tender consciences if it might seem harsh for all the sonnes of men to perish by the disobedience of one man especially when the Law was not made known to them in their own individual persons but in the common root of all mankind let us consider how the second man came as a remedy to free the same miserable sonnes of men from the state of sinne and death especially when they neither thought nor knew any thing concerning the means of their salvation The greatnesse of our misery by Adam doth amplifie and set forth the merrit of Christ in the fulnesse thereof Now then when the Examiners and you both go about to extenuate the misery of the fall you do rob Christ of the glory of his grace You say The branch hath not any thing but what it hath by dependance upon the tree Now it is not so with us for that which we call the Principal part of man his soul or spirit was not dependant upon Adam but had his dependancy from the very same fountain from whence Adam received his even from God himself p. 128. Here I confess there is a great question concerning the manner of the propagation of Original sin and men do wearie themselves very much to find out whether the soul be by infusion or by traduction But I see no cause why we should intangle our selves in that difficultie ☞ For whether the soul be infused or
the emproving of nature to those ends to which God had assigned it These are the Chimera's and fictions of mens own devising For if we will go to the utmost that a natural man can do at seasons he hath ability to judge himself this is not from himself but from the convictions of the Spirit And it is never better with him in the way to attain salvation than when he is beaten off from all his own abilities when in the sight of his own misery and emptinesse he doth rely upon the mercy of God Now we will go on to the meaning of that expression and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others Here you distinguish betwixt that wrath which is due by the appointment of God for Adams sinne and the wrath which is due for despising the riches of grace Concerning this text say you we were by nature the children of wrath as well as others if it be universal it must be meant of the first condemnation which came by Adam But if it be meant of the second wrath then it belongs to such persons onely as are dead in trespasses and sinnes that is such as have been in actual defiance which walked after the course of the world after the Prince of the power of the aire in opposition to the Spirit of truth page 150. Here I do agree with you that distinction is to be made between the wrath due for the sinne of Adam and the wrath due for the actual refusal of Christ in the tender of grace Though this distinction be admitted yet it doth not disanul that truth we were by nature the children of wrath as well as others For infants so farre forth as they come out of Adams loynes in that precise and single consideration they may be the children of wrath by nature though the cause why wrath doth not seize upon them is from the shedding of the blood of Christ Secondly let us take this expression and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others that it is meant onely of those who have been in actual defiance this will avail nothing so long as it is clear from the text that men by nature can do no other than live in actual defiance against God Neither do the Examiners mend the matter by their Intepretation when they say it is one thing to be sinners from our first nativity and another in time to become the children of wrath by our personal fall and actual disobedience which also coming to pass in our natural man and by his default we may truly be said to be by nature the children of wrath especially when sinne by custome becomes a second nature to us page 78. Here we will be no adversaries to them so farre as they say that men become the children of wrath by their own personal falls and actual disobedience But the question is whether this disobedience doth not radically and originally proceed from the default of the nature They seem to say so much in sense when they do oppose it Secondly though it be true which they say that the evil doth come upon men throught heir personal fall yet the Apostle doth especially look unto the sinne of the nature And therefore doth amplifie the grace of God in quickning and enlivening again when he saith you hath he quickned that were dead in trespasses and sinnes They were not onely truly dead in sinne thorough custome and sinful conversation but also thorough the state and condition of their natural birth they were by nature the children of wrath as well as others Upon these grounds he tells them that God who was rich in mercy did quicken them when they were dead in trespasses and sins Next you come to open the meaning of the expression dead in trespasses and sinnes You say a spiritual death must be meant of a declining from spiritual things which is a resistance of the spirit or a dying that is a forsaking the truth of God made manifest in them Now such a death as this cannot befall any who never had that spiritual life for it is the losse of life that must prove a death or otherwise we may say that all other creatures besides man are spiritually dead page 151. In this point you and I do agree that the losse of life must prove a death and this to me is the great reason why not only the Ephesians but also all mankind had sometimes spiritual life before they became to be dead in trespasses and sinnes It is plaine from the scope of Scripture and the Analogy of faith as I have proved before that this death came in by the fall of Adam therefore he had spiritual life before his fall And for that expression of yours otherwise we may say as well that all other creatures are spiritually dead I answer not so neither other creatures can not properly be said to be spiritually dead because they never had a capacity of spiritual life And though men are dead in trespasses and sinnes they are not dead as stocks and stones and other sencelesse creatures but they are dead as they who sometime had spiritual life and may have the return of the same life again in and thorough Christ the way the truth and the life So also the Examiners in the Chapter of free will page 130. do but calumniate when they say that we teach that a man is a meere passive block or a dead trunck without a willing or a nilling faculty This is an odious imputation of their own devising we hold that man is a rational creature and he hath those natural and essential properties of the soul though in spiritual things he be altogether dead And for spiritual things also he may be said to have a remote capacity when blindnesse shall be taken away from his understanding and perversenesse from his will It is an excellent speech of Augustine posse credere naturae est hominum to have a remote ability to beleeve is of the nature of men for stocks and stones have no such capacity And in opposition to natural men he saith velle credere gratiae est fidelium to have a will to beleeve is of the grace given to beleevers shewing that no natural man hath an immediate power to beleeve till he come inwardly to be enlivened by the Spirit Let us hear then what you can say how the sonnes of men may be said to be dead in trespasses and sinnes If you shall mean that every man or all mankind in that sense is dead before the light or the life of the Gospel is made known to them then I shall grant it But I shall deny that such a death is any sinne For where no Law is made manifest there is no transgression But all children if you mean infants have no Law or Law made known page 152. This is true in the case of actual sinne that there must be a Law and a Law made known or else there can be
10 Suppose all this be granted that Adam was not to beleeve a Saviour because he was not in a lapsed or fallen condition how doth this prove that he was absolutely carnal and destitute of the Spirit He was to beleeve the Father as Lord Creator he was bound to love him to delight in him and how could he possibly do all this but he must have some measure of Spirit Therefore Adam had the Spirit and was a spiritual man before his fall You go on and say whatsoever qualifications the children of God have attained unto in and through Jesus Christ their Lord by remission of sinne or the hope of a resurrection and the attainment of a better life Adam was not capable of To this I answer though the difference may be in circumstances the substance is the same For if you reckon all that Adam had in present possession and all that he might have had if he had stood if you compare his whole state with the state of the Saints with that which they have and that which they shall have you shall finde an excellent correspondence betwixt both For what if Adam was not capable of remission of sinne by Christs blood it is all one if he be made in a state free from sinne What if he was not capable of regeneration because he had no pollution of nature yet he was created with a pure and spiritual nature in original righteousnesse What if he was not capable of the resurrection from the dead because he died not a natural death yet he was capable to eate of the tree of life to keep himself from death and so to live for ever Your whole way of reasoning is meerly fallacious because Adam had not spiritual life every way the same in circumstance therefore he had not the spirit in the substance and being thereof You go on and tell us If men will hold this opinion that righteousnesse and true holinesse is the Image of God which the Lord created man in and is not to be found there residing then it is very requisite that this holinesse and righteousnesse be released But how do you prove that this holinesse and righteousnesse did not reside in Adam If you shall say that he was not capable of such Evangelical holinesse as is set forth in the second Covenant what of all this notwithstanding the difference in circumstance he may have the same in substance Saint Paul saith I delight in the Law of the Lord after the inward man Rom. 7.22 He had the same spiritual delight in the Law by Renovation which Adam had before his fall by Creation where then is the difference Adam had no rebellion no law of the flesh warring against the law of his minde as Saint Paul had There was the same spirit of love in both but in the one it was with the love of the flesh and with conflict with the love of the flesh but the other was absolutely free He did not know by experience what it was to have the flesh rebel against the spirit Because the Law requires entire obedience of bodie and soule inward and outward throughout all the parts of our life because it is spiritual it self and requires that the thoughts words and deeds be spiritual we must necessarily conclude that the first man must be spiritual in a large degree seeing the Law was tempered and proportioned in the beginning to that ability he had But you have another evasion you say that at the Creation Adam was not made conformable to the Image of the Sonne seeing he had no such lawes to be conformable to Here you still harp upon the same string Because Adam was not conformable in the same manner therefore he had not the conformity to the Image of Christ in substance I pray you tell me the meaning of this Scripture Come let us make man after our own Image Is not this the speech of Father Sonne and Holy Ghost You cannot deny it No more can you deny that Adam was made after the Image of Christ as Lord Creator In this point we must necessarily say that Adam had the same Image of God and the same spirit in the general nature of it as the Saints have in the state of Regeneration only the difference lies in some circumstances He might also have the same faith in the general nature of faith though it was impossible for him in that state he stood to have justifying faith Seeing he was absolutely without the guilt of all sin he needed no pardon by Christs blood Suppose all this be granted that Adam was not to beleeve in a Saviour because he was not in a lapsed or fallen condition yet all this doth not prove him to be a carnal man or absolutely destitute of the Spirit before his fall He might beleeve in God the Father as Lord Creator to prevent that misery which should ensue by the fall And to such a kind of faith it is necessary that he should have some measure of spirit Upon this ground also we may conclude him to be spiritual and to have the Spirit before his fall But whereas the Scripture saith That God made man righteous you put off all with this shift That God made Adam without any stain or blemish in the beginning page 13. This we willingly confesse to be true but it is not the whole nor the principal part of truth For uprightnesse in the Scripture-language doth not only signifie a freedome from evil but also a positive habit of righteousnesse and holinesse and in this state did God make man in the beginning But admit that be granted What do you gather from hence you say If those that would have holinesse and righteousnesse to be entituled the Image of God and shall mean by it a condition without sin simply so considered then the whole Creation of God might be said to bear the Image of God page 13. Answ Your consequence will not hold That Adam was without sin at the time of his Creation it was from hence that God made him a holy creature after his own Image That other creatures are without sin is meerly from incapacity seeing they have neither an understanding to know the Law of God nor a will to embrace good or evil therefore they cannot sinne For that speech of yours page 14. It will appear that the Image which Adam did bear wherein he represented God lieth in some other place where none of the creatures are in acapacity to come it being beyond them all Though in the general I do acknowledge this to be a solid truth yet you do not rightly apply it What think you of that saying of our Saviour There are some Eunuches that are so borne from their mothers wombe and there are some made Eunuches of men and there are some that have made themselves Eunuches for the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19.12 Here are three sorts of Eunuches but one sort only is so made by grace and the mortifying work of
the Spirit So in the present case the creatures were free from sin as well as Adam but their freedom was meerly from incapacity because they were not able to receive a spiritual Law And Adams freedome was from the holinesse of that state in which the Lord had made him Therefore in the point of nontransgression Adam was put into such a state as none of the creatures could come to Next you enquire Whether the Image of God did consist in light These are your words If the light that Adam had was the Image then it must be a light spiritual or natural or both Now that it was not the light of the Gospel that Adam had is clear there being neither malady nor remedy which were in being in the time of this light page 15. Though there was neither malady nor remedy at that time yet he might have spiritual light in the substance thereof and the Image of God might principally consist in this The Apostle speaking of the regenerate hath this expression renewed in knowledge after the Image of him that created him Col. 3.10 This sheweth plainly that man in the beginning was created after the Image of God and that Image did chiefly consist in the spiritual light that was in the understanding But because there is a great controversie between the Arminians and us about the nature of this light viz. Whether Adam had a power before his fall to beleeve in Christ and because this is a point pertinent to our purpose I will briefly recite three Arguments used by Corvinus in his Answer to Du Moulin First saith he Adam was not bound to beleeve in Christ therefore he did not receive ability to beleeve in him such an ability would be unnecessary and unprofitable where there was no use of it at all Chap. 11. sect 4.5 page 156. Answ The Argument doth not hold God did not require Adam to beleeve the Stories written in the five Books of Moses the Books of Josbua Judges Samuel c. But will any man be so void of reason to argue that he had no power to beleeve these Stories in case they had been revealed to him so God did not require Abraham to beleeve in Christ as he was revealed and exhibited in the last dispensation of the promise shall we therefore argue that he had not ability to beleeve or that he had not the same spirit in substance which the Saints now have He that doth so judge let him answer the meaning of this Scripture We having the same spirit of faith according as it is written I beleeved and therefore have I spoken we also beleeve and therefore speak 2 Cor. 4.13 It is clear from hence that the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles had all of them the same spirit of faith in substance yet all of them have not the same revelation of the promise in the circumstances thereof Secondly Corvinus saith that before the fall the Gospel was not credible because in the Gospel a sinner is commanded to believe himself to be a sinner and that by himself and his own works he cannot be saved and that all salvation is placed in Christ the Mediatour And further he addeth It was so far from man to be able to believe all these things that he was then bound rather to believe the contrary to wit himself to be upright and that he should be blessed if he did persist in his uprightnesse p. 154 162 164 165. Answ To this we willingly agree That the way to salvation as now it is doth differ very much from that state wherein Adam stood But the question is not concerning the diversitie or contrariety of the states but concerning the power and ability that Adam had whether it be one and the same in substance with that which the Saints now have White and black are two contrary colours yet the same eye doth see both Heat and cold are two qualities in the extream yet they are tangible objects to one and the same sense of seeling So in the like case though the Word of the Law and the Word of the Gospel are two contrary wayes to salvation yet there is nothing doth exclude but they may be apprehended by one and the same spirit of faith The Word may be one and the same in the general notion and nature of the Word and it may be apprehended by one and the same spirit of faith yet it may differ in circumstance But because the force of the Argument doth lie in the contradictory nature of the two states we will come to instance in a case or two Adam before his fall could not shew mercie if we look to the outward act or the performance of the duty for where there is no misery what mercy can be shewed shall we therefore argue that he had no such affection in him as mercy So in the like case it is not compatible with the state of the blessed Angels to beleeve in a Christ to recover them out of their fall for they that never fall have no need of a recovery what then shall we say that they have no ability to understand the Mysterie of the Gospel This cannot be for so the Apostle reasoneth By them which have preached the Gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven which things the Angels desire to look into 1 Pet. 1.12 Though the blessed Angels have no need of salvation by grace held out in the Gospel yet they have ability to understand it they have a desire to pry and gaze into it So in the like case though Adam had no need of salvation before his fall by the Mediatour yet he might have ability to understand that way of salvation in case it had been revealed Thirdly Corvinus saith that greater abilities are required to faith in Christ then that ability which Adam bad before his fall Answ I cannot see possibly how he can consist with his own principles For seeing he doth stand upon it in his Treatises against Moulin page 159.165 that God doth proportion abilities to commands and seeing also he saith that God did promise life to Adam under the condition of most perfect and absolute obedience By the position of these two he must necessarily affirme Adams abilities to be exceeding great before his fall For seeing the work required was to yield such a perfect obedience as none else can perform since the fall but Christ alone it must necessarily follow that Adam must have a large portion of spirit fitted for such an employment As in some Monuments of Antiquity we do argue how strong such a Prince was that died many hundred yeares ago from the greatnesse and weight of his sword so from the spirituality of the Law given to Adam before his fall we do infer his abilities to have been exceeding great And thus much out of Corvinus his own principles Now Mr. Everard let us return back again to you And here to deal plainly with you and the Churches that do
so much light into the heart of the Gentiles to know that they must not steal that they must not defraud or oppresse the Lord also doth give them power to act according to their light in these and such like outward moralities This is clear from the first and second Chapter of the Epistle to the Romanes and it is evident also by that Scripture that God was indeed much dishonoured by their not emproving their abilities which he had bestowed upon them to the bringing forth of such actions of obedience as he had required of them He was angry with them because they did not walk after the light because they held the truth in unrighteousnesse because by oppression and other sinnes they did not answer the Law written in their heart Though in these externals the Gentiles had abilities some way proportionable to the Commands yet in the case of true repentance and turning to God the same Apostle doth drive the Gentiles from all confidence and dependance upon natural ability The whole tenour of his speech is to shew that the proper use of the light which God giveth is primarily and immediately to help a man to judge himself and in judging to see his owne emptinesse that so in the sense of his own misery he may make out for mercy The whole scope then of the Apostle is to shew that Jewes and Gentiles are all under sin that they have no ability of their own and the end is to drive them to a Christ to make up all Next you go to the Parable of the Talents Matth. 25. You reason Our Saviour comes and bears witnesse to the world that he desires no more encrease then the benefit of what he had first given means sufficient to bring forth no more then was answerable to the seed he had first sowen if one Talent then the encrease of one verse 18. The slothful man hides the Lords treasury but verse 30 the Lord presents to us what course he will take with such servants who use such kind of sayings as too many do in these dayes that God would be gathering where he scattereth not but that must needs be a lye for what pleasure could the Lord himself take in any such increase where himself is not the planter page 45. I have often found this Scripture cited by the Arminians yet among them all I never met with any that made so corrupt a use of it as you do Not many years since the learned Chamier treating of the point of free-will did endeavour to shew the difference betwixt the Philosophers and the Jesuites They saith he meaning the Jesuites do admit some kind of grace which never entered into the thought of Aristotle they acknowledge the corruption of nature by sinne which the Philosophe's did never so much as dreame of Tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 2. sect 9. If this Author were now alive I would gladly know what difference he would set betwixt the Philosophers and the Brethren of the Separation who hold that infants are free from all natural corruption what difference he would set betwixt Aristotles Ethical Philosophie and your Moral Divinitie when you teach that Adams abilities were as good after the fall as they were before But now let us come to clear the Parable of the Talents First suppose by sufficient means you understand onely the supply of the Spirit of Christ how can you justifie this to be a true interpretation that Christ requires no more encrease then the benefit of what he had first given sufficient means to bring forth Will you say that it is absolutely necessary to have the ability in present possession before the command can be given If this be your opinion you must needs block up the right and the true way of bringing a soul to Christ We preach the Law in the spiritual nature of it to a natural man to what end is all this but that by the sight of his own emptinesse by the convictions of the guilt of sinne he may look after a Christ first to justifie and to pardon secondly to sanctifie and to cleanse the pollution of his nature We do not preach the Law to him supposing that he hath ability but the immediate end of our preaching is by and thorough the inward working of the Spirit to empty him of all ability that so he may look to the promise where true ability is onely to be had For the words of the Parable that he gave to every man according to his ability ver 15. We are not strictly to adhere to the letter as though the Lord doth give his grace according to every mans natural ability but it is spoken after the manner of men he giveth his grace in a different measure to some more and to some lesse yet all the ability is from Christ himself And therefore when he that received one Talent accused the Lord for an hard man for reaping there where he did not sowe the answer was thou shouldest have given my money to the exchanger that is though thou hadst no ability of thine own yet if thou hadst gone to the exchanger to the Promiser he was able to make profit of the money he was able to help thee with forreign supply where thine own natural and domestical ability was wanting Secondly whereas you affirm that there are many in these dayes that use such hard kinde of sayings that God would be gathering where he scattereth not and that one day he will call such servants to account I do acknowledge as heretofore so now there are more then too many who do neglect their talent and cast the blame upon God himself But your aime is not so much at these as against others who oppose free-will and your way of setting up the natural ability of man Though some passages in their writings are hard yet if you would compare one thing with another you should find that they do speak of abilities that do answer duties of a word of promise that answereth the word of command of the fulnesse of Christ set in opposition to the sinfulnesse and misery by Adam Doctor Twisse disputing against the Arminians lib. 3. errat 9. pag. 211. doth of all others seeme to tread something hard yet he doth shew many pithie reasons wherefore the Lord may give a command where there is a want of abiliy First saith he men are too apt to trust in their own work to bring them to salvation therefore that they may know the common contagion of Original sinne and thereupon the impotency and weaknesse that hath ensued to all good the Lord taketh this course to shew them their misery Secondly he addeth these words If by the grace of God we know our selves to be no way fit or able to do those things which the Lord commandeth yet by his just counsel he doth command us and by his commands he doth shew what we are indebted to him as Lord Creator and that which we are not able to performe our selves
too much and to these the exhortation is given in special that they should be humbled and become as little children There lyeth then a palpable and grosse fallacy in your whole discourse when you take the words absolutely that all infants are free from sinne when our Saviour speaketh in a particular sense only of the act and execution of this or that particular evil Now you proceed and tell us it was never heard that children had any sinne by way of act and by way of omission you cannot make it good that they ever received a command or were capable of any command from God page 138. Answ What we have learned we are willing to acknowledge and though we never heard that infants had any sinne in them by any act of their own yet we have learned from Scriptures yea from the very first principles of the faith that they have it by contagion and the disobedience of the first man The words of our Saviour are plain Joh. 3.8 That which is born of the flesh is flesh And that of the Apostle Rom. 5.12 By one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne And many such places there are to prove infants to be guilty of sinne by the disobedience of the first man and to be involved in the pollution of nature by hereditary contagion But because you and the Examiners are so strict upon the point I pray you resolve me in this one case When the promise was made the seed of the woman shall break the Serpents head was not this the promise of Christ to Adam after his fall If infants therefore are absolutely acquitted from the guilt of Adams sinne as being another mans act if they be free from the pollution of nature to what end was the promise of Christ How did he come in the nature of a Physician to cure when there was no disease Where there is no malady there needs no remedy And whereas you go about to free infants from the sinne of omission because they are not capable of a command I pray you shew the reason why the Lord was so strict in his command to the Jewish infant that he should be circumcised upon the eighth day and that the uncircumcised man-child should be cut off from his people Gen. 17.11.12 c. For my part I know no reason of the strictnesse of this Law but that the Lord would signifie to beleevers under this dispensation that there infants were born in original sinne and that it was not safe to omit the remedy for that disease And though in strictnesse of termes we will yeeld so farre to Corvinus and to Julian the Pelagian that there is no particular command that forbids an infant to be born in original sinne yet for all this they must needs allow that the Law was given to reveal to convince and to discover the sinne of the nature and by the discovery thereof to drive a man to Christ to look to him onely for sanctifying and regenerating glrace S. Paul saith the Law is spiritual and I am carnal sold under sinne And in the same text I had not known sinne except the Law had said thou shalt not covet Rom. 7. You go on for this sinne called original if infants had committed it God would have called them to repentance for it when they had come to years at least wise but I can safely say that there is no man living that to this day ever made it appear to be the mind of God for any man to repent of that sinne Truly Sir your confidence is very great and you have more boldnesse than truth on your side For we may beleeve that you never heard of the promises nor the commands mentioned in Scripture when you dare affirme such things as these When the Lord promiseth in the new Covenant I will take out of their bowels a heart of stone and will give them a heart of flesh Ezek. 36. By the heart of stone he means a hard heart and a sinful nature that every infant did bring into the world he doth promise to take away the corruption of nature and that he will sanctifie his people by his Spirit So for the commands of God we read every where that men are exhorted to put off the Old Adam-like disposition That ye put off concerning the former conversation the Old man which is corrupt according to the deceivable lusts Ephes 4.22 By the Old man he doth mean the carnal disposition which we have from Adam by natural generation This corrupted disposition of the flesh he would have the beleeving Ephesians and in them all others to subdue and mortifie And further if you look to the right use of Baptisme now as of circumcision of old you shall finde that the institution of these things doth primarily intend the doing away of the sinne of the nature as I have already shewed in my Treatise of Infant Baptisme Therefore I cannot but admire at your boldnesse when you stand so much upon it that you can safely say that God never called men to repentance for original sinne I am so farre from your judgment that I think the greatest part of repentance lyes in the mortification of the sinne of the nature But you have an evasion this sinne called original sinne if infants had committed it God would have called them to repentance Here you put that upon us which we do not speak and I know no solid Writer in the world that doth use such an expression of committing original sinne It is proper onely to men of ripe years to commit sinne For original sin we say that is onely by propagation thorough the disobedience of the first man and when men come to be sanctified by the Spirit of God they are qualified with inward principles to purge out the sin of the nature Neither doth your argument drawn from the example of Christ any whit promote your cause You say If this principle should finde a being in the world that every infant was born in sinne because lineally derived from Adam then where will you get water to wash your hands of that grand absurdity to wit that Jesus Christ was not free from original sinne for then he must have a share because he came from the loynes of a woman the Daughter of Adam page 139. To this I answer if you will make Christ and all Infants to run parallel in the purity of their natural birth then why did Christ die for them why did he sanctifie their nature There is no need of salvation by the merit of Chri st where there is no guilt of sinne There needs no sanctification of the Spirit where there is no pollution of nature Why do not you exclude all Infants from these as you do from the water of baptisme For your Argument drawn from the example of Christ If you build so much upon that I would entreat you to consider two things First why he did assume our nature Secondly assuming our
a sense as he understands it the old Pelagians may make good that position of theirs that original sinne is by imitation they that come after do onely imitate the ensample of him that went before Of the entrance of death by sin he speaketh as followeth Death by sinne that is death which at the first was the condition of nature became a punishment upon that account just as it was with the Scrpent to creep upon his belly and the woman to be subject to her husband Answ In these words of his he doth distinguish between death as a meere condition of nature and death as a punishment The former he will have to be in the state of innocency latter only to be introduced by the fall But against this I have many things to alledge First if Adam should have dyed in innocency and that meerely by the condition of his nature what can we possibly make of the sense of that commination in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death what propable interpretation can we give of those Scriptures by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne The wages of sinne is death Rom. 6. Vlt Surely all this plainly sheweth that death came into the world meerely by the sinne of man and if he had not sinned he had not dyed Further the Apostle said the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death 1 Cor. 15.16 The question is when did death begin to be an enemy and from what time are we to fetch the date thereof If Adam should have dyed in innocency than the enmity of death must begin in Paradise we must fetch the date of it from the creation and not from the fall And so consequently death will be rather the work of God than the fruit of sinne But let it be supposed in this low and dimunitive sense that death came into the world as a punishment and began to be penal at the fall onely If we take the matter in this sense it will not serve his turn neither nor will other passages of his doctrine abide the rigour of this interpretation For how often doth he plead after this manner In other cases saith he Lawes be not given to Ideots infants and persons uncapable why should they be given here In all cases of the world it is unjust to lay the sinne of the father upon the children and is it otherwise in this case onely And if the answer may be admitted any man may suffer for the sinne of any father because it may be said here as well as there that although the innocent must not perish for anothers fault yet the son is not innocent as being in the fathers loynes when the fault was committed and the Law calls him and makes him guilty Many such Aphorismes he hath where he sheweth or at least endeavours to shew how contrary it is to the justice and mercy of God any way to burthen the posterity of Adam with the guilt of his sinne And yet here he confesses plainly and openly that death quatenus a punishment in the penalty of it came into the world by the disobedience of the first man How he can make one part of his doctrine to agree with the other it passeth all understanding of mine to discerne In his answer to the Bishops letter he seemeth to me to let fall a strange contradiction I have saith he the plain words of Saint Paul death passed upon all men forasmuch as all have sinned all men that is the generality of mankind all that lived till they could sinne Others that dyed before dyed in their nature not in their sinne neither Adams nor their own save onely that Adam brought it upon them or rather left it to them himself being disrob'd of all that could hinder it Answ let page 49. Here in the former part of his words he saith that infants dye in their nature not in their sinne neither Adams nor their own and yet he tells us again that Adam brought in death upon them and through his disobedience they were disrobed of all that could hinder it If he did bring in death upon them then they did not dye purely in their own nature they must some way die in or by his sinne Again if they dyed purely in their own nature and not at all in his sin how can he be said to bring in death Can he bring in death and can he not bring in death and all this upon one sort of people at one and the same time Neither can I see how he will acquit himself if it should be put upon him to shew the true reason why infants are lyable to burning feavours convulsion fitts and passe through the pangs of death at last Are these the infelicities of nature Then God hath made them in this state and their misery will be purely the work of his own hands Are these the punishment of Adams sinne then the innocent child will bear the burden of his fathers iniquity in such a case where it is not possible for the son to follow the fathers ensample which is plainly to give up the cause Now let us consider what he saith of the quality of the persons upon whom there hath been such a passage of death Death saith he passed upon all men that is upon all the old world who were drowned in the flood of divine vengeance and who did sinne after the similitude of Adam and therefore the Apostle St. Paul addes that for a reason inasmuch as all men have sinned Ans Though the word all in it self hath an ambiguity in it yet the scope of the text the condition of the subject doth plainly demonstrate that the passage of death from Adam as a common root must be absolutely upon all men as men so farre forth as they are his sonnes and not upon all to the flood only But concerning this matter we have his meaning more fully in the next passage If all men saith he have sinned upon their own account as it is certaine they have then these words can very well mean that Adam first sinned and all his sonnes and daughters sinned after him and so dyed in their own sinne by a death which at the first and in the whole constitution of affaires is natural and a death which their own sinne deserved but yet was hastned and ascertained upon them for the sin of their Progenitor Answ In these words of his as plausibly as he seems to speak of the cause of death he puts that for the cause which is not the cause and where he speaks of the true cause it doth not answer the sense of the text First he puts that for the cause that is not the cause For from what Scripture or from what consequence of Scripture doth he prove it that Adam and his sonnes in the whole constitution of affiaires should have dyed a death that is natural The Scripture doth every where make death to be the fruit of sinne
bondage of the soul under the tyranny of a carnal mind Sixthly He addeth that David thought nothing of this or any thing like it we may understand by the preceding words which are a preface to these in the objection against thee only have I sinned Reply We willingly yield that it was the purpose of David to cleare the justice of God but here is no need to call his justice in question for though David was borne in sin the act of murther and adultery were the deeds of his own will besides the lust of his heart might have been cured by the grace of God Seaventhly saith he if this had been natural and unavoidable God who knew perfectly well would have expected nothing else of him For he will not require of a stone to speak nor a fire to be cold unlesse himself be pleased to work a miracle to have them so Repl. The case is not all one It is not in the nature of stones to speak but men may avoid many outward acts of sinne and the evil of their natural disposition may be mortified by the Spirit The Apostle speaking of certain that had eyes full of adulery that cannot cease from sinne 2 Pet. 2.14 Our Authour in his answer to the Bishops letter doth expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eyes full of the adulteresse therefore they cannot cease from sin This sheweth how hard it is to escape adultery when men have received the beauty of the adulteresse into their eye Why then are Laws made against this sinne It is in their power outwardly to fly such occasions that lead thereto The wise man saith remove thy way farre from her and come not neare the doore of her house Is not this too precise and strict a point No some mens natures are like tinder to the fire they must not onely fly sinnes but all occasions that lead thereto Now it is plain that in these things men have a power to forbear the evil and therefore the wise man accordingly doth temper his exhortation And for the lust of the heart though a man cannot flee from it yet God is able to give more grace which he is alway ready to do to those who in the sense of their own emptinesse do flee to him for help Where is the man that did ever truely desire and continue desiring helps against his infirmities that God did ever neglect If this could be proved then something may be said to the purpose Now we go to the next Scripture Among whom we in all times past had our conversation in the lusts of the flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others He hath many observations upon the words of this text This therefoore saith he as appears by the discourse of the Apostle relates not to riginal sinne but to actual Repl. It relates to both as the Ephesians had their conversation in the lusts of the flesh and did fulfill the lusts of the flesh and minde so it doth relate to actual sinne But as they were by nature the children of wrath this is with reference to original sinne And whereas he doth bring in Justin Martyr arguing upon this ground that therefore it cannot be extended to Christ we willingly yield that Christ is an exempt person by reason of his extraordinary birth and conception but then in Justines sense all else infants as well as others will partake of the sinne of the nature But he further addes Heires of wrath signifies persons liable to punishment heires of death It is an usual expression among the Hebrewes So sons of death in the holy Scripture are those that deserve death or are condemned to dye Repl. It is true that the Hebrews call a man the son of death that hath deserved death specially when he is condemned to die Though all this be granted it doth not void the force of our reason for we do not argue so much from the Apostles words that the Ephesians before conversion were the children of wrath but from those words were by nature the children of wrath The scope of all which is to shew that they were not onely subjected to wrath through a sinful conversation but through an evil nature the root of that evil conversation If therefore our Authour or any man else will make use of the Hebrew Idiotisme the words will go fairely in this sense that the beleeving Ephesians both by the condition of the natural birth and the whole course of their conversation as they did serve divers lusts and pleasures were liable to wrath and the onely mean by which they did escape was the quickning and enlivening work of the Spirit by and through which they were brought out of that estate in which they were born But he hath another evasion By nature is here most likely to be meant that which Galen calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an acquisite nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 customes and evil habits Repl. If we would apply our selves to authours and to the ordinary speech of men custome and nature are usually opposed each to other In some cases a man may be said to have a thing both by nature and custome very rarely or never we say that custome is nature Sometimes men speak in a more general sense that custome is as it were a second nature But because he stands upon it that it is most likely that the words of the Apostle are meant onely of custome and acquired nature for so he desires to speak then by this rule we must say that the beleeving Ephesians before conversion were by ill custome onely the children of wrath If this be so why doth the Apostle say you hath he quickned who were dead in trespasses and sinnes What need of the infusion of a new life to bring them off off an ill custome In such a case it were onely requisite to reduce nature to her original purity and to amend that by good usuages which ill customes had marred Besides seeing several Nations have their customes was it a peculiar custome to the Ephesians Or was it common to all Nations to be the children of wrath It was peculiar to the Ephesians then they onely had need of the infusion of a new life If it was common to all Nations How did they all generally agree in such a custome And what was the cause of the agreement Besides seeing there are some in their tender years of whom we may presume that they are neither quickned by grace nor hardened by ill custome whether such may be saved without the infusion of a new life yea or no If they may be saved without the infusion of a new life this will be against the scope of the Apostle who tells us they were saved from wrath by the inward quickning But if he will say that such cannot be saved without the infusion of a new life then 't is plain that by nature must be meant more than acquired
cannot understand the justice of it because we were not personally guilty why by the same reason doth he not wholly exclude us from having any part of share in the benefit of the death of Christ For what personal act or concurrence have we to the suffering of that death And whereas he alledgeth the ensamples of Pausanias the Grecian General Avidius Cassius and others that would not punish the children for the fathers offence We acknowledge the rationality and the equity of such proceedings but what is this to the case in hand The Law was so given to Adam that was never given to any else but to Christ alone It was given to him as the Headman and the root of the nature If he fell all must fall with him Neither is there any hardnesse or harshnesse in this doctrine as long as the misery by one doth open a door for the grace by the other He goes on If God saith he inflicts this evil upon Adams posterity by using his own right of power and dominion which he hath over his creatures then it is a strange anger which God had against Adam that he still retaines so fierce an indignation as not to take off his hand from striking after five thousand six hundred years and striking him for that of which he repented him and which in all reason we beleeve he then pardoned or resolved to pardon when he promised the Messiah to him Answ If he would but remember himself what he speaks elsewhere he shall finde that he saith the same in effect as we do For though in his further explication page 453. He affirmeth that Adam was made mortal and proves it by his eating and drinking his sleep and recreation by ingestion and egestion by breathing generating and the like which immortal substances never do Though by these and such like mediums he endeavours to prove the mortality of the state in which he was made yet in the same and other places he doth acknowledge that the untimelinesse and infelicity of death came in by the fall By the fall he tells us that Adam was cast into a place of labour and uneasinesse of bryars and thornes ill aire and violent chances The woman was condemned to hard labour and travell and that which troubled her most obedience to her husband c. Now let us take the misery brought in by the fall in such a low and diminutive sense that he would take it It is now above five thousand six hundred yeares that mankind hath been under the miseries and infelicities of death all this while they have continued in a place of labour and uneasinesse of ill aire and hard chances the woman also besides the paines and peril of child-birth hath been subject to her husband for five thousand six hundred years and yet she knows no end of her apprentiship As strange as the anger is against Adam and his posterity he must needs say the same in effect as we do But to give a positive answer These miseries brought in by the fall of Adam have continued and must continue to the end of the world Neither is it a strange thing that the Lord should continue his anger seeing by the continuation thereof he doth continue to drive men to Christ If he pleased he could immediately take away all these miseries brought in by the fall But for most excellent ends to humble men to pluck down their pride to beat them out of their carnal security he doth rather suffer them to abide And for the case of the woman The Apostle doth not deny her pains and perill of child-birth to come in by the fall but then he addeth they shall be saved in child-bearing if they continue in the faith 1 Tim. 2. last Notable to this purpose is that speech of Augustine to Julian the Pelagian est enim aliquid in â—bdito alto ejus consilio c. There is therefore a reason in his hidden and deep counsel why so long as we live in this mortal flesh there is something in us against which our mind may conflict there is something that we may say forgive us our trespasses And a little after therefore it is done in the place of our infirmity that we should not live proudly but should live under a daily need of remission of sinnes Much more to the same purpose What he addes is monstrous false It is not easily saith he to be imagined how Christ reconciled the world unto his Father if after the death of Christ God is so angry with mankind so unappeased that the most innocent part of mankind may perish for Adams sinne and the other are perpetually punished with a corrupted nature a pronenesse to sinne a servile will a filthy concupiscence and an impossibility of being innocent that no faith no Sacrament no prayers no industry can obtain pardon from this punishment Answ It were a very happy thing if this learned man would once think that there were a ninth commandment and that he would make conscience of bearing false-witnesse against his neighbour We say as the case now standeth men are pestred with a corrupted nature with a pronenesse to sinne with a servile will but that there is no remedy to bring us out of this evil this was never affirmed by us There is in the blood of Christ that which will take away the guilt of sinne in the Spirit of Christ to free us from the bondage of corruption and also in his power to raise our bodies at the last Onely it is the good will and pleasure of God in the whole Oeconomy of the salvation of man that we should wait till all these things be fulfilled That is a most sweet passage of Bede taken from some ancienter Authour No man saith he taketh away sinne which the Law although holy and just and good could not take away but he in whom there was no sin Now he taketh away sinnes by pardoning those that are done and by assisting us that they may not be done and by bringing of us to the life where they cannot at all be done and so we are come to an end of this Section SECT 4. Of the causes of the universal wickednesse of mankind In the beginning he doth take upon him to propound an objection If there were not some common principle of evil introduced by the sinne of our parents upon all his posterity how should all men be so naturally inclined to be vicious To this he endeavours to frame many answers First saith he if we will suppose that there must be a cause in our nature determining us to sinne by an unresistible necessity I desire to know why such a principle should be more necessary to us than it was to Adam Repl. As I have said before Adam had onely a possibility to sinne he did sinne so that he had liberty and freedome not to sin But as the case now standeth we can do nothing else but sin It is true in the particular
saith he that there maybe some place found for faith it is needful that all things which are believed may be hidden out of sight and they cannot be further hidden than under the contrary object sense experience So God when he quickneth he doth it by killing when he justifieth he doth that thing by convincing men of the guilt of sin when he lifteth up to heaven he doth it by bringing down to hell and much more to that purpose All this is but a specimen or handsel of the doctrine of Luther though he doth every where teach that there is no ability in man to obey the command yet all ability is to he had in the word of promise He doth abundantly shew that the use of the Law properly is to bring men to despair that despairing in themselves they may be driven to Christ He doth marvellously expresse the doctrine of Saint Paul in the Epistle to the Romans and elsewhere Now on the contrary Doctor Jeremy Taylor tells us a contrary tale that the Lord did encrease his commands above the ability of men in the times of the old world and gave no spiritual promises in answer to the commands given in those dayes and this he doth avouch to be the true cause why iniquity did abound in that age Now how he can make Religion intelligible by the position of such principles for my part I cannot understand I think never any of our Divines was ever found to come to such a high pitch of severity Now we go to his next Section SECT 5. Of the liberty of election remaining after Adams fall HEre he doth make it one chief part of his work to prove the liberty of the will to this purpose he bringeth many arguments against us whereas if he did well consider the matter we do not deny such a natural faculty Man hath a power in naturals and externals of Religion to use a liberty and in spirituals when he is made free by Christ Bellarmine bringeth in this as one chief point of accusation They deny saith he free-will so excellent and worthy a gift of God and the best of all that are in man by which alone we may be distinguisht from bruit beasts and may come nearest to the nature of Angels and may beare the image of the Godhead it self which also the whole race of mankind upon the earth do testifie with great consent of minde A thing I say so clear that almost every moment it cometh into the view of our eyes and minds yet neverthelesse with incredible madnesse and fury these men do most obstinately refuse confute and reject it So far Bellarmine In which words of his if he speak of liberty of will so farre as it is a faculty we do not deny it we would as soon deny the fire to be hot or the water to be moist Onely this we deny in things spiritual in matters that concerne salvation a man hath no free will Neither do we absolutely say this in spiritual things for though he hath no freedome by nature he may be made free by grace Grace doth not destroy the faculty but doth perfect and adorne it But of all our Authours let Doctor Vsher in his answer to the challenge made by a Jesuite in Ireland lay downe our judgement and then we shall see how fairely and honestly Bellarmine and now last of all our Author himself does deal with us That man hath free-will saith he is not by us gain-said though we dare not give him so large a freedome as the Jesuits presume to do Freedome of will we know doth as essentially belong unto a man as reason it self and he that spoileth him of that power doth in effect make him a very beast For this is the difference betwixt reasonable and unreasonable creatures as Damascene rightly noteth The unreasonable are rather led by nature than themselves are the leaders of it and therefore do they never contradict their natural appetite but assoon as they affect any thing they rush to the prosecution of it But man being endued with reason doth rather led nature than is lead by it and therefore being moved with appetite if he will he hath power to restraine his appetite or to follow it Hereby he is enabled to do the things which he doth neither by a brute instinct of nature nor yet by any compulsion but by advice and deliberation the mind first taking into considerartion the grounds and circumstances of each action and freely debating on either side what in this case were best to be done or not done and then the will enclining it self to put in execution the last and conclusive judgment of the practical understanding This liberty we acknowledge a man may exercise in all actions that are within his power to do whether they be lawful unlawful or indifferent whether done by the strength of nature or of grace For even in doing the workes of grace our free will suspendeth not her action but being moved and guided by grace doth that which is fit for her to do grace not taking away that liberty which comes by Gods creation but the pravity of the will that ariseth from mans corruption So farre Dr. Vsher page 465. In which words of his if we speak of the nature of free-will we do not deny it to be a free faculty both under corruption and under grace why should we be upbraided then with that which we do not maintaine but if we speak of the strength and ability of free-will it is our constant doctrine that naturally a man hath no freedome to that which is spiritually good till he is made free by grace And so far as he is made free by grace and the way to obtaine this freedome the first step is to see his slavery and his bondage-under corruption These things being premised and the state of the question made cleare we will now come to see what our Author can alleadge to the contrary He proceedeth as followeth The objection saith he hinders not but choice still remaines to a man and that he is not naturally sinful as he is naturally heavy and upright apt to laugh and weep Answ Though in a sense it is true that a man is not naturally sinful as he is naturally heavy yet it is from the corruption and pravity of his nature within that he is still apt to choose that which is evil For though every man doth not choose the same sin nor for the same cause neither doth he alwayes choose it yet it is apparent that our wills are in a state of servility and that the power to choose the things that are good is naturally lost But he further addeth This doctrine is destructive to all laws it takes away reward and punishment and we have nothing whereby we can serve God and precepts of holinesse might be preached to a wolfe as well as a man if men were naturally and inevitably wicked Answ These tearmes naturally and inevitably wicked are
fallaciously coupled together The Ephesians before their conversion were naturally wicked they were by nature the children of wrath as well as others But will any man say that they were inevitably wicked how then could they be quickned and made alive againe by the infusion of a new life Further it is not destructive to all laws to say a man is naturally wicked for by the help of restraining grace he may outwardly sorbeare many evils which are forbidden in the law onely his sinfulnesse lyes in this that of himselfe he cannot come up to the purity and spirituality of the law in the denyal of his lusts Againe though naturally he be under the reign of lust he doth not inevitably lye under that bondage That reign may be broken when he shall come to be acquainted with the liberty of the Spirit The law of the Spirit of life which is in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sinne and death Rom. chap 8 2. Neither upon such a supposal is it true that precepts of holiness may be given to a wolfe as well as a man A wolfe is no way capable of precepts for want of faculties he hath neither understanding will nor any other power of the soul as a man hath That of Augustine is true A man doth not believe the impedement is not in the faculty but in the vicious habit that doth hinder the faculty Posse credere naturae est hominum velle credere gratiae est fidelium to have a remote power to believe is of the nature of men to have a will to believe is of the grace of believers But a wolfe hath neither nature nor grace to believe and therefore he hath no precepts given to him to believe Upon this account saith he it is so far from being true that a man after his fall did forfeit his natural power of election that it seems rather to be encreased For as a mans knowledge grows so his will comes to be better attended and ministred unto But after his fall his knowledge was much more than it was before he knew what madnesse was and had experience of the difference of things he perceived the evil and mischief of disobedience Answ I willingly yield that as a mans knowledge grows his will comes to be better attended and ministred unto But that his knowledge should be much more after his fall than it was before this goes against the whole scope of Scripture For one chief cause of the servility and vassallage of the natural man under sin doth arise from the blindnesse and darknesse of his judgement This is most lively set forth in the words of the Apostle The wisdome of the flesh is enmity against God because it is not subject to the law nor can be Rom. 8.7 We will explaine the particulars in order The wisdome of the flesh in the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Saplence prudence and minde of the flesh That which the eye is to the body to direct and guide it the same is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or minde of the flesh to the will and other faculties it teacheth them what to choose and what to refuse what to love and what to hate Now a man cannot choose the things of God till he doth see the excellency of them Further to shew the misery of the natural man the wisdome of his flesh is said to be enmity against God He doth not say an enemy in the concrete but enmity it selfe in the abstract that is an enemy in the highest degree God is an enemy to such a minde and such a minde is an enemy to God And therefore in the third place he gives a reason of the enmity it is not subject to the law of God for the chief designe of the minde of the flesh is to set up other Gods in place of the true God other Lords in direct opposition to the law of the Spirit When men should trust in the Lord alone this wisdome doth prompt them to trust in horses and armies for victory in good husbandry for riches in friends for preferment in the world c. And this is the reason wherefore the wisedome of the flesh is called enmity against God because it is alwayes tempting and alluring men to love the things of the world to delight in them and to trust in them more than the true God Nay the Apostle goes a step further he doth not say that it is not subject but it cannot be subject to the law of God He doth not deny only an actual subjection but that which is more he denyes a potential subjection also Among several kinds of birds and beasts there are many that are not actually subject to man yet there is nothing doth exclude but they may be brought under subjection But the wisdome of the flesh is such that it cannot be made subjection by art or industry or any outward meanes till grace comes If this be so it is strange to me that any man should so far forget himself to affirme that a mans knowledge is more after his fall than it was before seeing a great part of his misery lyeth in the blindnesse of his judgement And therefore as in the old creation so it is in the new The first work is in making of light God that commanded the light to shine out of darknesse hath commanded the light of his grace to shine in your hearts in the face of Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 4 6. By the same argument as he proves Adams knowledge to be greater after than it was before his fall he may prove us to have more knowledge than Christ Of Christ it is peculiarly said he made him sin that knew no sin we have an experimental knowledge of sin that Christ never had so Adam had an experimental knowledge of sin and misery after which he never had before his fall But he further addeth We may saith he as well suppose an understanding that can never understand and passions that can never desire nor refuse and a memory that can never remember as a will that cannot choose Answ Though it be a preposterous thing to imagine a will that cannot choose yet there is no strangenesse to conceive of a will that cannot choose the things of the Spirit To choose is natural to the will as it is to fire to burne to the memory to remember but to choose the things of the Spirit of God this must be from supernatural operation When the rich Marchant found the pearle hid in the field for joy he went and sold all that he had Mat. 13.44 But he saith As sin is the action of a free faculty it can no more take away the freedome of that faculty than vertue can for that also is the action of the same free faculty Answ Neither do we say that sin takes away the freedome of the faculty for all that do commit sin do freely commit it only it takes away the freedome
a new spirit I will give them Ezek. 36.26 The Psalmist prayed create in me a cleane heart O God and renew within me a right Spirit Psal 51.10 All these places of Scripture do abundantly prove that the inward act of the will is under the decree of God as well as under laws and that the certainty of the decree doth not overturne the liberty of the will but both do go together Next he tells us That Augustine in his zeale against a certaine errour of the Pelagians made him take in auxiliaries from an uncertaine and lesse discerned errour and caused him to say many things which all antiquity disavowed and which the following ages took up upon his account Answ The following ages specially since the times of Luther have adhered to the doctrine of Augustine But that the Sager sort have done this meerly upon his account we cannot easily admit They have followed him so far as his interpretations have come nearer to the natural and genuine sence of Scripture What hard speeches he hath concerning original sin the natural servitude of the will the spirituality of the law and the imperfection of man the rigour and austerity of them will be well allayed by comparing them with other sweet sayings of his concerning the fulnesse of Christ and the freenesse of the promises His scope is no way to hinder the endeavour of man but to ground and settle it upon such principles that are more solid and divine And whereas our Author in his Vnum Necessarium and his further explication doth commend the Fathers before the times of Auguistine for their temperate speeches concerning free-will Here many things are to be observed First who will assures us that he may not do the same with their authorities about free-will as he doth with the doctrine of the Church of England and the sence of the Article in the point of Original sin If he will pervert the plaine sence of that which is open in the view of all men what may he not do with the testimonies of the Ancients Besides what he alleadgeth for free-will out of Justin Martyr Cyril Hierome and others those speeches may admit of a benigne interpretation All Divines do agree that a man hath free-will he hath a power to understand to choose to refuse to act by counsell he were not a man if he could not do this The speeches of the Fathers may be taken in such an absolute sence in relation also to a particular state Adam had free-will in innocency and the Saints have free-will to that which is spiritually good in the state of grace Further suppose some things have escaped from them that have been lesse authentick let us consider that many of them came new out of the Schooles of the Philosophers and therefore together with the truth they might mingle some errours of Philosophy Their conflicts also were with the Philosophers and the Maniches and therefore it was necessary that they should speak something more than ordinary for the liberty of the will But enough of this matter which is so largely spoken and so plentifully by others FINIS A Catalogue of some books printed for and sould by Edmund Paxton over against the Castle Taverne near to the Doctors Commons THe holy Arbor containing the body of Divinity or the summe and substance of Christian Religion for the benefit and delight of such as thirst after righteousnesse wherein also are fully resolved the questions of whatsoever point of moment have been or are now controverted in Divinity By John Godolphin J. C. D. fol. The holy Lymbeck or A Semicentury of spiritual extractions wherein the Spirit is extracted from the letter of certaine eminent places in the holy Scriptures By John Godolphin J. C. D. 12. The Temple measured or a brief survey of the Temple mystical which is in the instituted Church of Christ wherein is solidly and modestly discussed most of the material questions touching the constitution and Government of the visible Church-militant here on earth c. By James Noyes of New England 4. Lawes and Ordinances of War in 4. Englands compleat law-Judge and Lawyer by Charles George Cock The method of grace in the justification of sinners being a reply to a book written by Mr. William Eyre of Salisbury by Benjamin Woodbridge Minister of Newberry