Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	actual_a	adam_n	original_a	9,456	5	8.6542	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45121	Animadversions, being the two last books of my reverend brother Mr. Williams the one entituled A postscript to Gospel-truth, the other An end of discord : conscientiously examined, in order to a free entertainment of the truth, in some momentous points in divinity, controverted among the nonconformist brethen, occasionally here determined, for the sake of those honest among us that seek it, without trick or partiality / by John Humfrey ...	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1699 (1699)	Wing H3666; ESTC R16328	37,926	42

If this be so here is a difficulty arises We are punished and that with Death for the sin of another how can that be just And if God may punish us with Temporal Death for Adams sin he may with Eternal I answer therefore That though Death inflicted on Adam for his sin was indeed a punishment on him yet is Death in it self no punishment on us Adam was made of the Earth Mortal as we but he was put into the Garden where was the Tree of Life whereof so long as he might eat it would save his Life but upon his sin God excluded him from it and having not the Free to eat on when his time came he must needs dye The Sentence of Death was in effect executed on him in excluding him Paradise But as for us we never had the Tree to eat on and cannot be punished by the exclusion from what we never had but according to Nature we being Mortal and of course appointed to dye our Death as Natural is neither good nor evil in it self but in regard to what follows it that is the reward to come according as out Lives have been in the World and if good it is but a Gate to Blessedness After this you may ask What think you then of the more common Doctrine that it is not as we were in Adams Loins but as we were in Adams Covenant that we sinned in him and so were liable to the same punishment I answer besides that it can never be proved that those words In the day thou eatest thereof was said to you or I when they were said to Adam this Assertion is too grievous for my embrace because it makes the Constitution only of God that is his Will alone without any of the sinner to be the cause of Mans damnation I will yet not leave but seeing I am fallen on the Point I will consider what Original Sini● is that I own There are three things according to the common Doctrine wherein original Sin consists the Want of Original Righteousness Adams first guilt and the Corruption of our Nature from whence Actual Transgressions proceed For the second I have spoke to For the first The Schools have conceived that Adam was Endowed with a supernatural Grace besides his Natural Righteous Constitution which by his Fall he lost and so we but our naturals and Free-will remains Now I believe no such thing as that Adam had any Righteousness or Grace supernatural but only Nature entire for Grace is indeed a Medicinal thing or Auxiliatory for fallen Nature which Adam needed not and there can be no loss of that which never was If by Original Righteousness the integrity of Adams Nature be meant only the want or loss of this is included in the third As for which I believe that Adam falling depraved his Nature and being depraved himself he begets Children with this Corruption in their Nature The Mind and Will is infected with ignorance and disobedience the Ataxy in his Faculties upon his Fall is begotten in ours and so I hold Original Sin according to the Article of the Church of England which speaks of this and nothing else though I did not therefore so take it up Omnes peccaverunt id est in omnes propagatum est malum quod est peccatum says Melancthon and so we are by Nature filii ira not upon Adams but our own account This or thus much I hold with the Church against Pelagius so that there is a necessity therefore of Grace in order to Salvation But whether of special Grace against Arminius also which I have hitherto imbibed I leave others to their own Sentiments P. 77. Mr. Ws. and I do hold that Christs Obligation to bear our punishment was a single Obligation or an Obligation of his own not our Obligation though our punishment Our Obligation is ex delicto his ex voluntario contractu so that he suffered not as a Sinner But the Brethren think otherwise That our sins were so imputed to Christ as to give him the denomination and judicial acceptation of a Sinner in the esteem of God and the Law This being so what says Mr. Ws. to it to end the Discord Why Notwithstanding this so long as they deny that Christ bad any defilement in him or any sin of his own only our sins imputed to him and he was but a Legal Sinner this difference cannot justifie mutual Censure What And can it not indeed Then I promise you we must be more friendly to the Antinomian also for it is very abusive for any to think that such a one as Dr. Crisps or any University Graduate did ever believe that the Accident of one Subject could migrate into another so that we are to take their words how broad soever as when they account Christ took on him the fault as well as the punishment to wit our faults and only Legally in the sense of those Orthodox Divines as have commonly said he suffered as a Sinner and Luther as the greatest Sinner Yet are such sayings reprehensible by and according to us who deny that he was our Legal Person though a Days-man betwixt God and us he bore our punishment that we might not bear it An Opinion may be of ill consequence and he that holds it not see it and a Man may hold a Tenent in the Theory which he does not in the Practice but live as free from those ill consequences as he that holds the contrary Opinion In such a case such a Brother is not to be censured but born with but the Opinion the Tenent is to be censured and refuted and such Censure to be justified P. 80 81. The Apology he makes there for our Opinion that is his I mean and mine and Mr. Baxters against the common Protestants is so well handsome humble true clear and taking that I cannot but commend it Ut nihil supra The following Pages are as judicious in clearing us from Popery I thank him for them P. 84. He speaks of the Manner of Imputation of Christs Righteousness and tells us the double sense thereof on the one side the sense of the Brethren which is the same that God reckons us to have Legally done and suffered what Christ did as before but in more words And on the other side our sense which he might dispatch in two words Quoad Effectus but he clouds it so with his Notion of Gods adjudging that the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ is our Pleadable Security for his benefits purchased that I cannot tell what to make of it For what an idle impertinent thing is this to talk of Gods adjudging Christs Obedience to be our Pleadable Security for the enjoyment of that whereof he does adjudge us upon the account hereof to the very enjoyment P. 86. By this you see says he that we rise ●ot so high as to say we are accounted to do or suffer what Christ did and so to be absolved immediately by the Sentence of the

at least that hold Universal Redemption for this is true that whosoever will may Only we do add that when any will that is yet farther of special Grace Having said this according to Charity a little surpassing this Author I think fit to take notice of one Chapter in this Book that concerns me It is the Eighth but in order to it I find in the seventh these two Questions raised to wit How our sins were imputed to Christ as to his Satisfaction and how his Righteousness is imputed to us in our Justification The difference in Opinion herein does spring he tells us from the diverse conceptions we have of Christs Suretiship whereof we have mention but once in Scripture and I will say but this little about it That there in nothing oftentimes so much hinders the right understanding of a Text of Scripture or words of an Author as the apprehension that there is some more profoundness in it than there is And so it is here as to this word Surety whereof I am perswaded there is nothing to be understood by it but Christs Interceding as Mediator in our behalf and undertaking the doing that in regard to his Priesthood of which the Apostle is speaking in the place as was necessary to the reconciling God to us so as to be willing to make and as h might in Justice make that Covenant or grant the Conditions of the Gospel to us As for Mr. Ws. and others telling us farther things of this Suretiship to wit of Christs engaging on Gods part that he shall perform what he promises and on our part that the Elect shall perform the Condition it is Gratis discourse for on Gods part he needs no such Surety and as for us the Covenant is universal and if Christ was a Surety in a proper sense for our performance then should all perform it and be saved Let us conceive therefore of nothing intended by this word Surety for Christ to do but what is necessary to Gods making not his or our keeping this Covenant and let who will make the most of it I come to the first Question How our sins were imputed to Christ P. 73. Having told us what on one side we think wherein I wish he could have cited Mr. Baxter to explain it for his mind is so over full of his Notion as he is not fit to do it for us The other side says he think Christ came into the same bond as a Pecuniary Surety with us or was our Represent alive in such a sense as that we are Legally esteemed to do or suffer what he did This Opinion of the Brethren Mr. Baxter thought so dangerous that he set himself against it Book after Book as that which does argumentatively bring in Antinomianism and according to his frequent words subvert the Gospel But Mr. Ws. is so sugard here so gracious so mealy as to tell them that this would be dangerous indeed if they did not renounce all assuming boasts as if they were as righteous as Christ or stood on terms with God needing no more acts of Mercy than that one of appointing Christ to be their Mediator But what if they be all so humble as I believe they are as none of them to have such boasting yet so long as that Tenent does argumentatively infer such consequences as this and no less indeed than this wherein Mr. Ws. shews his strength how can he daub thus with such untempered Mortar as he here makes As if the Opinion as well as the Brother that holds it was to be own'd And how many the like consequences of this Doctrine does Mr. Baxter shew in his Books P. 75 76. The Brethren supposing as before that we obeyed and suffered in Christ do ground it he counts here upon Adams being a figure of Christ in the 5th of the Romans and he is informing them that we must not say that we obey in Christ as we are said to have sinned in Adam because we were all in Adam as our Root but none of us not the Elect not the Believer so in Christ as in him which he has some where else also I cannot turn to the place but having spent some thoughts hereupon without Book I will set my self to set them down What Christ did for us in the flesh he did for Mankind but all Mankind are not in him as we were in Adam that is certain tho' Redemption be universal The Believer only is his Seed who is not thus neither that is seminally in him Besides that if the Believer or the Elect be accounted of God to have done what Christ did he must be accounted of God to have fulfilled the Law in him and so to have nothing to do himself for his Salvation which is to leap into the Gulph of Antinomianism which we avoid This Notion now is not any peculiar one of Mr. Ws. but what others also insist upon yet am not I contented with it I do not see how we can be said to sin in Adam the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text does not prove it upon this account of Mr. Ws. that we was in his Loins If you prove it by that Text which says Levi paid Tythes to Melchisedeck in Abraham I prove the contrary by another where it is said of the Children unborn that they had neither done any good ar evil One of these Texts is certainly as argumentative as the other We may be said to eat of the Tree and to dress the Garden and to do all that ever Adam did Physically as being in his Loins but we did not sin in him which is a Moral evil Original corruption is sin but not his or this sin There is no such sin or Moral good without the Will Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea and in this sense that Axiom Actiones as to good and evil sunt suppositorum is undeniable What then shall we say to this Chapter which tells us that by Adams disobedience we were made sinners and by Christs obedience made righteous and the like I answer to so much as concerns our purpose that I have pitcht on this Solution in my Ultima Manus p. 6. where standing to our Principles I affirm That this Imputation which is supposed here on both sides as to Adams sin and Christs obedience is to be understood only in regard to the Effects We are made sinners in Adams sin in regard to the fruit of it for we all dye by reason of it So we are made righteous by Christs obedience in regard to the benefits of it as Justification and so Pardon and Salvation which we have by it upon believing We are not Formaliter righteous by Christs obedience this we carefully deny nor Formaliter sinners by Adams sin But Effective we are so in regard to the fruit or quoad Effectus as to both This is a solid determination and which I stand to See the place in that Book It may be objected