Mr. Everard hath in substance spoken before we are content to let them pass in this matter From the eleventh place they do conclude absolutely that infants are free from all kind of sinne These are their words doth not the Apostle remove not onely from children malice but also all evil of iniquity when he would have the Corinthians in that behalf conformed to them 1 Cor. 14.20 saying Brethren be not children in understanding howbeit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in malice or iniquity be children page 70. Here as I have formerly touched is a palpable sophisme a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter as Logicians terme it For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the general notion thereof may signifie all evil of iniquity yet in the sense of the text it noteth the particular evil of malice onely and therefore he saith in malice be ye children Neither is it his purpose to acquit children from all kind of malice or envy for they have seminally and vertually the seed of all this in their hearts Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain the spirit that is in us lusteth unto envy Jam. 4.5 We see by experience that this is no fable that envy is naturally seated in the heart of man one child many times doth envy another for a little coat And though God doth give to the Regenerate more grace to purge out the sinne of the nature as it is afterward expressed in the next verse but he giveth more grace wherefore he saith God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble Notwithstanding all this the nature of man doth lust to envy and it is vertually and eminally in infants You will say then why doth the Apostle exhort in malice be ye children His meaning is this that they should do as children who are apt to forget the wrongs and injuries that are done to them and to look-upon them as though they had never been And therefore the Apostle saith be angry but sinne not let not the Sun go down upon your wrath Ephes 4.26 This is all one with that expression in malice be ye children that is do not retain heart-burnings and hatred one against another but forget the wrongs and injuries that are done to you as children do It is but a comparative speech These are all the places of Scripture which are alledged by these Censors to prove the purity of the natural birth and how well they have done it we leave to any indifferent understanding to judge and yet how do they glory when they utter such words as these page 71 Thus we have proved that neither the guilt of our first parents sinne was imputed nor their spiritual death in sinne and corrupted nature was conveyed to all their posterity or to any one of them by ordinary generation And directing their speech to the Assembly after this manner do thus insult though this your doctrine say they hath gone from hand to hand a long time by tradition yet neither did the Scribes and Pharisees nor yet the disciples of Christ and much lesse Christ himself hold forth any such doctrine nor were any of them leavened with this opinion of yours and your long mistaken Predecessors For the Pharisees with the Jewes being highly displeased with him who was borne blinde and whose eyes Christ had opened for defending his Saviour and blessed Oculist said thus unto him John 9 34. Thou wast altogether born in sinne and doest thou teach us Whence it is evident that they did neither conceive all men in general nor yet themselves to be by propagation conceived and born in sinne page 71. What apprehensions and conceptions soever the Pharisees and other Jews had I will not dispute Sure I am they who do rightly understand the doctrine of the Jewish Church could not well be ignorant of the sinne of the nature For when our Saviour did discourse of the necessity of regeneration and Nicodemus did admire at the strangnesse of that doctrine our Saviour made him this answer Art thou a Master in Israel and knowest not these things John 3.7 In which words it is plain that the pollution of the natural birth and the necessity of regeneration were then points easie to be known and a wonder it was to our Saviour that any could be ignorant of such fundamentals And I cannot but admire that these men Mr. Everard and the thirty separate Congregations should professe themselves to be members of the Christian Church and be ignorant of these things But our Examiners build upon our Saviours words neither hath this man sinned nor his parents but that the works of God should be made manifest in him Where according to your doctrine say they our Saviour should have answered positively that both he and his parents with all his progenetors even as farre as Adam had sinned What need was there at all that our Saviour should speak of the common cause of the misery of all mankind seeing the Disciples question was more immediately touching the particular blindnesse of this man They were not ignorant that original sinne was the common cause of all diseases onely they did put the question what was the proper cause of the blindnesse of this individual man whether it did lie in himself or in his parents that he was born blind In relation to this particular question for any eminency or singularity of sinne above other men the answer is plaine that neither he nor his parents have sin'ned This was the presumption and singular opinion of the Pharisees as it appeareth in the aforementioned words Thou wast altogether born in sinne and dost thou teach us The whole Processe of this argument is a meere fallacy à dicto secundum quid addictum simplicietr They go on and from the Lords appointing the Cities of refuge for the Man slayer to flee unto when he had killed his Neighbour unawares they reason The Lord commanded by Moses that Cities of refuge should be set apart in all the coasts and habitations of Israel for such to flee to and will he pursue the innocent seed of Adam and hold them guilty for their fathers sinne perpetrated ere they were born Yea will he himself be the avenger of the blood against these innocents page 70. In answer to this I say did these men seriously consider the whole truth they would not raise such tragical cryes against this doctrine The Cities of refuge anciently appointed for the Man-slayer were types and figures of Christ to come To him only the soul is to fly when she is pursued by the curse of the Law as by an avenger of blood So then if all the children of Adam were lyable to the guilt of his sinne perpetrated before they were born there is no harshnesse in the saying if we beleeve that the fall of Adam doth open a door to the grace that comes by Christ and that the grace of Christ is a City of refuge for the lost sinner to fly to
as we have formerly proved Againe it is most true that men dye because by their own sinne they deserve death but the scope of the Apostle is here onely concerning the disobedience of the first man and the passage of death upon all by the account of his sinne That which is the principal cause of death at least to the purpose in hand he looks upon it as a businesse by the by In the next words he cometh to deliver himself more clearly for speaking of the fall of Adam he addeth Sin propagated upon that root and vicious ensample or rather from that beginning not from that cause but dum ita peccant similiter moriuntur If they sin so then so shall they die so Saint Hierom. Answ This passage though it be clothed with the words of Hierom it hath the sense of the Pelagians For observe what he saith sin is propagated from that vicious ensample it doth descend from Adam not so much as a cause but as a beginning and so far as men tread in his steps they are lyable to the same punishment In his answer to the Bishops letter he brings in an ensample to confirme this way of exposition these are his own words To this purpose we have an ensample of Gods transmitting the curse from one to the other Both were sinners but one was the Original of the curse or punishment So said the Prophet to the wife of Jeroboam 1 Kings 14.16 He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam who did sinne and made Israel to sinne Joroboam was the roote of the sin and of the curse here it was also that I may use the words of the Apostle that by the sin of one man Jeroboam sin went into all Israel and the curse captivity or death by sinne and so death went upon all men of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inasmuch as all men of Israel have sinned So far he page 32. By this instance of his it is cleare that Original sin must passe into the world not so much by propagation as by imitation The Kings of Israel did walke in the wayes of Jeroboam that made Israel to sin and thereupon the curse captivity and death came upon all the whole succession and upon all Israel so far forth as they did walk in his waies and did follow his ensample If this be a parallel case we must say sin the guilt of sin and the curse for sin came into the world only by the institution and command of the first man and all his posterity are so far forth involved in his sinne as they walk after such an injunction and imitate that ensample Now if this be so I will leave it to any man to judge whither this gloss will go at last The Apostle saith that the first man is the figure of him that is to come If therefore we are implicated in the sinne of Adam no otherwise but by obeying his command and following his ensample Our salvation by Christ will chiefly consist in our imitating of him and in obedience to his commands As for the merit of his blood the worth of his passion the imputation of his righteousnesse all this must be set apart as a matter of little use and small profit Having done with his own he cometh to paraphrase upon the exposition given by us They think these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as all have sinned ought to be expounded thus death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned meaning that in Adam we really sinned and God doth truely and justly impute his sin to us to make us as guilty as he that did it and as much punished and lyable to eternal damnation and all the force of this great fancy relyes upon this exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie in him Answ We do in substance own the interpretation to be ours but that all the force of it doth depend upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie in him this we plainly deny Our interpretation is grounded upon the scope of the text For let us suppose the words to be construed in his sence Forasmuch as all have sinned when he hath done all that he can he must come to the interpretation given by us For the drift of the Apostle in the former words is not only to shew that sinne hath past upon all men and death by sin but he speaks of such a passage of sinne and death upon all men out of one man If therefore there be such a general passage of sin and death upon all out of one man then virtually and interpretatively all must sin in one man Againe in the subsequent verses the Apostle saith that the first Adam is the figure of him that is to come If you ask how and wherein we must needs say from the whole series of the text that they are two publick persons and two representatives of the kind By this account then the disobedience of the first man must be virtually the act of all and what he did they did in him and by him So then our interpretation is founded upon the whole scope of the context As for his Critiscismes we will leave them to such who have more leasure to busy themselves about words we will follow him as he goes on in expounding the sense of the Apostle Neverthelesse death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that bad not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression who is the figure of him that is to come By which discourse it appears that St. Paul doth not speak of all mankind as if the evil occasion by Adams sin did discend for ever upon that account but it had a limited effect and reached onely to those that were in the interval between Adam and Moses Answ But if the matter be well considered there is no such collection to be made from the discourse of the Apostle Indeed he speaketh of the reigne of death over those that lived in the interval between Adam and Moses but shall we argue from thence that the evil occasioned by the fall did discend to them onely and go no further This cannot be for afterwards the Apostle drawing a parallel between both Adams hath these words If through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many Now then if we shall say by the offence of one many be dead and understand this many or multitude in a limited sence namely of such only that lived in the interval between Adam and Moses by this account such a number alone will stand opposite to the many that have life and grace by Christ Nay that which is more the fore-mentioned number might in their time only look to one man the Lord Jesus for recovery out of sin and death and so the Gospel will be delivered to the consolation of such only that lived in the forementioned
much of both here and else-where is only a notion of his own commenting For when God made man in the beginning he made him in a state very good but when he fell he left all his posterity not only in an imperfect but in a sinful condition As for that middle state of deficiency which he imagins I know not where it is to be found unlesse it be in the Atlantis of Plate Besides if animality be only a state of deficiency why doth the Apostle so plainly tell us that the animal man receives not the things of the Spirit they are foolishnesse unto him This cannot be a state of meer imperfection but a state of direct opposition the principles of animality diametrally opposite to the things of the Spirit Michal scoft at Davids dancing before the Ark. Lot seemed to his sons-in-law to be as one that mockt when he told them of the destruction of the City the preaching of the crosse seemed to be very meane matter to the Philosophers and learned Grecians Now shall we say that all these were only in a state of animality or imperfection and no more I think none will easily believe it But in the close of all he hath these words In the state of animality saith he a man cannot go to heaven but neither will that alone carry them to hell and therefore God doth not let a man alone in that state for either God suggests to him that which is spiritual or if he doth not it is because himselfe hath superinduced something that is carnal Rep. We are told here of a state that carries neither to heaven nor to hell and I beleeve if we go to men of ripe years there is no man lives in this estate in all Asia Africa Europe and America Why then doth he trouble us with that which is not Further we do agree that the Lord doth at seasons suggest something that is spiritual to animal men by this they are enabled to see their own misery and to judge themselves Now this doth rather strengthen the force of the argument for if an animal man could purely of himselfe perceive the things of the Spirit what need had he of the suggestion of the Spirit But for that which he addeth that the animal man doth superinduce something that is carnal I think this cannot reasonably be denyed and therefore I do not see but the state of animality and carnality both are equal estates of enmity against God Thus have I been more large in clearing those Scriptures which concerne the maine of the question in others of lesse moment I will be more briefe SECT 3. How God punisheth the Fathers sin upon the children THe end wherefore he is so willing to dispute this point he himselfe doth expresse pag. 40â— Vpon this account alone saith he it must be impossible to be consented unto that God should still under the Gospel after so many generations of vengance and taking punishment for the sinne after the publication of so many mercies and so infinite a graciousnesse that is revealed to mankind in Jesus Christ after so great provisions against sin even the horrible threatnings of damnation still to persevere to punish Adam in his posterity and the posterity for that he never did Rep. In this passage of his he doth shew how much he doth mistake the scope of Scripture for it is the chiefe designe of the holy Ghost to amplifie the sin of Adam and all the evil that comes thereby to the end that all might be humbled and that they might come to Christ as to a Sovereigne remedy to help them in their misery And in very deed whatsoever he thinks to the contrary the Doctrine of the Gospel cannot be so clearly preached without the knowledge of that misery that came by the fall The knowledge of the one doth as it were open a doore to the knowledge of the other Againe in the whole processe of the discourse he is very faliacious Suppose ordinarily God doth not now punish the fathers sin upon the children is this a good argument to prove that the sin of Adam is not rightly imputed to posterity Other Parents comparatively are but private persons and their sins are but the sins of private men but Adam was the root of the nature and his sin was the sin of the whole kind As on the other side the suffering of Christ upon the crosse was not the suffering of a private person but the suffering of the whole humane nature By this the lost sons of men have a doore of grace opened the tender of grace is made to all and the great condemnation is for unbelief Now we will consider what the rules are which he doth lay down First saith he God may and doth very often blesse children to reward the Fathers piety as it is notorious in the famous descent of Abrahams family But the same is not the reason of favours and punishments Answ Here we would entreat him to observe that it is true that for a long descent God did shew kindnesse to the family of Abraham but if he well observe the matter this kindnesse was extended not so much for Abrahams piety as for the Lords own promise and for his truth in keeping the promise Againe whereas he saith There is not the same reason of favours and punishments let him shew why the Jewes are cast away why they have been little better than out-casts of the Covenant now above one thousand five hundred years Questionlesse as God will magnifie his mercy in their call so for many ages together they have stood and do yet stand under the burthen of that heavy curse which they did wish upon themselves his blood be upon us and our children c. Secondly saith he God never imputes the sin to the son or relative formally making him guilty or being angry with the innocent eternally Answ Though we should say the sin of Adam is imputed to all his relatives and that also to their eternal damnation this in the whole were no hard assertion as long as we teach that a second man is provided for eternal salvation We willingly yeild as the case now standeth the great condemnation is for the neglect and the contempt of that salvation mercy and grace that is to be had by Christ If men run out the years of the patience and long-suffering of God if they continue in unbelife and hardnesse of heart if they resist the convictions and operations of the Spirit as they are administred in their respective seasons I think it is but just that they should fall not only under the guilt of their own actual sins but under the eternal damnation also that was brought upon them by the sin of Adam the root of the nature All the hurt of such a position if it be a hurt is more vigorously to drive men to Christ As for infants though they are fallen into all kinds of miserie temporal and eternal by Adams sin what harme
Writings considering the greatnesse of his learning the Elegancy of his stile and the favour he beares to the Episcopal cause are like to passe with those that are Friends of that way They whatsoever their interests their Principles do not go in that streame He in many cases is too much for that which is old and they contrarily are too much for that which is new What reasons did first move him to enterprise the businesse he himselfe doth relate in his owne words These things saith he have I chose to say and publish because I finde that the usual Doctrines about original sinne are not onely false and presumed without any competent proofe but because as they are commonly believed they are no friends to Piety but Patrons to idlenesse and dishonourable to the reputation of Gods goodnesse and justice and more to that purpose he hath further explicated page 502. Here I do willingly agree with him that great circumspection ought to be used in the right handling of these things But then on the otherside he hath special cause to beware that he do not turn to the more dangerous extreame Original sinne in that sense as we define it cannot be denyed but upon the denyal many desperate absurdities will ensue We had a conference with the Brethren of the separation at a Neighbour-Towne Anno 1654. February the 22. Because they occasioned the dispute by disturbing the Minister of the place and were so tenacious of the point We did put it upon them to answer the question as followeth If all infants be born free from original sinne when do they beginne to be sinners that we may call them so They told us when they did act sinne We replyed then in all that space of time from the conception in the wombe to their acting of sinne they are all free They answered they are all free we demanded why is it then the peculiar prerogative of Christ if infants in all the forementioned space do partake of the same priviledge To this they said that infants are as free from all sinne as Christ himselfe We told them that we did much admire at the boldnesse of such an assertion They answered set his Godhead aside they are as pure as Christ himselfe was pure We rejoynd why was the Lord Christ conceived of the Holy Ghost and borne of the Virgin Mary To this they made no great Answer And the standers by did seeme to looke upon such a position with a kinde of horrour But as strange as the Tenet is I finde that Doctor Jeremy Taylor the Authour above named doth not shun to say the same thing in effect at least he seemes to go very neare to that coast For in his answer to the Bishops letter he bringeth the Bishop speaking after this manner If there be no such thing as original sinne transmitted from Adam to his posterity then all that sixth Chapter is a strise about a shadow a Non ens Answ It is true my Lord saith he The question as it is usually handled is so For when the Franciscan and the Dominican do eternally dispute about the conception of the Blessed Virgin whether it was with or without original sinne meaning by way of grace and special exemption this de non ente for there was no need of any such exemption And they supposing that commonly it was otherwise troubled themselves about the exception of a rule which in that sense which they supposed was not true at all she was borne as innocent from any impurity and formal guilt as Adam was created and so was her Mother and so was all her family In which words of his if he had said that his owne answer to the Bishops letter was a meere non ens he had spoken more truly for where there is no such thing as the Bishop of Rochester at all what answer can be given to his letter But whereas he stands upon it that the impurity of the natural birth from Adam the root of corruption is a meere non ens what will you make of regeneration and of Baptisme the washing of regeneration Where there is no sinfulnesse in the natural generation what need of Baptisme or regeneration at all Besides the Scriptures do speak abundantly of the putting off of the Old man and of the mortification of the sinne of the nature if there be no such sinne of the nature from Adam the root of corruption this whole work will be de non ente for that which is not true in any sense cannot be mortified at all And whither will this conceipt go at last Further the Saints have been deeply humbled for their birth sinne I was borne in iniquity and in sinne did my Mother conceive me What is man that he should be cleane and he that is borne of a woman that he should be righteons c If there be no such sinne at all these confessions and humiliations will be de non ente The Saints shall be humbled for a sinne and yet no such sinne is to be found In former times there were Thanksgivings for victories over enemies which indeed and in truth were de non ente But here we have Confessions and Humiliations of the same kinde innumerable other absurdities will ensue upon the denyall of such a truth which as I may so say is one of the first magnitude among the principles of the Faith It were good that this learned man and others that are concerned in the point would timely think upon it and be better advised before they go to farie Againe on the otherside I do not deny that the points of original sinne and free-will have been so handled in some systems of Divinity Commentaries and Polemical Discourses that maintaines there hath been a want of consideration sometimes a want of truth What they bring out of the Scriptures truly understood to prove the substance of the Doctrine is sound and good but what is alledged out of the Schoole-men to confirme the same is not alwayes authenick Pauls words do binde the conscience alwayes and at all times but not alwayes as they are delivered in the notions in the tearms and in the method of Aquinus Suppose that Saint Paul was now alive upon the earth and it were laid as a task upon him to reade the whole body of the controversie as it now lyeth between the Dominicans and the Jesuits the Jansenists and the Molinists such a case being imagined we may easily conceive what his judgement would be As he would condemne one part for their dangerous setting up of free-will in derogation to the grace of God so he would not altogether approve the other part for the mingling of spiritual truthes with strange speculations of Philosophy and with Metaphysical quiddities notions and conceptions of their own commenting Doubtlesse he would finde many things in them that would not hold weight with the shekel of the Sanctuary Among our selves also there are some passages that might have been uttered with
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
whether it be traduced or which way soever it be conveyed we must necessarily affirme in the continuall flux of original sinne from father to child each father doth propagate it to his child as Adam did to the whole posterity If this be not a real truth what shall we make of the speech of our Saviour that which is born of the flesh is flesh Joh. 3.6 The Father then doth propagate the corruption of nature to his child as he himself did first receive it by propagation We must needs then yield the truth of the thing though there be some difficulty in the discovery of the manner But that which doth very much satisfie me in this point is the consideration of that speech to Adam and in him to all mankind be fruitful and multiply replenish the earth and subdue it Gen. 1.28 From whence I gather that the propagation of mankind doth chiefly depend upon this promise established in the beginning And therefore suppose that be true which you say that the soul doth come immediately from God the question is whether in matter of generation in matter of union of the soul with the body in matter of propagation of the kind the child doth not depend upon the father as the branch doth upon the root And doth not the Lord continue still to performe that promise that he made in the beginning Surely by what power the earth doth continue to bring forth herbs and every thing doth fructifie according to its kind by the same ordinance blessing and promise of God doth the father beget the child to continue a posterity upon the earth To the right solution of the question then we must give a double answer For if it be demanded in the first place why a man doth generate a man It is from the Ordinance and blessing of God and from that fundamental Law increase and multiply But if it be further inquired why a sinful father doth continue to beget a sinful child the traduction of original sinne is from Adam the common root of the corruption of nature ever since the fall For the fountain being corrupted the corruption doth go down the stream and is in perpetual flux and succession from the Spring head But to make the matter good you go on If the soules and spirits of all that stock that came from Adam should have been lineally derived then they must have returned again to him page 228. This doth not follow for by the like reason why do you not argue concerning the branches and leaves of all the trees and forests in the world because they have their derivation from the root therefore they must return into the root again But you adde further admit say you we had such a being in Adam as the branches had in the tree and produce actions in a natural way being prone thereunto yet that which is to be expected must have been such fruits as were natural to the tree and no other but sinne was no natural fruit but an accident page 129. Indeed if you take nature in its first essence and institution it is good and all sinne is unnatural and accidental but if you take nature in its vicious qualities as it is since the fall then it is depraved in Adam and our immediate parents are so many conduit-pipes of the corruption of nature If this be not so what can be the meaning of our Saviours words that which is born of flesh is flesh This sheweth plainly that Adam is not onely the root of nature but also since the fall a root of the corruption of nature and upon this ground lyes a necessity of regeneration or having a new nature from Christ the second Adam Thirdly you say If we must own all Adams actions sinful as our acts then pray give me leave to appropriate as large a portion in all his good actions For why should I not plead for as much propriety in all his good actions as some will perswade me I have in all his evill actions seeing I was as much in him before the fall as since And then I might say as well that I walked in the Garden and drest it and gave names to all creatures page 129. If this will give you content I know nothing to the contrary but we may affirme that all mankind were in Adam when he walked in the Garden and gave names to all cattell And without question you should have had as great a part in his good actions if he had stood as now you have a share in the evil of that action by which he fell To make this appear in that state as we are now restored by Christ Man hath Lordship and Dominion over the creature If you will fetch this dominion from that great Charter Let them have dominion over the fish of the Sea the fowle of the aire c. Gen. 1.26 Then you must needs conclude that the priviledge which was given to Adam was given to all his posterity Yea in that particular case when the Lord brought all creatures to Adam to see what names he would give them he did bring the creatures to him as to the head of all mankind and he not onely in his own private but in their publick right did give names to all cattell The like may be said of the institution of marriage in the beginning of a mans leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife This did not so immediately concern Adam in his own person as all mankind that should come of him in succeeding generations Mat. 19.4 Fourthly you say If all men did sinne in Adam when he did eate the forbiden fruit why might it not as well be said when Adam beleeved I beleeved when Adam repented I repented page 130. I answer the case is not equal for when Adam did eate the forbidden fruit he did this as a publick person as the root of all mankind but when he did believe he did that as a particular member of Christ I may say on the other side when Christ suffered upon the Crosse to satisfie the justice of God this was all one as if Adam and Paul themselves had satisfied the justice of God What Christ did he did for them and when he did it they did it in him and by him The like answer may be given to that question why do not the regenerate propagate grace as well as original sinne The answer is plain piety is not hereditary as original sinne is neither doth holinesse come into us by nature but by grace not generation but regeneration doth intitle us to salvation And therefore in the aforementioned case when Adam did beget Cain in his own likenesse he did not beget him as the sonne of his faith but the sonne of his corrupt nature The same may be said of the natural Progeny of all believers they are born in original sinne as well as the children of Infidels The Jew that was circumcised himself begat one that was
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
my Treatise of Infant Baptisme But seeing you are so confident in it that no sound Scripture can be given to evince the conscience of any certainty of our committing sinne in Adam I pray you deal ingenuously and according to your own principles do you not beleeve that Infants do bear he punishment of Adams sinne How could they justly bear the punishment and be no way guilty of the transgression The scope of the Apostle is plainly to the contrary because death reigneth over all over Infants as well as others from hence he concludeth that in one all have sinned If you do well consider by denying original sinne and by taking away the corruption of nature as derived from the first man you do in effect call in question whether there be any regenerating grace to be had from the second man And so when you tell us that no sound Scripture can be given to prove the certainty of our committing sinne in Adam you do as good as say no sound Scripture can be given to evince the certainty of satisfaction made to the justice of God by the suffering of Christ In this matter the Apostle sheweth that the first man is the figure of him that is to come If that be true then which you and the Examiners teach that the guilt of the first mans sinne doth not redound to his posterity you must say also that the obedience of the second man and the free guilt do not redound to those that appertain to him And this is point blank to go against the scope of Scripture Now let us hear what your interpretation is and what account you do give of the Apostles meaning I will repeat your own expressions more largely that the world may both read and give sentence These are your words I shall take some pains in opening that place 2 Cor. 5.21 He made him to be sinne for us who knew no sinne By this meanes we may more fully understand in what sense we were made sinners in Adam and knew no sinne Wherein it will appear that we were as guiltlesse of that act with reference to the fact committed by us as Christ was guiltlesse in committing the sinnes of the world Therefore take notice that Christ was said to be made sinne for us in no other sense but this viz. He hath laid upon him that punishment which was due for sinne he was wounded for our transgressions he was reckoned amongst transgressors But for any man so to affirme it would be as large an untruth as men and Divels could devise For it is one thing to be made sinne and another thing to act sinne Now Christ was said to be made sinne as one that had taken upon him such losses as did accompany sin So those dammages that were to befall the world for Adams sinne Christ is said to bear them not in their essence or being but in the demerit of them As he was made sinne not knowing a deceiving heart in himself so we were made sinners by Adam who knew no such sinne And many such passages you have to the same purpose page 133 134. Now I leave it to the Reader to judge to what passe you are come And here so farre as you affirme that Christ himself was free from sinne when he did bear the penalties of our sins we do agree with you And we further also assent that all the Children of Adam do bear the punishment of his disobedience But whereas you say that we are onely made sinne in Adam after the same manner as Christ was made sinne for us I do here admire at your boldnesse in many respects First when Christ was made sinne for us by his own voluntary undertaking he was made a surety and a propitiation for to satisfie the justice of God for our sinnes Will you say the like of all the Infants that come of Adam that by the merit of their sufferings they should propitiate his transgression Secondly when Christ was made sinne for us he knew no sinne he never committed sinne he had no natural pollution from the birth Now it is not so with us we bear the guilt of Adams sinne as copartners with him in the common pollution of nature Thirdly when the Apostle saith he made him sinne for us that knew no sinne here you must necessarily understand that he speaks of the peculiar prerogative of the Lord Jesus Christ that he did bear the burden of sinne when he knew no sinne in himself Now then if that be true which the Examiners and you do affirme that Infants are free from the natural pollution and you here mainly stand upon it that they onely bear the burden of Adams sinne when they knew no such sinne I would entreat you to judge in your own conscience whether by such a position of the purity of the natural birth you do not make all Infants equal with Christ and if it be true as you affirme that they bear the burden of Adams sinne when they knew no sinne why doth the Apostle speak so peculiarly so emphatically so singularly of Christ above all other men that he was made sinne for us when he knew no sinne By this error you do intrench upon the sovereign prerogative of the Lord Jesus and I fear unlesse you and the Examiners repent you may one day dearly answer for it But you have an evasion for say you we are as guiltlesse of that act with reference unto the fact committed by us as Christ was guiltlesse in committing the sinnes of the world But this restriction as the act committed by us will not mollifie the matter For though the sinne of Adam was not committed by any act or will of ours immediately in our own person ☞ yet it was mediatly committed by the free act of our first parent In this case according to Scripture the will of the first man doth passe for the will of the whole nature and of all that do partake of the nature And this is the meaning of the Apostle by one man sinne-entred into the world By sinne he meaneth original sinne or the sinne of the nature and this saith he entred into the world but how not by the proper private and particular will of every individual man but by the common parent of all mankind And for that expression of yours that we are as guiltlesse of Adams sinne as Christ is guiltlesse of the sinnes of the world I do admire that you did not tremble when you wrote such things as these ☞ For we can plainly prove from the scope of the Scripture that Adam by his disobedience did not only fasten guilt upon his posterity but by that act of his he did taint and defile the whole nature of mankind Will you say the like of Christ that he did not onely bear the guilt of the sinnes of the world but that his nature was also defiled with the lusts of the world This were to use your own language as large an untruth
nature how came he to be exempt from original sinne For the first he did assume our nature with all the miseries thereof sinne onely excepted that he might make expiation of sin in that nature that had sinned He did not take the nature of Adam before his fall nor that humane nature which the Saints shall have in the state of glory but meerely the nature of man clothed with all the infirmities thereof to sanctifie that nature and to satisfie divine justice To this purpose the Apostle speaketh Rom. 8.3 What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God sent his Son in the similitude of sinful flesh and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh In these words we may note that because Christ came in the similitude of sinful flesh all flesh besides his of infants as well as others was sinful flesh onely Christ came in the similitude of sinful flesh He had the reality of our nature with all the miseries thereof onely he was born in the similitude of our sinfulnesse that he might satisfie the justice of God And for the second point how he came to be free from original sinne this is plainly expressed in the articles of the Creed He was conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary For his conception that part of the Virgins flesh was so sanctified by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit that it might be free from the natural contagion and that the nature of God and the nature of man together might make one person And that which may further amplifie the truth of this Christ was not born by vertue of that promise increase and multiply for this since the fall hath filled the world with sinners but he was born by vertue of the special promise the seed of the woman shall break the Serpents head And this is the true reason for though Christ was born of the Virgin Mary a Daughter of Adam though he had the common nature of all mankind for truth and substance yet he was made free from original sinne by the mean of a wonderful generation And in this matter by way of retortion we may turn your own weapons upon your self and upon the Examiners For if that be true that all infants are free from natural pollution what need was there that the Son of God should be conceived by the Holy Ghost and be born of the Virgin Mary His conception needed not to have been by the Holy Ghost in case the natural generation did not necessarily inforce the propagation of original sinne These extraordinary means would have been superfluous in case he might have been exempt from all sinne in the ordinary way The arguments which you further alledge are as invalid as the former You say If we were in the transgression assoon as Adam himself how come we to derive it from him page 139. To the satisfying of this doubt I would entreat you to distinguish between the things that are attributed to Adam as a publick man and the things that are ascribed to him as a particular person If you speak of his publick relations as the root and head of all his posterity It is true what he did we did in him we were in the transgression assoon as himself was his sin was not so much his own as the sin of the humane nature But if you speak of him as a particular person according to the order of existence he is the first of the race and so in succession of generations all that were in the corrupted masse as they come to be born severally and individually to derive from him In a sense therefore it is true that we were in the transgression assoon as himself was It is the Apostles own expression in whom all have sinned Yet in flux and succession of generations it is as true that he did go before and all others did follow after in their respective times Next you argue If we sinned in him why might not we have sinned without him how came we all to be of one mind page 139. You may I confesse make such a supposition and a thousand more of the like kind and there will be no end of your cavilling But the Scriptures tell us plainly that one man was made in the beginning he was the root of all mankind and by this one man sinne entred into the world If this seem harsh to you to the Examiners and to others that all should be brought under a necessity of sinning and perishing by the disobedience of one man this should pacifie your minds that all are brought under a possibility of salvation by the obedience of the second man This is the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Take heed then lest by diminishing the sinne of the first man you do not take away from the grace and the blessing brought in by the second If your nature was never defiled what need have you of a Christ What need of a new nature What need of regeneration of the Spirit I hope the Examiners and you will not say that these are onely for the purging out of actual sinne or the habit of sin got by imitation Let us now come to hear your admirations I strange say you at your hard thoughts of Adam that he had more pronenesse to sinne after the fall than before If you can bring no proof for what you say for this or for the like case then you must excuse my infidelity in the point You proceed after that manner as your brethren do they desire to have their infidelity excused because they do not read in so many letters and syllables of the Baptisme of infants in the new Testament And so here you do not read of such and such particular sinnes which Adam did commit after his fall and therefore you desire to be excused for your unbeleef in that point But Sir If you would look to the harmony of Scripture you should finde that this testimony is not onely given of Adam but also of all his posterity God saw the wickednesse of man that it was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thought of his heart was onely evil from his childhood Gen. 6.5 If every imagination of his heart was evil from his childhood then there must be some particular time assigned where this universal corruption and depravation of nature did begin If it did begin at the fall as there begin it must then you must also necessarily conclude that Adam had a greater pronenesse to sin after the fall than he had before But say you If it could be proved that Adam sinned ten thousand times afterward must we therefore set all his sinnes upon the first sinnes score page 142 As difficult a point as you make of it the Apostle doth set all upon the disobedience of the first man as he doth put all upon the obedience of the second man As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so by the
obedience of one many were made righteous Rom. 5.19 The comparison would be of no value at all if that which is peculiarly spoken to Adam might be applied to any other parent whatsoever in respect of his posterity And of the sinnes which Adam did commit we are not to admire why all are set upon the score of the first sinne When he received original righteousnesse in the beginning he received it not onely for himself but also for his whole posterity And therefore if he had stood he had conveyed it to all his branches but falling he lost it from himself and all his off-spring And this is the reason why all is charged upon the first sinne because that was the sinne of a fiduciary or trustee The parent was entrusted with the whole stock which was not only his own peculiar but also the publick losse of all his posterity If we might suppose that Adam did commit ten thousand sinnes afterward the hurt could not redound to any other but to himself onely For how could he bring dammage to small or great by any disobedient act seeing he was trusted no more You now come to declare your judgment why say you might we not have thought it more safe that that which gave the first occasion to sinnes being was yet the original cause of all other sins committed by him What need we yet to say that sin had any other father or mother than its first parents viz the Devil and temptation Joh. 8.44 Answ I do not deny but in a sense the Devil and temptation may be called the parents of sinne because wicked men are led by the temptations of Satan and do imitate his example But strange it is that you would have no other parents but the Devil and temptation This is in plain termes to excuse men and to make them without blame when any sinne is committed The Apostle doth otherwise state the true cause of sinne every man is drawn away with his own lust and enticed and lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sinne Jam. 1.13 The sinful will of man and the lust of his heart may be a cause that doth procreate sinne as well as the Devil and temptation And more specially to speak in the case we are now upon concerning the sinne of the first man and the traducing of original sinne to all posterity I do not doubt but the Devil and temptation had a great stroak in the fall of man but we must go to other causes as well as to them Adams own defective will was a chief cause And therefore we read of the great judgments that were inflicted upon him for his disobedience to the command And for that place of Scripture which you alledge Joh. 8.44 He that committeth sinne is of the Devil it is most true that men commit sin by the temptation of the Devil but how doth this prove the point which you undertake that the Devil is the onely parent of sinne and that we need go to no other but to him onely Besides in the case of original sinne as the corruption of nature doth passe by propagation the Apostle saith we must go to one man as the fountain by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne c. And therefore if to salve your Tenet you shall alledge that speech you are of your Father the Devil the lusts of your father will you do By this I do confesse that the Devil is proved the first parent of sinne by infusion and suggestion but he is not the father by generation And therefore when the Apostle saith put off as concerning the former conversation the Old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts Ephes 4.22 Here by the Old man we are to understand the Old Adam like disposition as it hath passed from Adam to all his posterity This old disposition the Saints are to put off and they are to endeavour to put on the Christ-like nature So then if you will say that the Devil was the first father of sinne by temptation and seduction we will not gain-say it Onely we do intreat you to remember that Adam is the cause of the conveying of original sinne to all his posterity by generation and traduction You have yet more evasions if it might be possible to illude the truth If Adam say you had sinned afterwards how can we say that he had a way to communicate it to all his posterity It is more then the Devil can do to infuse sinne into any man without a mans consent page 142. This is true if you speak in the case of actual sinne onely but for the derivation of original sinne the case is otherwise The corruption of nature is derived from the disobedience of the first man His personal disobedience was sufficient to deprave and vitiate the whole nature ☞ This may be proved by the harmony of Scripture and there is no harshnesse in the point so long as there is such an effectual remedy prepared by the second man for the lost sonnes of men And yet further though the first man by his fall did vitiate the nature without any individual or personal consent of ours yet the lying and living in the sinfulnesse of nature is not without our deliberate and free consent This is the condemnation that light is come into the world and men love darknesse more than light Joh. 3.18 19 20. God doth at sundry seasons open the eyes of men that they may see their natural pollution but they have not a desire to see that which they may see Further you adde some say the want of pure nature is the cause of our sinne but it is plain that the purity of nature exempts not a man from sinne for if it had then Adam had not sinned page 142. We would not have you to mistake our meaning we do not stand so much upon the want of the purity of nature as upon the pollution and depravation of nature And this since the fall is no onely the cause of sinning but also is the true cause why we can do nothing else but sinne And this begins to appear to those who are sanctified by the Spirit and therefore the Apostle saith in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing For other kind of men they do not feel the burden of a carnal mind As a bucket of water weighs nothing in the Well but when it is removed from its proper element then the weight thereof is discerned Pride of heart and other secret lusts are not burdensome to a carnal man who is in his proper element but a spiritual man feels the enmity of these against the command of God and sees by experience that according to the flesh he can do nothing else but sin Further you alledg that it is like that Adam would not have sinned again because he sped so ill page 142. I beleeve it was with him after his fall as it was with David after
disobedience of the first man Augustine speaks to good purpose Sic ego tibi rectissime dico malum cum quo nascitur homo c. Thus I do most rightly say to thee that the evil with which a man is borne is not of the fruits bodies sexes conjunctions of which goods the Lord is the Author but of the first sin which is to be ascribed to the devil Here he doth distinguish between the work of creation and so God is the Author of all that good that was made in the beginning and the sinfulnesse of nature that he will have to spring only from the devils temptation and the disobedience of the first man Sixthly how can it be saith he that the Father that contributes nothing to the production of the soul should contribute to her pollution and he that did not transmit life how should he transmit his sin Answ Though the Father doth not contribute to the soul in her production yet he doth contribute to the soul in her union with the body So by this account the action of God is terminated in the simple being of the soul The action of the Parent is her being in the body that is in her union with the body But if it be here alledged that a man is principally a man in respect of his soul and therefore if the Parent doth not contribute to the soul he doth not contribute to the being of a man the answer is plaine A man is not a man neither by the soul apart nor by the body apart but by the whole humane nature which doth consist in the union of both we see in ordinary experience as children derive their inheritances priviledges nobility and such like from their Parents so also their Parents miseries infelicities poverty and ignobility do naturally descend In the present case I demand how do they descend will any man be so curious to hold a dispute whether they do descend from the body or the soul of the Parent Or whether is the soul the first seat or receptacle of nobility or ignobility or doth the right to the fathers inheritance descend from the fathers body or the soul In the affaires of this life it is not usual with men to spin out themselves with such philosophical niceties The skilful in the laws conceive it is enough in the general to say that such a Son did come out of the loynes of such a Father Why then should the learned man with whom we have to do be more curious in the conveyance of original sin why should it not be enough for us to say that that which is borne of flesh is flesh Joh. 3.6 Suppose for the manner of the thing we are not able to satisfie the doubt shall we deny the thing because we are not able to explaine every punctilio why by the same reason doth not he himselfe deny the motion of the Sun the ebbing and the flowing of the sea the organizing of the infant in the mothers womb in these and a thousand more the thing is cleare when the manner doth lye in the dark Seventhly saith he If in him we sinned then it were just that in him we should be punished for as the sin is so ought the punishment to be Answ If he will stand to this rule he both doth and will make good that which is asserted by us The disobedience of the first man must be imputed to all his posterity because he is the head the root and the representative of the whole nature But if he thinks this to be a meer non-ens then let him say that the obedience of the second man as the head-root and the representative of the whole nature is a non-ens and a nullity also and so he will raise the Gospel to the foundation thereof Now we come to the third question to enquire whether Adam did debauch our nature by the sentence and the just judgement of God and here he layeth down this for a sure ground He and all his posterity were left in the meer natural estate that is in a state of imperfection in a state that was not sufficiently instructed and furnished with ability in order to a supernatural end whether God had secretly designed mankind Answ In this expression of his we know no such state of meer imperfection which is not also a state of corruption Againe in this expression he seemeth to me to pluck down that natural ability of the will which he endeavours to set up For if a man since the fall is not instructed and furnished with abilities in order to a supernatural end he must come to Christ only for the supply of all Why then doth he raise all this dust against the rigour and severity of our doctrine when he himselfe doth here plainly teach that the will can do nothing without the help of the Spirit He goeth on It cannot be supposed saith he that God did inflict any necessity of sinning upon Adam or his posterity because from that time even unto this day he by new laws had required innocency of life or repentance and holinesse Answ The consequence is not good for now since the fall the Lord doth not give laws in proportion to natural ability but in relation to his own word of promise and his free mercy in the Covenant of grace So far then it is a testimony of divine favour that God will employ us and require more service of us that where we have no strength of our own we may in the sence of our own natural weaknesse go to him for help And whereas he bringeth us speaking in this wise that it is just with God to exact the law of man even where he is unable to keep it because God once made him able but he disabled himselfe True indeed this is an answer given by us but it is not the whole nor the principal part of that answer which may be given For secondly where God doth require subjection to his law man being not able to performe it his demand is not irrational For though man is not subject nor in himselfe can be subject to the law Rom. 8.7 This non-subjection doth not so much arise from the want of judgement will or any other natural faculty as from a perverse sinful habit that doth reside in the faculty That a drunkard cannot stand walk nor performe acts of reason as an other man is not simply for want of ability as from an evil distemper that doth suspend the operations of the faculties so it is in the present case men need no new faculties but they need new habits to set the faculty aright But our third answer is though a man naturally cannot be subject to the law respecting the evil habit that disorders the faculty yet if he go to Christ in the sence of his own misery all ability is to be had from him God is so infinitely gracious that he is ready to help all that come to him A bruised reed he will
as long as so faire a probability may be extended to them in Christ God is a gracious God and he is able to shew mercy where the sin was the act and deed of another Of believers infants we have a more special ground of hope So then the matter will come to this issue Though infants may be miserable by Adam nay may be made eternally miserable through him yet here is the comfort that mercy may be extended to them in Christ He further addeth Thirdly when God inflicts a temporal evil upon the son for the fathers sin he doth it as a Judge to the father but as a Lord only to the son Answ Suppose this were granted it makes nothing to the purpose all other Parents in comparison are but private men but Adam as a publick person did represent the whole nature That may be asserted of him which cannot be of any other The Apostle expressely saith by the disobedience of one many were made sinners If they were made sinners only by the imputation of Adams sin this is enough to put a difference between him and other progenitours Againe in the fame place it is expressely said by one mans offence judgement came upon all men to condemnation If it came upon all men to condemnation all are under the sentence of the Judge for the sin of one man And whereas he saith If God inflicts a temporal evil upon the son for the fathers sin he doth it not as a Judge but as a Lord only to the son Upon this account I demand the Lord inflicting evil upon the sons of Adam for his sin doth he only inflict it in a prerogative way to the son then it will follow that Christ must dye and by shedding of his blood he must take away such evils from infants at least that are brought upon them in the way of prerogative This would be a strange sound to such eares that have alway heard and believed that we come to be sinners in Adam and Christ came to take away the guilt of that sin Fourthly God using saith he the power and dominion of a Lord and the severity of a Judge did punish posterity it was but so long as the Parents might live and see it as Chrysostome saith to the third and fourth generation and no longer Answ If this be so why do the Jewes at this day beare the burthen of that sin committed many hundred years ago why did God inflict judgements upon the house of Ely of Saul of Ahab of Jehu and of others when the Parents were dead Besides if God should have such a purpose to punish the Parents in the children that thereby the Parents themselves might be brought to repentance this is not a parallel case to that which we are upon God suffered Adam to fall and in falling to involve himselfe and his posterity under all miseries temporal and eternal that so a doore might be opened for the grace that comes by Christ In this regard the Apostle expressely tells us that the first man is the figure of him that is to come This must not nor cannot be said of our immediate Parents Fifthly he addeth this power and dominion which God useth was not in ordinary cases but in the biggest crimes only Answ Let this be admitted it doth abundantly confirme the truth of our assertion For the case of Adam was more than ordinary there is no such ensample like his from the beginning of the world He stood as a publick man as a root of the nature the whole stock was put into his hand he had but one only way by which he might fall and therefore he falling it is no such irrational thing to conceive that all his posterity should fall with him Sixthly saith he Although God threatned this and hath a right and a power to do this yet he doth not often use this right but only in such notable ensamples as were sufficient to all ages to consigne and testifie his great indignation against those things for the punishment of which he was pleased to use his right or rights of dominion Answ True there are some special ensamples of the Lords judgement upon whole families for their fathers sin this may be seen in the cases of Corah Achan Saul Jeroboam Ahab and others Neither do we doubt but the Lords end was to testifie to all ages his indignation against sin by such like instances of his severity But what is this to the purpose in hand the end wherefore the Lord did lay such an heavy burthen upon the sons of Adam was not so much that the children should take heed by the ensample of their father for there were some particulars that the children could not possibly imitate the father but a prime end of the misery of the sons of men by the fall of Adam is to open a door for the grace that comes by Christ The knowledge of the one contrary doth exceedingly conduce to the knowledge of the other Seaventhly saith he his goodnesse and graciousnesse grew quickly weary of this way of proceeding They were the terrours of the Law and God did not delight in them Therefore in the time of Ezekiel the Prophet he declared against them Answ This passage of Ezekiel the Prophet doth of all others singularly make for our purpose For though Adam did eate of the forbidden fruit and all his posterity did and do bear the burthen of his sinne yet they are not left in that state irrecoverably without all kinde of help A doore of grace is opened for the lost sonnes of men by the coming of Christ upon this ground the truth of Ezekiels speech is founded the soule that sinneth that soul shall die His meaning is the soul that sinneth and continueth in his sin through impenitency and unbelief that soul shall dye Eighthly saith he something extraordinary was then needful to be done to so vile a people to restrain their sinfulnesse but when the Gospel was published and hell-fire threatned to persovering and greater sinners the former way of punishment was quite left off And in all the Gospel there is not one word of threatning passing beyond the person offending Answ I marvell how it cometh to passe then that the Jewes do beare the burthen of their Ancestors sinne as we have formerlysaid Besides if we diligently look to the scope of the Gospel we shall finde that the Lord doth punish the posterity for the sinne of Adam that so thereby a way may be prepared for the grace that comes by Christ These things are not opposite or contrary but subordinate and subalternate the miseries by the fall do prepare the way for the grace that comes by Christ But he further addeth Either this evil saith he that falls upon us for Adams sin is inflicted upon us by way of proper punishment or by right of dominion if by proper punishment to us then we understand not the justice of it because we were not personally guilty Answ If we
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
greater caution The Treatise of Luther de servo arbitrio is questionlesse in it self a worthy work yet I think that Calvin in his answer to Albertus Pighins did not speak amisse This also is true some things which Luther wrote in a Scholastical kind of way and in a lesse popular style Philip Melancthon by his prudent and dextrous bending it to the milder part did more fitly apply to the ordinary capacity of men and to the common use of life Yet for all this in other places that great instrument of reformation doth so abundantly speak of the freenesse of the grace of Christ to every broken-hearted sinner that he doth satisfie all tender consciences and leave a solid foundation for the endeavour of man Now every one cannot do this for they that follow the asperity and the rigour of Luther in some positions of his cannot with the same spiritual evidence set forth the grace of the Gospel And so it comes to passe that the harshnesse and the incongruity imputed to the doctrine is indeed and in truth no other but the sole defect of the Teacher By right spiritual truths should have spiritual Teachers and spiritual hearers and then a true judgment may be made of the real excellency and worth of them These things considered I do intend to observe these rules in the ensuing discourse First laying aside all nice and curious speculations to retain so much of the termes of the School-men that will serve onely to explaine the doctrine of the Gospel that spiritual things may be set forth in a spiritual manner Secondly my scope the Lord enabling shall be as to speak the pure truth so likewise the whole truth of God When I speak of the impurity of the natural birth then I will take occasion to shew also how this doth referre immediately to the grace that doth regenerate and when I shall have occasion to speak of Adam as a root of corruption to all his branches I shall as carefully remember that this is a counterpane to Christ being a root of grace and spiritual life also to all his branches When it shall come in my way to mention the imperfection of man and the spirituality of the command I shall be as careful to inculcate that which doth answer to it viz. that all help is to be had from the Word of promise When I shall say that a man hath no free-will by nature to that which is spiritually good I shall be as willing to recite the true cause where the freedome is to be had to wit from the Son of God if the Sonne will make you free you shall be free indeed Further where I shall speak of a certain number of elect which the Lord doth decree curtainly and infallibly to bring to glory I shall demonstrate also that this necessity of infallibility doth not nor cannot whatsoever men may think overturne the liberty of the will For those that the Lord hath certainly appointed to salvation he will as certainly first or last sooner or later draw their wills so effectually that they shall freely choose the way and meanes that lead to salvation as the end Those and such liketruths that are usually misunderstood through inconsiderate handling I shall endeavour to represent them in their true beauty For as it is with the members of the body so it is with these myseries of salvation Being considered apart they seem to be deform'd but being put together there is an excellent correspondence and symetry in the whole Finally according to our Saviours rule I shall endeavour I hope without detriment to either part to give to grace that which doth belong to her and to the will that which doth belong to her I would not take the least dramme from the true grace of God so on the otherside I would have the will to work under the grace received These are the reasons of publishing the treatise in these times I rest thine in the Lord N. S. The Arguments of each Book The first Book in Mr. Everards Method Chap. 1. WHat were the causes that gave Adam his being Chap. 2. Wherein Adams abilities did consist Chap. 3. Whether righteousnesse and holinesse be Gods image Chap. 4. Wherein that image did consist that God did create Adam in Chap. 5. Concerning the power that God gave Adam and what is the definition thereof Chap. 6. Adams entertainment in the garden Chap. 7. Free-will in the nature thereof unfolded Chap. 8. How far God assisted Adam or assisteth other men that they might be such free-willers as hath been described Chap. 9. Though God gives power he gives not the actions of obedience Chap. 10. Concerning divers questions with their solutions Chap. 11. Whether Adams sinne or any other mans sinne doth produce death in a natural way Chap. 12. What Adam retained of his forfeiture till his death Chap. 13. Whether Adam did dye the same day that he eate of the forbidden fruit Chap. 14. Whether Adam did dye a spiritual death yea or no Chap. 15. Whether Adams posterity were guilty of his transgression This point is more fully debated The Second Book in the method of the Examiners Sect. 1. WHat places of Scripture they bring to prove the purity of the natural birth Sect. 2. What answer they endeavour to make to the texts alledged by us The third Book in the method of Dr. Taylor Sect. 1. OF Concupiscence and Original sin and whether or no and how far we are bound to repent of it Sect. 2. A consideration of objections against the former doctrine Sect. 3. How God punishes the fathers sinne upon the children Sect. 4. Of the causes of the universal wickedness of mankind Sect. 5. Of the liberty of election remaining after Adams fall The first Book containing the Answer to Master EVERARD concerning the Creation and fall of Man SIR OCcasion being given to me to read over your Treatise concerning the creation and the fall of Adam I shall now endeavour to give you an account what I judge of your doctrine I shall not stand upon every point but onely upon that which is of special moment In the end of your Introduction you signifie the cause of your undertaking in these words Whereby we may be the more enabled to vindicate the Righteous Creatour from many misconstructions which have been for a long time nourished for want of due consideration For the vindicating of the Righteous Creator I shall be no enemy to you so farre as you go according to the rule of the Word and the analogy of faith But I fear under the colour of this pretended Vindication you drive a designe to put Christ out of place Through the whole body of your Treatise you stand upon the purity of nature the denial of Original sin and the improvement of natural abilities We will go in your method and begin with your first Chapter CHAP. I. What were the causes that gave Adam his being HEre you debate the efficient material formal and final
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
have you to assigne the difference between the power appertaining to a Magistrate and the power belonging to every private man for if that be true as you say that Rulers are to be obeyed so far forth only as they bring the Word I pray you tell me must not every man be obeyed upon the same termes what do you make then of the power of the Magistrate when Pilate boasted Knowest thou not that I have power to crucifie thee and power to release thee The Lord made him this answer Thou hast no power but it is given thee from above John 19 10 11. It is plain then that Pilate as a Magistrate and a Judge had a power given him of God Now then if that be true which you say that the Magistrate hath no power but the Word it self then it will follow that these are co-incident termes For to speak properly the power of the Magistrate and the Word are not one and the same but the Authority of the Magistrate doth depend upon the Word from whence it hath its Original and Institution You go on and argue Are not all men Gods creatures if so how cometh it to passe that one should be in subjection to anothers will and that upon such sore punishment page 30 31. Here in these words you come very near the doctrine of the Levellers Can you make no distinction between subjection to the lawful power and mans illegal will And then turning off from this digression you conclude that the Command of God is the Power and therefore so far as the Lords Command did extend so much power Adam had But for this matter we are content to let you passe with your own peculiar way of expression Let us now see how you describe Adams entertainment in the Garden CHAP. VI. Adams entertainment in the Garden IN this Chapter you discourse how Adam was placed in the Garden how Eve was made an helper meet for him and how the Lord brought all the creatures to him that he might give them their several names and titles Because these are Plain Scripture-truths I will not be an adversary to you here But then two questions are to be demanded First whether was his chief emploiment in these externals Secondly whether he did act in them as a meer carnal man For the first if you shall say that Adam was only employed in these externals then shew why was the Law of God written in his heart None can imagine but that it was engraven and written there to that end that he should yield proportionable obedience he had spiritual abilities that he might be proportionable to a spiritual Law If you shall deny this you will unavoidably be cast upon that rock that Adam had the Law put into his heart for no use or end at all Secondly though he was taken up in externals in giving names to all creatures and in tilling of the ground yet in this you must look upon him as a man that was spiritual able to do these things in a spiritual manner These two points I thought good to re-minde you of because you did a little before affirme that Adam was a meer carnal man before his fall and that his occupation and employment was only in externals Let us go to the next Chapter CHAP. VII Free will in its nature unfolded HEre in the beginning you define free-will to be a cheerful putting forth of those abilities which the Lord hath given us to action And this you prove by many Scripture-instances to clear the nature of freedome By this account it will follow that a natural man as such without the help of the Spirit hath no free-will at all he is so far from a free voluntary and cheerful putting forth of abilities that in spiritual things he is utterly void and destitute of all ability But as in the former Chapter you had your digression to turne out against the Magistrate when you spake of the power of Adam before the fall so now speaking of his free-will you have your vagaries and excursions against the Ministry These are your words Paul preached the Gospel freely he stood not upon such punctilio's to have the tenth of the labours of the people page 40. The Separate Congregations also agree with you here For say they the maintenance of the Ministers which labour in the Word of God ought to be the free and charitable benevolence or the cheerful contribution of those that acknowledge themselves members of the same fellowship page 22. And the ground they have to prove it is from that place of the Apostle while by the experiment of this ministration they glorifie God for your professed subjection unto the Gospel of Christ and for your liberal distribution unto them and unto all men 2 Cor. 9.13 It is clear that the Apostle in these words speaketh of the distributions and the voluntary benevolences of the Churches to the necessities of the poor Saints at Hierusalem But by what Logick the brethren of the Separation can apply this to the maintenance of the Ministry in the time of the New Testament for my part I cannot discern Sure I am when you and they shall go about to make the people free-willers in so doing you will make a servile and a slavish Ministry As for the due in the payment of the tenth it doth as truly appertain to the Ministers as any mans possession or inheritance doth belong to him And therefore if either you or any man else shall endeavour to take away the tenth from the Ministry it is all one as to endeavour to take away the proprietie from other men Having gone so far along with you in your digression let us now come to that freedome of will which Adam had before his fall And here I do agree with you that he had libertie to put himself forth chearfully and freely to action by vertue of such abilities as he had received from God yet when you come to the negative part to pluck that down which is built by other men you plainly shew that your definition is not proper to the case in hand For thus you conclude Now some have conceived that free will had been a mans being left to his choice whether he would do the Will of God or no. But I know no such freedom given by God that a man should have liberty to dispose of himself unlesse you will call that freedom of will which a man is prohibited from upon penalties of death but God gives no man freedom to sin but preventions To this I answer though the Lord gave Adam no freedom to sin but rather tied up his liberty by a contrary command yet it is a sure rule that he made him in such a pendulous estate that he might stand or fall And though in that state he had freedom and power to will that which was good nay chearfully to put forth his ability to act yet for all this his condition was but mutable he might fall
with Gods promises in such wise only as they are generally set forth to them in holy Scriptures and that will of God they are to follow which he hath expressely declared and revealed in his own Word This is the substance of the Doctrine of our Church concerning election and how by several stages and degrees we are to come to the assurance thereof We will adde a few words more to the clearing of the point that we may see how the endeavour of man doth runne paralel with the grace of God and doth work under the grace To this end let us distinguish the two states of man his state before conversion and his state after For the state of man before conversion ☞ though of himself he cannot think a good thought yet by and thorough the convictions of the Spilt he may be helped to judge himself and to see the misery of his lost condition Many solid and judicious Writers do acknowledge antecedaneous works before conversion Secondly after conversion when a man is brought so farre as to apprehend the promise and hath a real work wrought upon his heart in feeling the love of Christ to the lost sonnes of men when he is come so farre the work is not at an end for these two reasons First there are higher degrees of grace which a Christian is to follow after for so saith the Apostle not as though I had already attained either were already perfect but I follow after to apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus Brethren I count not my self to have apprehended but this one thing I do forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forth unto those things which are before I presse towards the mark for the price of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus Phil. 3.13 14 Here these particulars are observable First what was the goal that the Apostle did drive at it was for the price of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus Secondly with what affection did he follow after the mark of the price he did forget the things that were behind and did presse forward to the things that were before As poor people in a dear year do presse forward and reach over one anothers heads to receive a dole of meat or money Thirdly what was that which moved him to be so vehement in his pursuit it was not from any natural instinct but from the drawing of the Spirit of Christ which did whet on his desires I follow on to apprehend that for which I am apprehended of Christ Here is an excellent agreement betwixt the grace and the Spirit of Christ that did first apprehend Paul and his endeavour that did follow on to apprehend And thus we see from the beginning to the end that the grace doth all and the endeavour of man is never idle I have been the more full in this Doctrine because the Enthusiasts on the one side and the Arminians on the other side lie in camp against the Church On either side they have some colour of truth to usher in their damnable Positions by and thorough which the simple are ensnared And as many subtill Merchants when they have bad corn to fell put the best upon the top of the bag even so do these seducers begin with very taking considerations that by some preceding truths they may bring in their subsequent errors The Enthusiast will speak against a notional faith and against idle speculations of Christ without power and stand strongly upon it that there must be a real and an inward work wrought upon the heart or else all is nothing and so farre he goes fair But this is not enough with him he is not contented onely to condemne them that make an Idol of the means but also he will sleight all means whatsoever all reading of Scriptures all frequenting of Ordinances all striving in prayer all endeavour whatsoever with him are empty figures and bare externals Now you on the other side turn unto another extream and in your way you have also the best corn upon the top of the bag You stand strictly to maintain that a man is a free-worker in the matter of his salvation otherwise exhortations and admonitions would be of no moment and so farre you go very right But this will not satisfie you unlesse you may set up the natural ability of man maintain free-will and other such like Pelagian positions For these reasons I have taken the more pains rightly to define and to state the truth betwixt the grace of God and the endeavour of man to avoid the detestable errors on both extreames Now I will proceed to your next Chapter CHAP. X. Containing divers questions with their solutions HERE in the beginning you raise two questions concerning the ability which Adam had before the fall and then propound a third whether the fall was decreed by the secret will of God For the ability which Adam had before his fall I do willingly acknowledge that men may raise intricate and thorny questions about this though to small purpose But touching this point I do desire to lay down some necessarie observations because I will not stand upon every punctilio And then I will come to the solution of your chief question First for the true cause of the fall we do affirme that our first parents being seduced by the temptation of Sathan did voluntarily and freely eate the forbidden fruit Their own defective will was the immediate cause of their fall Secondly God was pleased according to his wise and just Councel to permit the fall that thereby a doore might be opened to the sending of Christ for the more full declaration of the glory of his grace in the salvation of man as fallen Thirdly for the power that Adam bad to stand or fall as on the one side we must necessarily say that he was made in a state very good and free from all sinne so also it must needs be affirmed that he was made in a mutable state farre different from the state of the blessed Saints and Angels confirmed in grace and farthest off from the immutability of the Creator himself Fourthly if the question be put how farre did the Lord go in the fall of Adam we must needs affirme that he created the first man in such a holy state that he might freely obey all his commands only he did not sustain him with that special and infallible grace to preserve him from falling These foure observations if they be rightly understood will help to expedite and clear many hard questions that may be propounded concerning the ability of Adam before his fall We come now to your chief question Had not God appointed that Adam should fall by his secret will before by his revealed will he commanded him to stand Here you endeavour in the beginning to shew that the revealed will of God before it was first communicated was his secret will and being once revealed it loseth the title of
a secret will to them to whom it is revealed page 77. In this passage of yours there are some words of truth though after your manner you make an ill use of them I yield in the general that the revealed will of God was sometimes his secret will before it was revealed But the question in hand is this when Adam knew his duty that he should not eat of the forbidden fruit was not that part of the will of God concerning the permission of the fall and sending of the Son part of the secret will of God and whether by right ought it not to be secret so long as he was upon the triall or his obedience for the clearing of the point we will speak somewhat more largely concerning the secret will of God There is one part of his secret will absolutely secret that never shall be known either in this life or in that which is to come The Apostle speaking of the casting away of the Jewes and their wonderful calling again concludeth O the depth of the riches of the wisdome and the knowledge of God! Rom. 11.33 There is then a part of the secret will of God especially in the reasons of his decrees which none either can or shall know Secondly there is a part of his secret will which though it shall be revealed in the world to come yet it must be concealed in this life Now are we the sonnes of God but it is not yet manifest what we shall be 1 Joh. 3.1 2. Though the Saints know much of the mind of Christ and feel his love in their hearts by the teaching and demonstration of the Spirit yet the excellency of their future glory is hidden from them Thirdly there is a part of the secret will of God which though it be hidden from some yet it is revealed to others even in this life The Apostles did see those things which the Prophets and the righteous men could never see The Lord shewed Peter by what death he should glorifie God but he did not shew this to other men no not to John the beloved Disciple Joh. 21.20 21. Fourthly to one and the same man that part of the will of God which was secret heretofore by the event or revelation may prove to be his revealed will and so in the particular case of Adam the permission of the fall and the promise of the sending of the Son were the concealed will of God for a season and were afterward made known by the event If this be granted we have as much as we do desire But you put the question How God could decree by his secret will that Adam should fall before in his revealed will he commanded him to stand As hard a case as you make it I believe there is no man but will easily understand that that which the Lord had decreed concerning the fall of Adam in his secret will from all eternity must needs go before his temporal commands and injunctions But that which offends you is the seeming contrariety of the two wills You say is it a small thing that the righteousnesse of God should be questioned upon such low termes as to imagine that when in his revealed will he shall say eat not in his secret will he shall say thou shalt eat This opinion that renders God to have two wills renders them divided in their nature when they are but differing in termes For the external will is not another will but the same made manifest page 79. That the will of God is one entire will in substance we do affirm as well as you yet we would have you to observe that one and the same will may be discriminated and distinguished by divers relations As one and the same fire that hardens the clay may soften the wax so one and the same will may be distinguished according to divers operations Let us note the distinction betwixt Gods will of decree and his will of command That such a distinction must be made between these two wills is clear and manifest from many Scriptures Joseph said to his brethren Gen. 45.7 8. Ye sent me not hither but God His sending into Egypt was by Gods will of Decree to save much people alive yet none can say that Josephs brethren did the Lords will of command they went against his cōmand when they sold their brother as a bondslave So it is expressely said of the sons of Eli that they would not hearken unto the voice of their father because the Lord would slay them 1 Sam. 2.25 These disobedient children in not hearkning to the voice of their Father did fulfill the Lords will of Decree who had a purpose to judge the house of Eli for their sinnes But we cannot say that they did obey the Lords will of command unlesse such a command may be produced that children ought not to obey their parents So in the case of crucifying the Lord Christ the Apostle speaketh they did whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done Herod Pilate and the Nation of the Jewes did perform the Lords will of Decree to crucifie Christ yet we cannot say they did perform his will of command These and many other examples may be brought to prove the necessity of such a distinction And though the Arminians Corvinus by name do cavil at words and expressions yet they cannot rationally deny the substance of the thing And therefore to the point in hand we say it is true in a sense that God did not will the fall of Adam that is he did not approve that sinne by his will of command yet in a sense it is as true that by his will of decree he did permit it As in the like case the Apostle saith There must be heresies amongst you that they which are approved may be made manifest 1 Cor. 11.19 if there must be heresies this is spoken in relation to the will of God not in relation to his will of command for then God would have given men a command to raise heresies and damnable doctrines in his Church which none will imagine But there must be heresies this is in relation to his will of Decree to tolerate such things for the clearer tryal of those that are syncere So in the present case God did will the fall of Adam not by his will of command for he gave him no command to eat of the forbidden fruit but by his will of Decree he was pleased to permit the fall that it might be subservient and conducing to his more excellent end of sending the Son for the full declaration of the glory of his grace which otherwise would not have been so conspicuous if the first man had not fallen So then to gather up all into one sum you may easily understand if you will how God in his will of command may say eat not and yet in his secreet will permit him to eat These two are not so put asunder but they may well be joyned together
only He did shed his blood not onely to obtain a possibility for them but that they may be certainly and insallibly brought to glory Hence is it that he speaketh concerning his sheep for whom he dyed in a special manner My Father that gave them me is greater then all and none can take them out of my Fathers hands Joh. 10.29 And in another place who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect it is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth it is Christ that dyed Rom. 8 33 34. The death of Christ for the elect is not only to obtain salvation upon termes of repentance and faith or other general fruits of his death but it is certainly and infallibly to bring them to salvation In relation to this peculiar love the Apostle saith Who shall separate us from the love of Christ Rom. 8.35 And our Saviour John 10.28 I will give them eternal life and they shall never perish neither shall any man be able to take them out of my hand He speaketh these things of his sheep for whom he had layed down his life in that special sense mentioned before Having thus cleared all your Objections in this Chapter we proceed to the next CHAP. XI Whether Adams sinne or any other mans sinne doth produce death or condemnation in a natural way TOuching the manner of the thing how sinne doth cause death whether death be the natural fruit of sinne or whether it doth meerly depend upon the will of him who hath threatned to punish sinne with death is much disputed But Mr. Everard leaving that which may be supposed it is too too plain in this Chapter that you mainly drive at this to prove that sinne is not the meritorious cause of death and that Adams sinne was no cause of his condemnation And then afterwards going to discover the causes of judgment you tell us for the efficient cause God is onely the contriver who doth inflict punishments For the material cause the creatures are the onely instruments For the formal it is the manner of judgment coming upon men the fire by burning the water by drowning For the final it is the declaration of the justice of God upon the contemners of his grace And so you conclude That sin sinne is no cause of punishment neither efficient material formal nor final page 95. 96. And for the meritorious cause You say also that sinne doth not merit death but it doth onely prepare fit and qualifie a man for death as grace doth for eternal life page 106 107 108. You do not shunne to tell us in the last two lines of the Chapter speaking of eternal life and eternal death That God is as simply and entirely the Author of the one as of the other Page 108. In opposition to all this I do affirme that sinne is the meritorious cause of death and death is the fruit of sin Let us consider the Scriptures and let us vindicate them from your cavils First it is said the wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternal life Rom. 6.23 From hence it is plain that eternal life sanctification of the Spirit belief of the truth and all other things that tend to salvation are the meer gift of God but the wages of sinne is death If death be the wages of sin then sinne must be the meritorious cause of death But say you Though death be the wages of sinne yet it is not the fruit thereof page 91. Though in some cases we may call that the fruit which is not the wages yet in the sense of the text the wages and the fruit are all one Read but the words going before What fruit had you then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed the wages of sinne is death The fruit and the wages are all one and the sense of the whole text is this that sinne is the meritorious cause of damnation For the second Scripture Rom. 8.6 To be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life and peace Here say you If it be death it self it cannot be the cause of death But Sir you are to look to the sense and not to the strictnesse of the letter In strict termes you cannot say that to be spiritually minded is life and peace In this life many that are truly spiritual that have the reality of grace in their heart have not the peace of grace The meaning of the text is briefly this that as peace and life doth follow a spiritual mind so death doth follow the carnal mind as the wages and fruit thereof But here you shew your skill at catch-ball I confesse say you that he who walketh carnally to his end shall receive eternal death so he that lives a spiritual life shall enjoy everlasting life But neither the death nor the life were any branches produced by either for they came both from God And as God hath no desire that any man should sinne so sinne hath as little desire to receive punishment pag. 92. Still you go on in the same way of sophistry We willingly agree that he who walketh spiritually to the end shall receive eternal life because such walking is the way to eternal life But the carnal walking is not only the way that leadeth to death but by a Metonymie the effect being put for the cause it is death it self or in the way of causality a carnal mind is that which produceth death and death is the fruit thereof But whereas you affirme that neither death nor life are branches produced either by carnal or spiritual walking in this you erre For though a godly walking is not the meritorious cause of eternal life yet a carnal and sinful walking is the meritorious cause of eternal death Why else should it be said The wages of sinne is death Masters use to pay their servants their wages at night in relation to that which they have deserved in the day and for a weeks work they pay them commonly at the end of the week The payment of wages hath near relation to the labour of the hireling that hath deserved it And therefore the Scriptures do use this expression the wages of sinne is death shewing that sinne is the meritorious cause of death and death is the desart of sin And for that expression of yours that death is no branch produced by sin ☞ but it cometh meerly from God who inflicteth death this I think no pious man can look upon but with a great deal of horror What is this but to transfer the cause of death upon God onely But if to mend the matter you shall say that God doth inflict death as the just punishment of sin in so saying you contradict your self and blow up your own position For if God doth inflict death as the punishment of sin then it will follow that sinne is the meritorious cause of death and death doth not onely come from God but also from the sinner who hath
founded upon expresse Apostolical practise and implicite Apostolical precept which we are sufficiently able to prove and evince by the collation of foure Scriptures if we were put upon that argument But this would be too larg a digression from the matter in hand Next you come to shew the sense of the commination And here you tell us that Adam did not dye the same day if the day be taken for the space of twelve or twenty four houres This is in plain termes to contradict the scope and sense of the text For there it is expressely said in the very same moment and instant of time in which our first parents did eat the forbidden fruit their eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked Gen. 3.7 If you take this for the eyes of their mind it is most clear that their eyes were opened not onely to see their inward nakednesse in the losse of the image of God but also to feel the guilt of sinne as the just fruit of their disobedience If the opening of the eyes be taken for the eyes of the body then their eyes were opened to see that which they did not nor could see before Their nakednesse before was a nakednesse of honour innocency and righteousnesse but their nakednesse after was a nakednesse of dishonour of misery of sinne of provocation to sin And for the particular time it is expressed in the Comination in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death And accordingly in the same instant of time when they had eaten the forbidden fruit the eys of them both were opened they knew that they were naked Therefore death misery did seize upon them the same day according to the Commination But because you are so peremptory in it that Adam did not dye the same day if the day be taken for an ordinary day of twelve houres long For the clearing of this I would intreat you to answer me this question why did God appear to Adam in the evening in the cool of the day If you shall say it was to call the man and his wife to account for their disobedience I grant this to be true but it doth not satisfie the question for the particular time He might have called him to account at any other time and what necessity was there that it should be left upon record that he came to judgment the very same day The Lord had said in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death and the same day that the forbidden fruit was eaten at evening in the cool or wind of the day as the Hebrew hath it the Lord came to inquire after the fact to give sentence and to execute judgment In Scripture where promises or threats are declared to be fulfilled in such a particular time there the Holy Ghost is punctuall in the observation of the time The children of Israel should be in bondage soure hundred years according to the promise Gen 15.13 14. And when that time was fulfilled the very same day they came out of the land of Egypt with their Armies Exod. 12. 41 42. So our Lord and Saviour did signifie to his Disciples that he should be crucified and slain and the third day rise again Mat. 16.24 And how careful are all the Evangelists to repeat the time of the resurrection that it was on the first day of the week the third day after his passion And so in the present case when it is said in the day that thou eatest thereof shalt thou dye the death to the fulfilling of this the eyes of our first parents were opened the very first day And the Lord came to execute judgment upon them for their disobedience the evening of the same day After all this let us now hear what exposition you do give of the text Though Adam say you did not dye the same day as he did eat of the forbidden fruit yet he forfeited his life to the Lord of the great Charter of the world he was then in a capacity to dye he did then fall under the expectation of death As in the English such a man is a dead man because he is condemned by the sentence of the Law That which you say is true and it is in effect that which I teach but according to your sense it is not the whole truth For when the Lord saith in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death he doth not speak this onely of a capacity of dying but of an actual seizing of death for he was struck with spiritual death the very same day he sinned And for a temporal death likewise though there was not a present dissolution of the soul from the body yet presently he fell under the curse to conflict with Armies of diseases which should never leave him till they had brought him to his grave In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread untill thou return unto the ground for out of it was thou taken for dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return Chap. 3. ver 19. But now you further adde If Adam had dyed the same day he could not have tilled the ground he could not have lived so long as to see a son of his own To all this I agree if you take death in the most strict sense for the actual dissolution of the soul from the body but what ground have we so to limit the words of the text I have said before that God did smite him the same day with spiritual death and for a temporal death he came under the dominion and reign of it In that famous place when the Apostle saith by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and death hath passed over all men to condemnation Rom. 5.12 He doth here speak of the immediate reign of death Death reigned from Adam to Moses over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression ver 14. And in the close of all as sinne hath reigned to death so might grace reign thorough righteousnesseunto eternal life v. 21. Therfore the same day that Adam sinned though he lived to till the ground and to beget children after his own image yet he and all his fell immediately under the reign of death so that all who are now born into the world infants as well as others are under the reigne of death by the disobedience of the first man Having given the true sense of the Scripture we will take a view of your interpretation And here you say ☞ that Adam did dye the same day though he lived nine hundred thirty nine yeares after And to make good this strange glosse of yours you tell us that God did not prescribe any quantity of houres but hath declared that a thousand yeares are as one day in his account page 118. I must indeed acknowledge that a day is taken sometimes for a year sometimes for a greater revolution of time as may be seen
in the Prophetical Scriptures But the scope of the text is plainly to be taken for a literal ordinary day as we have formerly proved And strange it is that the Lord in the denunciation of judgment should go to the typical and parabolicall expressions used in Daniel and the Revelation and Peters Epistle After this you come to enquire whether Christ by his suffering did not prevent the falling of death upon Adam And you resolve it in the negative For say you either Adam must suffer or the Word of God seeing God had once declared the sentence thou shalt surely dye In case then he should give his Son to prevent the death of Adam there had been a clear contradiction page 119. In the commination there are some things which I do acknowledge to be infallible as the Laws of the Medes and Persians which alter not and therefore to make good the sentence all that are now born into the world after the course of natural generation are borne in the state of spiritual death subject to the miseries of nature and shall inevitably be brought to temporal death at last All these things do hold by vertue of the first sentence yet you must take heed that you go no further because the second man hath all fulnesse of grace to repair the losses brought in by the first By his intervening patience and long-suffering is extended to all the sonnes of men And therefore whatsoever you suggest to the contrary there is indeed and in truth no contradiction between the sentence in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death and the delay thereof in a qualified sense In some particulars long-suffering may be extended and yet in others there may be a speedy execution of the sentence But you go on seeing God would not have Adam to come near the tree of life therefore he would not have him to be free from death that way page 119. Neither do we maintain that it was the purpose of God to free Adam in that manner that he should not taste of a temporal death He came under the dominion of that death the same day he sinned and the most holy Saints that are must all dye before they can be raised again to set forth the truth and certainty of the Lords commination Yet for all this at present the stroke was stayed by the Mediators blood and long-suffering was extended to men that salvation might be had by the Covenant of grace As for the tree of life it is most true that God did forbid Adam accesse to that tree not absolutely because he would not have him to recover life but because he had provided another way for the restoring of man by Christ the promised seed He would not come to the most extream and final execution of the sentence because his purpose was to have a posterity upon the earth and a seminary for the Church Further you argue there was a necessity for Adam to dye otherwise Christ could not make him alive page 119. Here you mistake the state of the question we agree that Christ did not dye simply to free man that he should not fall into the dust but only to raise him from the dust again It was necessary to fulfill the truth of the commination that Adam should return to dust but it was not necessary that he should return to dust the very same day It was necessary that he should fall under the reign of death and under a necessity of dying the same day he sinned and this to continue to the resurrection of the just Then this mortal shall put on immortality and this corruptible shall put on incorruption 1 Cor. 15.53 The Apostle also saith when he shall change these vile bodies that they may be made like his glorious body Phil. 3.21 All the bodies of the Saints shall be made like the body of Christ as now it is in glory But how did the bodies of the Saints begin to be vile bodies By vile bodies he doth mean these corruptible tabernacles of the soul lyable to diseases and to all the miseries of nature But when did this vilenesse and misery begin seeing they were not made vile by creation They began to be vile bodies the same day that Adam did sin they have been so ever since and they must continue such unto the resurrection and then the bodies of the Saints shall be made conformable to the bodie of Christ in glory Philip. 3 Vlt. CHAP. XIV Whether Adam did dye a spiritual death yea or no IN the discovery of this point you observe this method First you shew what spiritual life is Secondly you resolve upon the question For your description of spiritual life though you miserably confound the Scriptures we will take it in the best sense for such a life as hath the Spirit for the cause Gal. 4.19 John 6.63 Col. 33. But you erre in your application when you use such an expression as this that Adam had not such a cup of water in all his foure Rivers You say also that he could not savour the voice of the resurrection from the dead for the goodnesse of a Saviour must be resented by those that are lost but Adam knew no such need page 122. Your argument is fallacious because Adam had not spiritual life in the same way as the Saints now have therefore he had no spiritual life at all He might have ability to love Christ as Lord Creator Further you say that the voice of forgivenesse of sinne was a stranger to him Well let this be admitted it doth not prove the point neither Sicknesse it self was a stranger to Adam before his fall will you inferre then that there were no herbs for medicine and that the Lord did not create the herb of the field with a medicinal vertue So in the like case what if remission of sinne and the way of pardon of sinne by Christs blood was a thing hidden from Adam as being not compatible with his condition will you inforce from hence a want of capacity in him to understand the mystery of salvation by Christ or will you affirme from hence that he was a meere carnal man before his fall Take heed that by these and such like positions you do not reflect upon God himself The Apostle saith the carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can be Rom. 8. ver 6 7. If you go to the Original of this enmity or non-subjection and say it did proceed from the fall of Adam you do agree with us But if you go higher and stand upon it that Adam was a meere natural man by the condition of his creation then you will lay the blame upon God that set him in such a state of enmity and whither will you go in the issue if you maintain such positions as these But to make good your assertion you argue The first man is of the earth earthy the
the holy One of Israel page 126. Sir I would intreat you not to make the doctrine of salvation odious by picking quarrels against words For we do not peremptorily define that there was no other way possible to save man unlesse Christ had stepped in we leave it onely to the Lord himself to judge of the several possibilities of the salvation of man This onely we affirme so far as it is revealed to us the present is the most excellent way to satisfie the justice of God and to shew abundant mercy And though you now as others before you go about to cast an hatred upon the doctrine of the Church in the points of the fall of Adam original sinne free-will and the like I must tell you if you and they would not tear those things asunder which should be joyned together if you would compare one thing with another you should find that there is nothing so deformed in the state of the first man but there is that in the second which will answer all But here is the misery you look upon the mystery of salvation in some broken pieces and parts onely and do not consider the whole compages or sum of the truth in one body We will now proceed to your next Chapter CHAP. XV. Whether Adams posterity were guilty of his transgression IN this Chapter you endeavour to make good the purity of nature and the freedome of all infants from original sin you do not as the Jesuites and Arminians extenuate the matter but after the manner of the ancient Pelagians you deny the sinne of the nature And here you do not go alone The Confession of faith lately set forth by the thirty separate Congregations doth not speak one word of this sin of the nature If we go to the beginning of their book where all other Chatechismes do shew the misery of man by nature they are altogether silent in the point of original sinne In the middle where they speak of the grace of Christ there is not one syllable concerning the grace that doth regenerate or purge out the sinne of the nature In the third and last part of the book when they come to duties after regeneration they speak nothing of the great work of the mortification of the Old man and the putting on of the New man but onely of dipping and baptizing Disciples and of the manner of living in their way of Church-membership And thus one great errour at the foundation doth in a manner overthrow the whole building of the Christian faith And this is the wofull state of the separate Congregations with us Neither are these Churches in so bad a condition but the Examinors and Censors of the late Confession of faith set forth by the Assembly of Divines these clancular Authours whosoever they be have further swarved from the truth ☜ For they in their late Examen do not onely maintain the purity of the natural birth but also have many other positions and damnable tenents I will therefore take the liberty to joyn all together And therefore Mr. Everard where you and they do agree one answer shall serve both and where they have any thing which you have not touched I shall begin with them as assoon as I have ended with you Before I come to answer your arguments let me put both you and them in mind of your sophystical dealing ☞ For neither you in your treatise nor they in their Examen do mention our chiefest argument drawn from Job 3. These are the words of our Saviour to Nicodemus Jesus answered and said unto him verily verily I say unto thee except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdome of God Nicodemus saith unto him how can a man be born when he is old can he enter the second time into his mothers womb and be borne Jesus answered verily verily I say unto thee except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit Marvail not that I said unto thee you must be borne again verse 3.4 5 6 7. These words are most plain and significant to prove the impurity of the natural birth and the necessity of the new birth as every one that readeth may easily understand I do marvell then that you should overpasse this place in silence But let us now come to the meaning of the text to prove the necessity of Regeneration our Saviour doth use this medium that which is borne of flesh is flesh Because man is polluted in his natural birth therefore he needs have a new birth By flesh we do not understand that masse and lump of the body which we carry about us for in it there is neither good nor evil but our Lord Christ doth here intend the corruption of nature as it is opposed to the sanctifying work of the Spirit for so flesh and Spirit are commonly opposed in Scripture This may more particularly be seen in Rom. 8. in the beginning of the Chapter Therefore our Saviours argument is much in effect because the nature of man is defiled with original sinne from the very birth the remedy must be proportionable to the disease ☞ it is necessary that every one that shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven must be new born There be divers cause that do bring men to a habit of sinne and there are divers means to be used to break of such habits First men are brought to a custome in sinning by example and therefore the Word commands that we should turn away from such evil communications as will corrupt good manners Secondly men are brought to a habit in sinne by long custome which is as it were a second nature and therefore the Scripture speaks that we should break off such kind of customes by a kind of violence Thirdly men come to a practise of sinne by temptation as Achan saw the wedge of gold and the babylonish garment and coveted it and therefore the Scriptures do every where say that we should resist the temptations of the world the allurements of the flesh and to pray unto the Lord that he would not lead us into temptation These are in part the causes of the habit and practise of sin but they are not the original the principal cause that lies higher in the natural birth There is a necessity of Regeneration by the Spirit because all that are borne in the natural way are defiled with sinne They then who maintain the purity of the natural birth as the Examiners Mr. Everard and the separate Churches do overthrow the doctrine of the foundation of Christ Now Mr. Everard ☞ let us come to your arguments First you say we could not sinne in Adam our souls and bodies were not together in him and how we could commit sinne you know not therefore believe not page 127. But Sir if you would seriously consider
as men or Devils could devise Now let us make enquiry into the true original of your mistake you think the words by the disobedience of one many were made sinners Rom. 5. Do allude to that other passage He made him sinne for us who knew no sinne 2 Cor. 5. And from the collation of both you conclude as Christ was made sin for us who knew no deceiving heart in himself so we were made sinners by Adam who knew no such sinne But here you are grossely mistaken when you take these two for parallel Scriptures which are not parallel The text in the Corinthians is meantionely of the punishment of sinne that Christ did bear the burden of our iniquities But the text in the Romans is not onely meant of the punishment and the guilt of sinne but also of the depravation of the nature of man The scope of the place is plainly to shew that by the disobedience of one many were constituted sinners or sinful men And the word in the original is ordinarily taken for men who have the habit and the nature of sinne in them Peter said depart from me I am a sinful man Luke 5.8 And our Saviour in another place whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation Mark 8.38 And the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans that sinne by the Commandment might appear exceeding sinful Chap 6. verse 13. In these and such like places the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for such a one as is a sinner by intrinsecal denomination And therefore in the present case when the Apostle saith by the disobedience of one many were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinners as our translation hath it his meaning is they were made sinful men that is they had the nature and the habit of sinne derived to them from the disobedience of the first man And thus you may plainly see that the two texts which you put for like are very unlike and this is one chief ground of your error Again your deductions are every was as unsound for say you at Christ was made sinne for us when he knew no sinne so we are made sinners for Adam when we knew no such sinne And to confirme this you further tell us it is one thing to be made sinne so as to bear the burden of Adams sinne and another thing to act sinne But whereas you speak of two things onely you should have mentioned three It is one thing to be made sinne and another thing to be made sinful and a third to act sinne If you speak of being made sinne so Christ onely was made a sacrifice for sinne to satisfie the justice of God But if you speak of being made sinful so is the whole race of mankind by the disobedience of the first man And in the third place if you speak of committing the act of sinne this onely men can do when they have the use of reason and understanding From all which we conclude though Infants cannot be said to act sinne yet neverthelesse through the disobedience of the first man they may have the pollution of nature Further you say as we are made sinners by Adam so we are made righteous by Christ and yet had no hand in those astions that made us righteous In the like case we were made sinners by Adams disobedience and yet had no hand in his so acting To say the truth if you go to the personal act particularly and individually we had no hand either in the obedience of the one or the disobedience of the other yet in a general sense the acts of the two Adams are the act of the whole posterity that come of them As for example the first man by his disobedience did defile the whole nature without the knowledg wil motion or act of any of the persons that were to come of him yet so really and effectually that none can come by propagation from him but they partake of the guilt of his sinne and the pollution of his nature ver 12.14 17. So in the like case the second man did satisfie the justice of God and sanctifie our nature without any personal knowledge will motion or act of ours yet so really and effectually that none of us can truly beleeve but we must some way come to partake of that nature To as many as received him hath he given this power to be called the sons of God to them that do beleeve on his name being born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of man but of God Joh. 1.12 13. Further you say we had as little capacity to act in Adam as we had to act in Christ For this must be granted that when God makes the creature capable to act he makes him as capable to act for himself as for the Devil Else he had better provided for his enemies than for himself page 137. These also are the whimsies of the Examiners of the late Confession For they speaking of the indifferency of the will tell us in plain termes that as Adams will before his fall did hang in an aequilibrium to good or bad and enclined more to that which was good than that which was evil so they hold the same of the will of all men else before their personal fall To all which I answer that these are dangerous speeches which derogate much from the grace of God in Christ For whosoever they be that do either lessen the misery of nature and cry up the natural ability of the will they do in sense take that away from Christ which they give to men As for that objection of yours that God should better provide for his enemies than for himself hold your self contented God is able to secure his own glory though all men are born in original sinne and the Apostle doth plainly give the reason the Lord doth quicken us when we are dead in trespasses and sinnes when we walk according to the course of this world when we serve divers lusts and pleasures when we are by nature the children of wrath as well as others He doth quicken us when we are in this estate that in the ages to come he may shew the exceeding riches of his grace towards us in Jesus Christ Ephes 2. ver 1.2 3 c. Therefore the declaration of the glory of Christ in giving spiritual life to them that are dead must necessarily suppose men to be by nature dead in the passes and sinnes that they may be the greater objects of mercy If you go in this method though all Infants are involved in original sinne though all are miserable by nature yet God hath better provided for himself than for his enemies when his grand designe is through the miserie of man to shew the riches of his grace We will now proceed to Psal 51. ver 5. And here let us see how many shifts you have to elude the force and manifest sense of this
Scripture In the beginning you agree that we bear the punishment of another mans sinne But say you that children have any spawn of sinne cleaving to them as seed to hatch and gender in and by any thing received from Adam as we sprang from his loynes this I deny page 136. This also is the judgement of the Examiners in many pages together Now if this be so that infants have no such spawn of original sinne in them why do the Scriptures speak so largely of the pollution of nature why is it said of man in general that the thoughts of the imaginations of his heart are onely evil from his childhood Why doth the Lord Christ so earnestly presse a necessity of regeneration Why doth he urge it upon such a ground as this that which is born of the flesh is flesh There is nothing more clear than that the nature of man is wholly defiled from the very birth And for the Psalmist in his particular though it be true that he did bear the burden of Adams sinne yet it is not the whole nor the full truth The full truth is this that he was conceived in sinne that in the conception his nature was defiled and the natural defilement was the cause of the two great sinnes of murther and adultery And hereupon in relation to his natural pollution he doth pray unto the Lord to give him a new heart he went to the true root and cause of all the evil I must needs acknowledge that the Authors of the Examen when they speak of fallen man they render true causes of his not willing of good First the ignorance of that which is good the second a depraved judgment the third a want of due remembrance the fourth the power of temptation the fifth the habit and custome of sinne page 132. These are indeed true causes but they are too short and too narrow in their determination they do not come to the root of the evil to the inherent perversenesse of the will it self and the pollution of the natural birth When the bottome of a wound is not searched such Mountebanks must needs make a palliate cure Next you say If you will take from Davids particular example the general condition of all infants why do not you take the text concerning John his being sanctified from his mothers womb and argue that all the children of the world are sanctified in that sense as John was sanctified And if this were so there would not be so many lazy Priests and others in the world as there be page 135. For the parallel between David and John there is no equality betwixt them in the present collation For whereas it is said of John that he was sanctified from his mothers womb this was by a peculiar priviledge granted to him And whereas David saith I was shapen in iniquity and in sinne did my mother conceive me he doth not speak this as a King or a Saint or an Israelite but in the most general relation as one of the lost sonnes of men fallen in Adam and born in the corrupted masse and this is the reason why from the particular example of David we draw a general conclusion of the pollution and the defilement of nature in all But the Authours of the Examen do stifly maintain that the nature conveyed from Adam to all his posterity in the way of ordinary generation is not defiled with sinne For say they some are sanctified from the womb as Jeremiah and John the Baptist were and the Virgin Mary might possibly be page 65. Though this may be admitted that some of the Saints may be sanctified sooner then others and the work of sanctification may begin in them from their childhood yet what is all this to the purpose It must necessarily be supposed that corruption will have a being in certain moments of time before the grace of God can have its being Jeremiah was sanctified from his mothers womb yet he did curse the day of his birth he did resolve to speak no more to the people in the name of the Lord he did shew many fruits of the flesh as well as he did manifest many fruits of the Spirit And therefore to the particular case as he did consist of flesh and spirit in him the flesh the Old man had its being before the Spirit and the new man This I beleeve none can rationally deny though they will acknowledge also that he was sanctified from his mothers womb But Mr. Everard to return to you again For the trouble you have with the lazy Priests I fear Sir the more godly the more conscientious the more laborious any Minister is the worse he is in your opinion and in the opinion of such as you are if he oppose the innovations and errors of the times But I pray God give you repentance else you will have an heavy account to make one day for all your hard speeches against the godly Ministry For the text Mat. 18.3 Except ye be converted and become as little children ye cannot enter into the Kingdome of heaven Here say you If infants be so filthy why doth our Saviour set such a pattern before us And the Authours of the Examen also page 70 speak much to the same effect doth not our Saviour say they declare the state of children both to be innocent and blessed when first he makes it terminus ad quem the mark unto which in our conversion and regeneration we must return And then tells us that the Kingdome of heaven belongs to such and is replenished with such I answer in parables and similitudes we are to look onely to the scope Our Saviour speaketh of the unjust Steward of putting the talent to the exchanger of his own coming like a thief in the night What then is it his intent to approve of the evil of these wayes No he doth onely point to something wherein the force of the similitude doth stand And so in the present case when he speaketh of humbling our selves and becoming like little children it is not his purpose to ascribe such perfection to them as though all infants were free from original sinne or that their innocency were the terminus ad quem the terme to which our conversion and regeneration must return These are very strange deductions The words of our Saviour are therefore to be taken only in a restrained sense that in affectation of worldly glory we should be like little children There is no such distance between the children of Princes and the children of beggars but all are one The mind of the Lord is onely this that we should come to act the same things by the power of grace as little children do thorough the weaknesse and infirmity of age We should not look upon Lords and Ladies upon learning or parts or upon any other external excellency in comparison of the grace of God Commonly men that have these things are very proud of them and do look upon them
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
his two sinnes of murder and adultery David when he had committed those sinnes did look to the fountain of his misery as it did lye in the pollution of the natural birth I was shapen in iniquity and in sinne did my mother conceive me Hereupon he did pray unto the Lord that he would create in him a new heart Even so Adam after his fall was able to see his miserie when his eyes were opened but he was not as you suggest like a burned child able of himself to take heed of the fire All the ability that he had was by looking to the promise and the same ability we now have to help us out of our natural corruption Our Saviour told the Jewes if the Sonne will make you free ye shall be free indeed Joh. 8.36 By freedome we are to understand not such a civil immunity as Emperors and Kings do give but a freedome from the bondage and vassalage of corruption And therefore when the Jewes made him this answer that they were Abrahams children and never in bondage to any man his reply was he that committeth sin is the servant of sin v. 33 34. The slavery of sin is the bondage that is here meant and there is no other way to be freed but by Christ onely Further you say we cannot prove that Adam did subject himself to any temptation after the fall pag. 143. What if we do not read in so many letters and syllables that he did subject himself to temptation can you therefore probably collect that he was free from all sinne and that he did resist all temptations Again suppose that after his fall he did resist many temptations yet as the strongest Christian may fall when God doth leave him and the weakest may stand when the Lord will uphold him with his supporting grace Even so Adam being without all original sinne being left to himself to try what free-will could do might fall in a state of natural purity And being supported by the Spirit to shew what grace could do might be able to stand in a state of natural corruption Therefore all that you have said doth not any way inforce an equality of the states or that a mans ability was as great after as it was before the fall Now let us go to the third Scripture and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others Ephes 2 3. Here to support the purity of nature and to avoid the force of this text you have many evasions and shifts let us hear them as they come in their order There are say you natural men that discern not the things of God neither can do for a man cannot go East and West at one and the same time neither serve two Masters to be true to them both page 145. I confesse it is true that a man cannot go East and West at one and the same time but our question is whether any natural man meerely as natural without the inspiration of the Spirit can go any other way but that which is meerely enmity against God The Apostle saith the natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God because they are foolishnesse to him neither can he perceive them because they are spiritually to be discerned 1 Cor. 2.14 He speaketh this of the Philosophers and other Grecians who had improved nature to the highest To these the preaching of the Crosse was foolishnesse They could discern the wisedome of Plato and the depth of Aristotle but the wisedome of Christ they were not able to discern Hereupon in the three first Chapters of the Epistle the Apostle doth largely dispute that the knowledge of these things doth meerely come by the inward teaching and revelation of the Spirit And then he shutteth up the dispute with this coronis If any man seem to be wise in this world let him become a fool that he may be wise A fool is one that hath no wit he is not able to speak for himself or to help himself The way then to know Christ is not by the advancement of natural abilities but rather by the true sight of inability and the lost condition we are fallen into Aristotle was a Philosopher of great name amongst the Grecians yet of all the books that he wrote of all the speeches that he spake in none of them all he came nearer to God than in that speech which he is reported for to speak O ens entium miserere mei O thou being of beings have mercy upon me The first step to salvation doth beginne with the sight of misery and the next is to looke after the free grace and mercie of God But you go on and tell us nature simply so considered as it is created of God cannot oppose any spiritual light but comply with those things which God holds forth unto it page 146. Here we desire you to keep to the state of the question we are not upon the debate of nature in its purity but of nature as it is since the fall If you speak of nature created in the beginning nature is good nature cannot oppose any spiritual light and it is serviceable to those ends for which God made it But as strictly as both you and the Examiners stand for such a natural purity I would entreat you to shew the man in all Asia Africa Europe or America that hath this purity this integrity of nature But if you speak of nature vitiated and corrupted the Scriptures do every where make mention of such a nature that it is enmity against God that it is not subject to the Law of God nor can be And therefore when the Examiners in the Chapter of free wil do plead so strongly that there are some good things in natural men as in Herod and Balaam and that all natural men are not equally corrupt what of all this this doth not prove the goodnesse of nature For that some natural men have some inward workings in them it is from the convictions of the Spirit and that some are lesse evil then others it is from the bar of restraining grace Otherwise take a natural man as meerly natural he is not subject to the Law of God nor can be Rom. 8.7 As it may be seen in this familiar instance When men are enemies to the State and will not have them to reign over them all the money horses armour Cities Castles that they can get into their power are employed to set up another Law and to supplant the power that is over them So all the endeavours of a natural man all his principles and his reasonings are to pluck down Christ and to set up his own excellency And therefore the natural mind is enmity against God Next you cite two Scriptures concerning sins against nature Backbiters haters of God despitefull proud boasters inventors of evil things disobedient to parents without understanding Covenant-breakers without natural affection Rom. 1.30 31. 2 Tim. 3.3 From hence you draw this conclusion to be
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
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
such a polluted birth they may have the remainders of that image which was by creation and a possibility of the recovery of the same image by Christ That this truth may more clearly appear we will distinguish betwixt the image of God which is external and the image which is internal For the image that is external and stands in Lordship and dominion over the creature man hath not this image by natural generation but by covenant promise and the Mediators blood And therefore we read that the Lord after the flood did revive the great Charter once given to man before the fall Be fruitful and replenish the earth and the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every fowle of the aire upon all that moveth upon the earth and upon all the fishes of the Sea into your hand are they delivered Gen. 9.2 The same priviledge is here granted to Noah and his sons which was given to Adam before his fall But how did Noah his sonnes and in them all mankind come to partake of it Not by generation but by the promise and Covenant In the former Chapter we read that Noah offered up a Sacrifice and the Lord smelt a savour of rest in and thorough the Mediators blood Hereupon he made a solemn promise that he would no more curse the ground for mans sake though the thoughts of the imaginations of his heart were evil from his childhood By vertue of the promise doth man come to be re-invested with that part of the Image of God which stands in Lordship over the creature and he hath not this priviledge in respect of his natural birth Secondly if we look to that part of the Image of God which is internal in the soule in this sense though man be born in original sinne and though he hath lost the spiritual knowledge righteousnesse and holinesse wherein he was most like his Creator and doth now carry the image of Satan yet neverthelesse he hath still some remainders and reliques of the former Image he hath an immortal soul an understanding will and other natural powers and in and thorough Christ he hath a capacity to receive that spiritual part of the Image of God which was lost According to the tenor of this doctrine we may expound the precept that doth inhibit the shedding of mans blood whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed for in the Image of God made he man The same answer may be given to that text which they alledge in the twelfth and last place therewith curse we men which are made after the similitude of God Jam. 3 9. Here we say the same in substance that though men are born in original sinne yet they have some reliques and remainders of the former Image that was lost and a possibility by Christ to come to the fulness of that glory The second Scripture to be considered is that place Deut. 32.4 5. Where say they we have two argnments more to prove Israel and consequently all men to be still created innocent The first is from the perfection of all Gods works ver 4. He is the rock his work is perfect for all his wayes are judgment a God of truth and without iniquity just and right is he How then can he who is holy righteous and pure create any thing that is unrighteous unclean or impure The second is taken from Gods complaint there against mens personal fall and corrupting themselves whom God had not brought forth with any such spots ver 5. They have corrupted themselves their spot is not the spot of his children they are a perverse and crooked generation page 67. But neither of these two arguments will prove the purity and the innocency of mans natural birth For though all infants through the fall of Adam are born in original sinne this is no impeachment to God he both is and ever was righteous in all his works Though all mankind hath fallen through the disobedience of the first man yet he was pure righteous and holy in the work of creation And though the greater part of the Israelites did rebell in the Wildernesse this did not diminish the goodnesse of God to that people in bringing them out of Egypt Secondly whereas it is said that they did corrupt themselves by their own personal disobedience this must needs be so because they were a rebellious generation Moses speaketh remarkably to this purpose in the latter end of the former Chapter I know that after my death you will utterly corrupt your selves and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you ver 29. When he saith I know that ye will utterly corrupt your selves shall we argue from hence that they were free from all corruption for the present and that the corrupting of themselves should meerely be their own personal act for the future This cannot be the force of the argument For Moses did conclude that they would shew the fruits of their corruption after his death because he did perceive such a rebellious and corrupted nature in them for the present Behold while I am yet alive with you this day ye have been rebellious against the Lord How much more after my death And for that expression their spot is not the spot of his children it is true indeed Gods children have many staines and spots as Noah David Peter But because they have a living fountain of grace within they do daily purge out the sinne and corruption of nature 2 Cor. 7.1 Now it is not so with others or with those Apostates to whom Moses spake because they had no living principle within they would totally fall from that good which they seemed to have This is the sence of the text and how doth this prove the purity of the natural birth A third place they bring to assert the innocency of man is the eighth Psalm where ver 4.5 6. the Psalmist speaks thus of all mankind what is man that thou art mindful of him and the sonne of man that thou visitest him for thou hast made him a little lower than the Angels and hast crowned him with glory and honour Say they the Psalmist shewes that man is still set in honour by his first state of production though he doth not long retain the same but falls therefrom But if a man had been created so corrupt as you speak he had not onely been lower than the Angels but below all ereatures here page 67. For the general sence of this Scripture we do agree that man hath still dominion Lordship preheminence over the creature in this dignity honour he doth carry the lively effigies resemblance and Image of God as he is his vicegerent upon the earth There is none who doubts of the truth of this in general but the main question is about the ground of the vicegerency whether it be from the state of man in his natural production as these Censors do affirme This we deny for according to
the course of natural generation as it is since the fall manhath lost the image of God in dominion and Lordship over the creature the earth is accursed the creature made subject to vanity You will say how then doth he enjoy this priviledge still I answer by Christ the second Adam and therefore it is observable that the Apostle doth apply the passages of the Psalmist more immediately to Christ thou madest him a little lower than the Angels thou crownest him with glory and honour and diddest set him over the work of thy hands thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet Heb. 2.7 8 9. The whole creation then immediately is put under Christ and in and thorough him all men now come to have dominion and Lordship over the creature And therefore though all are fallen in Adam and have lost this priviledge in their natural birth yet it is repaired and renewed by Christ A fourth place which they bring to evict mans uprightnesse by the creation is that of the wise man God hath made man upright but they have sought out many inventions Eccles 7.29 Here they insist especially upon two particulars First that this is spoken of all mankind Secondly that every mans fall is by his own personal and individual act These are their words he ascribes it not to their first fathers alone but to the individuals of their posterity likewise saying but they have sought cut many inventions page 68. Neither do we affirme that the blame is onely to be laid on Adam for others also born in original sinne and having the corruption of nature within them do personally and individually shew the fruits of their own corruption in seeking out many inventions The Israelites as we have formerly heard did corrupt themselves yet this was from their own natural corruption as the fountain Secondly when God made Adam in the beginning he made him and all mankind in him upright but they have sought out many inventions For what the first man did all his posterity did in him and by him Neither is it improper to ascribe the particle they to the relations actions and conditions of the first man As for example when the Lord said let us make man in our own image and let them have dominion over the fish of the Sea and the fowle of the aire Gen. 1.26 These words are more immediatly spoken to Adam and mediatly to all his posterity to the whole species of men Let them have dominion over the fish of the Sea So in the present case it may be said of Adam primarily that God made man upright but he and all mankind in him have sought out many inventions The deed of the first man is the deed of the species or whole kind As in a parallel case the act of the first woman and the promise made to her are ascribed to the whole sex she shall be saved by child-bearing if they continue in the faith 1 Tim. 2.15 Thirdly that no blame may be cast upon God we may say since the fall also though men are born in original sinne God doth from time to time send inward convictions into their hearts to inable them to distinguish betwixt good and evil If therefore they will not see what they may see but will fallaciously endeavour to finde out many inventions the fault is meerely their own All these passages are true and being put together they shew the scope of the text but they do not prove the purity of the natural birth For the sixth seventh and eighth places which the Examiners do bring out of the Prophets Isa 1.21.22 Jer. 2.21 Isa 5.1 2 3. Jer. 8.4 5. I do not see how these or such like do any way make to the purpose For we will easily grant that Hierusalem was a faithful City in the beginning and that the faithful City did become an Harlot We will grant also that the Jewish Church was the Lords Vineyard planted with the choicest Vine and thorough her own default she turned into the degenerate plant of a wild Vine and brought forth wild grapes These and many more texts may be alledged to prove the priviledges of that Church in her first institution but how doth this prove the purity of the natural birth seeing that Nation had all these priviledges meerely by promise and Covenant If they stand upon Analogy and say that it is rational for God to do with all men as with that people To this we answer though all are born in original sinne and in the corruption of nature yet they are not left in a helpless or hopelesse condition Thorough Christ men have a possibility of salvation though thorough their own default they neglect this great salvation as the people of Israel did and are justly lyable to the same reproof Ninthly they go to that famous place in Hosea thy destruction is of thy self O Israel but in me is thy help Hos 13.9 Here say they the Lord layes Israels destruction upon her self and not upon her first parents page 70. Neither doth this any whit promote their cause for if we do read the stories of the Judges and of the Kings all along for the space of nine hundred years we shall find that the Church and state of Israel were liable to a total final destruction for theird Iolatry other great sins In this respect therefore the Prophet saith thy destruction is of thy self O Israel And when they were at the brink of destruction many times and under the power of the enemy than the Lord did wonderfully come in to help them And this is the meaning of the Prophets words but in me is thy help Thorough their own sinne many times they were at the brink of ruine but the Lord of his great mercy did deliver them We may apply the case more generally though Adam did fall and all mankind by his personal disobedience the destruction is of themselves yet in and thorough Christ it may be said in me is thy help Secondly this speech is to be applied to Israel a people in covenant with God that they are the causes of their own destruction but their help is immediately from him So we by our personal disobedience do many times what lies in us procure our own destruction but our help is meerely from his grace This is the full meaning of the place and how doth this prove the purity of the natural birth Fathers and children and all are the meritorious cause of their own destruction if they be considered in immediate opposition to the goodnesse of God the cause of their deliverance We will go on and see whether they be more happy in the places which they cite out of the new Testament For the tenth place which they cite out of Mat. 18.3 Except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the Kingdome of God Because we have examined this text already and the Censors say no more but that which
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
man onely this is sufficient that the first man is the root of all his branches and all that come of him were made sinners by him and the second man is the root of all his branches and all that are ingraffed into him are made righteous by him Secondly some of them that stand for the universal redemption do not plead an absolute or universal justification of all men by the obedience of the first man but onely plead for a general impretation or possibility of salvation which then onely comes to be applied when men believe and receive the promise by a lively faith Thus we have passed through all the arguments of the Examiners and we have seen their cavils against the several Scriptures alledged by us As for those similitudes of punishing the posterity of Traitors for the treason of their parents and the killing of the young vipers with the old by reason of their poysonous nature c. forasmuch as these are onely illustrations of the truth so all the pains which they take here is onely to cavil at illustrations Other passages they have of lesser moment which we have answered before onely they have one argument in the Chapter of free will from that place Isaiah 7.14 Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and chuse the good the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings Here they would have us observe two points First that though this place be commonly understood of our Saviour yet it is meant of the common state of man Secondly this child from his infancy according to the common state of mankinde should have the knowledge and ability to refuse the evil and choose the good From hence they do inferre that a natural man can both will and act according to his first integrity untill he disables and corrupts himselfe Further they stand upon it that a man hath a power to choose the good and to that purpose they cite the words of Moses Deuteronomie 30.19 I have set before you life and death blessing and cursing therefore choose life page 126 127 128. If they did well understand the meaning of these Scriptures they would not pervert them to so strange a sense For the Text in Isaiah we do acknowledge that the children in an ordinary way have a power to choose the good and to refuse the evil when they come to yeares of discretion But what kinde of good is here meant not that good which is spiritual or divine for this they cannot chuse without an inward work of the Spirit but that good onely which is moral and civil and this at yeares of discretion men are able to make choyce of And for the words of Moses I have set before you blessing and cursing therefore choose life c. To the clearing of this Let us distinguish First what he speaks of and Secondly the persons to whom he speaks First if by choosing the good be meant the true God in opposition to all the Heathen gods of the Gentiles here Moses speaks to the Israelites as to a people that had cleare evidences and convictions that there was no other God in all the world but theirs onely And therefore he doth exhort them to chuse the true God for their God Secondly if by choosing the good be meant the loving of the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soule as it is implyed verse 10. then this word of command is given onely in relation to the word of promise verse 6. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul that thou mayest live In immediate relation to this promise Moses saith I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God to walk in his wayes and to keep his commandments that thou mayest live verse 16. So then we do conclude that the ability to choose the good is not from any natural power but from the grace of God and the word of promise Thus I have gone thorough all the reasons which are alledged either by Mr. Everard or the Examiners the late Patrones of the purity of natural birth If they have any thing more to say for this my desire is that they would shew their strength or else confesse their wicked errors and submit to the clear evidence of truth Now let us consider the several and respective arguments of Dr. Jeremy Taylor and what hath been lately said by him concerning the same subject The third Book containeth the Answer to several Arguments of Dr. Jeremy Taylor in his Vnum Necessarium and two smaller Treatises of his Forasmuch as this Learned man doth tread in the footsteps of our Antagonists and doth plead the same things against the Doctrine of original sinne as they have pleaded against us for certain years last past And seeing also that many are like to be taken with the purity and elegancy of his Style that probably are not able to judge of the foulenesse and impurity of his Doctrine We have thought it worth our labour to provide an antidote to secure the soules of men and if it may be possible in a peaceable and brotherly manner to reduce him from the evil of his opinions And so we come to the several Sections of the sixth Chapter in the treatise aforesaid SECT 1. Of Concupiscence and original sinne and whither or no and how far we are bound to repent of it ORIGINal sinne is so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or figuratively meaning the sinne of Adam which was committed in the original of mankind by our first parent Answ We deny not but the sinne of Adam may be called the original or the first sinne because it was the first that was committed But then we must take heed that with our Authour we do not deny also the pollution and the corruption of the natural birth In so doing we must needs destroy regeneration or the new birth we must needs also evacuate the Baptisme of the Spirit so farre as it doth seal regeneration humiliation for the birth sinne will be a meere non ens and the mortification of the sinne of the nature will be a nullity In a word one of the chief ends of the Christian faith which is to put on the Christ-like disposition will be frustrated and greatly impaired For what need I to put on the new disposition as it is from Christ the root of all grace and spiritual life if there be no pravity and sinfulnesse of nature from Adam the root of corruption In Scripture the one is set forth as the immediate opposite to the other But he further sheweth This sinne brought upon Adam all that God threatned but no more a certainty of dying together with the proper effects and affections of mortality Answ Besides the affections of mortality and the certainty of dying this sinne also brought upon Adam the depravation of original righteousnesse
and the depravation of his nature as afterwards shall be shewed Next he seemeth to speak more fairely Man being left in the state of pure naturals could not by his own strength arrive to a supernatural end for eternal life being an end above our natural proportion cannot be acquired by any natural means Answ In this and such like passages of his he doth seem to me to crosse his whole undertaking One chief end of entitling his book as may appear by the preface The Doctrine and Practice of repentance rescued from popular errours is the scandal offence that he seemes to take at our Doctrine of original sinne For thinks he if the nature be depraved a necessity of sinning will be introduced and the natural liberty of the Will will be taken away and therefore in much compassion and tendernesse he seemeth to himself at least to vindicate the truth to make Religion more reasonable and intelligible and to rescue the Schooles and Pulpits from the rigour and austerity of the doctrines of such a nature But when all is done he speaks the same in effect that we do For if man being in his natural condition by his own strength cannot arrive to a supernatural end but needs the help of the Spirit This being suppos'd I will put it upon him seriously to consider whether the same Spirit that helps a man out of this imaginary deficiency privation and imperfection is not as able also to rescue him from that inherent defilement pravity and corruption of the natural birth The Spirit can do as much in the one as in the other And exhortations will be as useful in the one case as in the other What need then hath our Authour to raise up all this dust But he further addeth What gifts and graces or supernatural endowments God gave to Adam in his state of innocency we know not God hath no where told us Answ Though he hath no where told us in so many letters yet by collation of circumstances we may gather that Adam had the Spirit and was a spiritual man before his fall In the creation it is expressely said come let us make man after our own image Gen. 1. The Apostle doth declare wherein this image doth consist That concerning the former conversation ye put off the Old man which is corrupt according to deceitful lusts and that ye be renewed in the Spirit of the mind and that ye put on the New man which after God is created in righteousnesse and true holinesse Ephes 4.22 23 24. In these words there are four particulars that seem to speak faire for Adam that he had the Spirit and was a spiritual man before his fall First it is said that they should put off the Old man corrupt according to deceitful lusts Corruption is of a different nature according to the condition of the subject-matter there is a corruption of seeds of graines of metals of the members of a mans body but here the Apostle must needs speak of the corruption of that which is spiritual From whence we collect that the Old man or the disposition of the flesh is but the corruption of that holy and spiritual state n which Adam was made Secondly it is said be ye renewed in the spirit of your minds The word renewed doth import the restoring of a thing to that perfection which sometime it had in its first institution An house is renewed not when it is built new from the ground but when it is amended When an infant is born into the world it is not proper to say that he is renewed but a man doth renew his strength when he doth recover it by degrees after a long sicknesse So in the present case when the Apostle saith be renewed in the spirit of your mind he speaketh of the renovation of that knowledge holinesse and righteousnesse that Adam sometimes had but lost it by his fall Thirdly it is said after the image of him that created him Though this is specially meant of the new creature yet it is with respect also to that passage in the old creation let us make man after our own image For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum Deum according to God is as much in effect as after the likeness similitude and image of God who upon this account must needs be the pattern in both creatio'ns Fourthly to put all out of question it is expressely said which after God is created in righteousnesse and true holinesse What difference soever there may be between Adam in innocency and the Saints in the state of regeneration certain it is that holinesse and righteousnesse must needs be the morality of the Law and none can rationally deny but that Adam was endued and invested with these two before his fall By his righteousnesse he was enabled to deale justly with man and by his holinesse he was carried out to know God to love him to delight in him to fear him and to take him as his chiefest good All these particulars expressing the spirituality and purity of the Law do signifie to us that Adam had the Spirit and was a spiritual man before his fall Now let us go on Receiving more by the second Adam than we lost by the first the sons of God are now spiritual which he never was that we can finde Answ That which he writes here doth manifestly contradict what he speaks elswhere for page 383. He plainly sheweth that original righteousnesse in Adam and habitual righteousnesse in the Saints are all one These are his own words if one sinne saith he could naturally and by a physical causalty destroy original righteousnesse then every ones sinne in the regenerate can as well destroy habitual righteousnesse because that and this differ not but in their principle not in their nature and constitution And why should not a righteous man as easily and as quickly fall from grace and loose his habits as Adam did naturally it is all one so farre he To which we answer Adam fell from original righteousnesse because he stood onely by the covenant of workes the Saints do not fall from habitual righteousnesse because they have their standing by the covenant of grace But as to the point in hand original righteousness in Adam and habitual righteousnesse in the Saints he tells us that both are one and the same in essence and constitution and then again he tells us the sons of God are spiritual which Adam never was that he could finde So great a faculty he hath to blow hot and cold in the same breath Now he comes to explicate that Scripture by one man sin entred into the world Rom. 5. c. That sinne saith he entred into the world by Adam is therefore certaine because he was the first man It must needs enter in him because it first comes in by the first Answ It is true that sinne entred into the world by Adam as the first man but it is not the whole truth for in such
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
interval between Adam and Moses And so we that live in the latter ages of the world shall have nothing to do with the Gospel nor the Gospel with us But of this I have formerly spoken in my answer to Mr. Everard and the Examiners There I have shewed the reason why the Apostle doth mention the reigne of death in the interval between Adam and Moses He goes on This death saith he was brought upon them by Adam that is death which was threatned to Adam only went forth upon them also who indeed were sinners but not after the similitude of Adams transgression that is who sinned not so capitally as be did Answ This expression death threatned only to Adam hath some ambiguity in it If he speaks of Adam as a particnliar person death was not only threatned to him for in the present case he is to be looked upon as the common roote of the nature when he fell all mankind fell in him from him death passed upon all not only as sinners in their own person but in that formality as made sinners or sinful by his disobedience Of infants it is true as well as others in Adam all dye and so death passeth upon all Next he telleth us what it is to sin like Adam To sin like Adam saith he is used as a tragicall and high expression so it is in the Prophet they like men have transgressed so we read it but in the Hebrew it is they like Adam have transgrest and yet death passed upon them that did not sin after the similitude of Adam Answ For the text in Hosea our English translation may well passe by an Enallage of the number They like man that is like fickle and inconstant men have transgrest my Covenant Or if this will not satisfie that of Tremellius may obtaine Tanquam hominis transgressi sunt faedus They have played fast and loose with me as if it were no other but a meer Covenant of man But let us take the words in the sence that is most propitious to him viz. that the Prophet here looks to Adam as the head of all Apostates and that the Israelites had sinned in as tragical a manner as Adam did what doth he infer from hence he tells us that death reigned from Adam to Moses over those that had not so tragically sinned as Adam had done Truely the old world that was drowned in the flood Sodom and Gomorrah that were burnt with fire the builders of Babel whose language was confounded these and such like sinners though they lived in the interval between Adam and Moses were none of the least But let us take it in his own sence that death reigned over Abel Seth Noah and others that did not sin so capitally as Adam did If this be well considered it doth make more for our purpose than it doth for his For these holy men that lived in the interval between Adam and Moses were under the reigne of death Here I demand how came they to be under this reigne If he will say their own sinne was the principal cause how will he answer the words of the Apostle who expressely tells us by one mans offence death reigned over all ver 17. Againe if he shall say they came under this power by the sinne of Adam then he makes good the interpretation given by us that by the sinne of Adam infants as well as others in all that interval between Adam and Moses came under the power and sovereignty of death He further addeth God saith he was so exasperated with mankind that being angry would still continue that punishment even to lesse sinnes and sinners which he only had first threatned to Adam and so Adam brought it upon them They indeed in rigour did themselves deserve it but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam they who sinned not so bad and had not been so severely and expressely threatned had not suffered so severely Answ By the tenour of the Doctrine we may understand that men by their own sins do deserve death as for the sin of Adam by this account it is only an aggravating circumstance and a cause meerly of the severity of the sentence Now if this be so how shall we expound the meaning of the Apostle By one man sin entred into the world and death by sin and death passed upon all men He speaketh of the entrance of sinne of the entrance of death of the entrance of sin and death upon all by the sin and disobedience of one man Is all this only to make Adams sin a meer accessory or aggravating circumstance away with such a conceit The text doth pitch upon it as the principal and general cause of death Againe the Apostle saith by the offence of one death reigned by one If all men fall under the reigne of death by the offence of one then certainly his offence is not the cause alone why they are more severely dealt with but it is the very cause why they fall under the power and dominion of death it selfe Shall we make a circumstance of that which is the principal cause Further what is the reason that infants dye seeing personally and individually they are guilty of no sin of their own to deserve death in his answer to the Bishops letter he doth not shunne to affirme that death comes upon infants meerly by right of dominion But then saith he the evil of punishment may passe further than the action If it passes upon the innocent it is not a punishment to them but an evil inflicted by right of dominion yet by reason of the relation of the offlicted to him that sinned to him it is a punishment But if it passeth upon others that are not innocent then it is a punishment to both to the first principally to the descendants or relatives for the others sake his sinne being impured so far and more he hath to the same purpose pag. 43. Here he plainly delivers his opinion that death is inflicted upon others because they do partake with Adam in his sinne but it descends and comes upon infants meerly by way of prerogative and absolute dominion And if their death be a punishment it is so only to Adam in as much as they stand related to him as being his descendants and relatives Against this I have some things to oppose First in his Vnum necessarium pag. 403. He layeth down this as a sure axiom When Godnsing the power and the dominion of a Lord and the severity of a Judge doth punish posterity it must be so long as the Parents may live and see it and so out of Chrysostome he doth expound it to be to the third and fourth generation and no longer Now here I argue if God punisheth Adam in his infant children this is not to the third and fourth but to the hundreth generation Againe why should he be punished in his infant-children when he hath been dead many hundred nay certaine thousand years agoe
shall he only be punished and never survive or live so long as to see the punishment againe the words of the Apostle are cleare as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation ver the 18. If it came upon all men it came upon infants as well as others and if it came upon all to condemnation then infants beare the guilt of sin the infelicities miseries and paines of death not by way of sovereignty but as a punishment and judgement laid upon them for their sin and disobedience of the first man But to colour the matter he hath a restriction in his answer to the Bishops letter Now then your Lordship saith he sees that what you note of the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I admit and is indeed true enough and agreeable to the scope of the Apostle and very much in justification of what I taught The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a punishment for sin and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes I easily subscribe to it but then take in the words of St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one sinne or by the sin of one the curse passed upon all men to condemnation that is the curse descended from Adam for his sake it was propagated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a real condemnation viz. when they should sin for though this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or curse of death was threatned only to Adam yet upon Gods being angry with him God resolved it should descend and if men did sin as Adam or if they sin at all though lesse than Adam yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse threatned to them should passe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the same actual condemnation which fell upon him that is it should actually bring them under the reigne of death pag. 45 46. By these words of his it is cleare that the curse doth descend upon infants not when they are borne in sin for he doth own no such sin of the nature but it descends only to their real condemnation when they come to act sinne Here I would entreat him to consider the words of the Apostle so by the righteousnesse of one man the free gift came upon all men to justification of life If it came upon all men it came upon infants if the blessing of Christ doth come upon infants surely the curse also must descend upon them For we cannot imagine any to be made partakers of the blessing benefit grace and life by the second man but he must be some way involved in the guilt misery death and condemnation brought in by the first On the contrary if he will say that the curse doth not descend upon infants by the rule of proportion it will follow that infants shall have no part in the comforts priviledges and blessings that come by the Gospel And truely this must be the upshot of this dismal doctrine Now let us consider what exposition he giveth of those words by the disobedience of one many were made sinners But that saith he which I dwell and rely upon is this sinne is often used in Scripture for the punishment of sinne and they that suffer are called sinners though they be innocent so it is in this case by Adams disobedience many were sinners that is the sinne of Adam passed upon them and sate upon them with evil effect Answ We do not deny but the word sinne may be taken for the punishment of sinne and to that purpose what he speaketh of Bathsheba I and my sonne Solomon shall be sinners but more especially that of our Saviour he made him sinne for us that knew no sinne These and such like passages which he hath page 368 c. We do not deny the truth of them in the general Only this we say that we are not onely made sinners by imputation but also we derive a sinful nature from Adam by propagation and by contagion For First If there were onely an imputation of guilt and no inherent corruption men would bear the burthen and punishment of sinne without cause and God would punish sinne where none is Our Saviour indeed was made sin who knew no sinne because he came in the nature of a Surety But the sonnes of Adam are no sureties they must be some way sinners themselves if they will righteously bear the burthen of Adams sinne Again the words of the Apostle are most emphatical by the disobedience of one many were made sinful for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth note one that hath the habit of sinne that is a sinful man as I have proved in the former part of the Treatise from whence we collect that the sonnes of Adam are not onely made sinners by imputation but sinful also by hereditary contagion Further the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are constituted sinners or sinful This expression if it be seriously considered is set in immediate opposition to the constitution of things in the creation If a reason be demanded concerning the Sun Moon and Starres of the ebbing and the flowing of the Sea of the vicissitude of Winter and Summer The answer is easie all these things have their being because God made them and constituted them so in the beginning But if a reason be demanded how all men came to be sinners by imputation and sinful by propagation the answer is as easie They are made and constituted as by the disobedience of the first man so by the just judgment of God upon that disobedience If the sinfulnesse of nature be not by the fall it must come by creation or some other reason must necessarily be assigned to make all men so unanimous and universal in matter of sinning Lastly the Apostle draweth a parallel between both the Adams as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous Now it is evident none are made righteous by imputation in the ordinary way but they do in some measure or other partake of the life and spiritual nature of Christ as the seccond Adam Therefore we say on the contrary part there are none that have the guilt of the sinne of Adam imputed to them but they must also derive the pollution of nature from him as the root of corruption But to this he hath a solution as he pretends at least in his answer to the Bishops letter This is sufficient saith he for the Apostles argument and yet no necessity to affirme that we are sinners any more than by imputation for we are by Christ made just no other wise than hy imputation page 38 c. To which we reply the question is not about the formal reason of our justification which we acknowledge to be by the alone imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ But the point in hand is whether any be justified by the blood which are not sanctified by the Spirit So in the present case we say
none have the guilt of Adams sinne but such onely that partake of his nature For in the next Chapter when the Apostle cometh to speak of sanctification he hath these words know ye not that our Old man is crucified with him that the body of sinne might be destroyed Rom. 6.6 By the old man he means the sinful disposition of the flesh derived from Adam the root of corruption So then the Scripture plainly doth shew that the opposition between both the Adams doth not onely stand in imputation of guilt but also in the propagation of the nature And it is a great wonder that any exception can be made against so plain a truth Thus I have passed through all the material objections and we have seen all of moment that can be said if it might be possible to take this Scripture out of our hands Now he comes to forme the state of the question to shew how farre he allowes original sinne and where he differs from us Because this is the foot of the work let him deliver himselfe in his own words Adams sinne saith he was punished by an expulsion out of Paradise in which was a tree appointed to be the cure of diseases and the conservatory of life There was no more told as done but this and its proper consequents He came into a land lesse blessed a land which bore thistles and bryars c. And then he addeth thus death came in not by any new sentence or change of nature for man was created mortal and if Adam had not sinned he should have been immortal by grace that is by the use of the tree of life and now being driven from the place where the tree grew was left in his own natural constitution that is to be sick and dye without that remedy And he further explaineth himselfe pag. 372. This evil which is the condition of all our natures viz. to dye was to some a punishment to others not so It was a punishment to all that sinned both before Moses and since upon the first it fell as a consequent of Gods anger upon Adam upon the latter it fell as a consequent of that anger threatned in Moses his law But to those that sinned not at all as infants and innocents it was meerly a condition of their nature and no more a punishment than to be a child is It was a punishment of Adams sin because by his sin humane nature came to be disrobed of their preternatural immortality and therefore upon that account they dye But as it is related to the persons it was not a punishment not an evil inflicted for their sake or any guiltinesse of their own properly so called And then going on he saith we finde nothing else in Scripture exprest to be the effect of Adams sin and beyond this without authority we must not go Turning his style against us he addeth other things are said but I finde no warrant for them in that sence as they are usually supposed and some of them in no sence at all Then he cometh to particularize The particulars saith he commonly reckoned are that from Adam we derive an original ignorance a pronenesse to sin a fomes or nest of sin imprinted and placed in our souls a losse of our wills liberty and nothing else left but a liberty to sin which liberty upon the summe of affaires is expounded a necessity to sin and the effect of all is we are borne heires of damnation These are the particulars which he excepts against and these he endeavours with all his might to oppugne we will go in the same method as he doth beginning with original ignorance he thus speaketh It is true saith he that we derive it from our Parents I meane we are borne with it but I do not know that any man thinks that if Adam had not sinned that sin Cain should have been wise as soon as his navel had been cut Answ We cannot so precisely determine what Adams children should have been in innocency because he did not continue so long to beget a child in that pure estate yet I think none may doubt had he begotten children in that estate he had conveied the same image of God the same knowledge respecting the kind of it that himselfe was created in And though in respect of actual knowledge Cain should not have been wise as soon as his navel was cut yet in respect of potential knowledge he should have been borne in a capacity and by degrees should have attained the same knowledge as Adam himselfe was created in But he further argues If he had so great knowledge saith he it is likely that he would not so cheaply have sold himselfe and all his hopes out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge Answ The Apostle St. Jude tells us The Angels that left their first habitation are kept in chaines of darknesse to the judgement of the great day v. 6. Shall we say then because they did so cheaply leave their first habitation was there no such dignity or excellency in it The way of reasoning is one and the same in substance He goeth on The state of ignorance we do derive from Adam as we do our nature which is a state of ignorance and all manner of imperfection but whether it was not imperfect and apt to fall into forbidden instances we may best guesse it by the event Answ We may guesse by the event that he was made in a state from which he might fall but this doth no way hinder his being a spiritual man or that endowment of spiritual knowledge which he had before his fall First by his fall he did lose in his judgement he and all mankind did fall from faith to unbelief and hence it is that ever since for happinesse all men rely upon their own wit learning beauty strength friends riches nobility c. This plainly sheweth that Adam at the first was made in a state of dependance upon the true God which could not be but he must be endued with a great measure of spiritual knowledge and in his judgement at least he must discerne that excellency that is in God Further the Apostle speaketh ye have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him Col. 3.10 By knowledge he doth not point so much to that which is literal hystorical and textual but to that which is spiritual by which the Saints come to be cloathed with a new nature Secondly he saith is renewed which importeth the restitution of that knowledge that man once had but had lost by his fall In a sence therefore we may say that the knowledge of the Saint is a kinde of remembrance and that saying of Plato is not to much out of the way Thirdly is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him This plainly sheweth that in the old and the new creation a man is made after the image of God and this image doth
principally stand in the divineness of the light Some differences there are between the knowledge which Adam had before his fall and the knowledge that is renewed in the Saints Adam had it by creation they have it by inspiration Adam could propagate it to his posterity they cannot propagate it to posterity Adams knowledge was without the sight of his misery their knowledge when they do begin to know as they ought to know doth begin with the sight of their misery Lastly Adams knowledge was not so perfect but the Saints knowledge shall be most perfect in degree when they come to live in the state of glory These circumstances considered respecting the manner there is some difference to be made yet in substance both kinds of knowlege is one and the same For though it did not belong to Adam to know his misery and to believe in a Christ yet the righteousness of the moral law did appertaine to him It did belong to him to love God to feare him to trust in him to obey him c. Now how could all this possibly be done but he must know him and believe him therefore his knowledge must needs be spiritual before his fall We come now to the next point he endeavours to prove that infants by the sinne of Adam are not heires of damnation We need not in this matter be careful to give him an answer If it be a question de jure we say the sin of Adam is such and Original sin in its own nature is such that it doth deserve damnation But if it be a question de facto there is no such need that we should possitively affirme the actual damnation of infants They that be saved we may safely affirme are saved by the mercy of God and they that are damned God can cleare his justice in their condemnation though in all things the reason of his proceeding is not so intelligible to us And our Author himselfe I beleeve when he hath well pondred the businesse will finde it to be more safe to rest in such a determination But as for his arguments they are fallacious in many particulars For most of them I have answered in the former part of the treatise And for the residue I shall have occasion to speak of them afterwards Here only foure things are to be noted in the general First by the same reasons as he doth overturne damnation by the sin of Adam any Jew or Turk may overthrow salvation by the merit of Christ For why may not such a one argue the death of Christ was an act of his and none of ours he suffered many hundred yeares ago What he did we cannot be said to do either vertually or interpretively in him or by him we had no being at all that our wills should be contained in his His sufferings were without any knowledge and consent of ours and wherefore should any benefit arise to us If there be any such thing why should it so many ages together be concealed from the greatest part of mankind Most of his arguments do go after this way and by the same reasons that he takes away the guilt of sin by the disobedience of the first man by the same he doth destroy all possibility of salvation by the second Secondly other of his reasons do go too far in questioning the absolute power justice and sovereignty of God As he would have men to be temperate in such speeches that seem to condemn infants to hell for the fault of another so he also should be more moderate in those sayings that question the power and the justice of God What is or what shall be the whole course of the Lords proceeding against infants that dye in original sin is variously disputed some speak of a Limbus infantum whither those infants go that dye without baptisme Others speak of the penalty of losse without a penalty of sense A third sort dreame of I know not what common receptacle where infants as well as the souls of others do still remaine in expectation of the resurrection But sure I am none do speak more dangerously and desperately than they that except against the justice and the mercy of God now in this our Author is too bold Thirdly in all his reasons he goes against that which he teacheth elsewhere For in sundry places he sheweth that without the infusion of supernatural grace no man neither infant nor other can enter into the Kingdome of heaven Againe he saith that by the fall of Adam mankind came to be divested and disrobed of those supernatural excellencies that formerly he had Now by the position of these two I leave it to any man to judge infants as now borne in their natural condition whether are they capable of salvation whatsoever he may say in words he and we as to this point may agree in the same principles But in his answer to the Bishops letter he seems to be of opinion that infants went neither to heaven nor hell at least such a collection may be drawn from his words Just so it is saith he in infants Hell was not made for man but for devils and therefore it must be something besides meere nature that must beare any man thither meer nature neither goes to heaven nor hell pag. 17. In which words of his we acknowledge it to be true in a sense that meer nature doth not carry a man to heaven or hell for that which is not true at all cannot carry a man any whither The Sophisters do indeed speak of the creation of man in puris naturalibus in his pure naturals but I no where finde that God did ever make or did intend to make any man in such estate that was neither good nor evil I know no such meer nature to be found in any part of the habitable earth and therefore it is some way a truth in this abstract consideration that a pure nature carries a man no whether But he hath another meaning in which he is greatly mistaken for under that notion and consideration as infants are now borne this nature depraved carryeth only to hell We were by nature the children of wrath as well as others Eph. 2.2 3. But here perhaps he will except by such a tenet as this all infants will be necessitated to damnation Not so neither they will be borne only in a nature lyable to damnation But by our doctrine we do not say that they must be all damned I see nothing to the contrary but Christ is as well able to save them from the pollution and corruption of the natural birth as well as if they were all reduced to that imaginary state that he speaks of Concerning this matter he delivers his judgement in his answer to the Bishops letter When I affirme that infants being by Adam reduced and left to their meer natural estate fall short of heaven I do not say they cannot go to heaven at all but they cannot go thither by their natural
powers they cannot without a new grace and favour go to heaven But then it cannot presently be inferred that therefore they go to hell but this ought to be inferred which indeed was the real consequent of it therefore it is necessary that Gods grace should supply this defect if God intends heaven to them at all and because nature cannot God sent a Saviour by whom it was effected so far he pag. 15. Now I leave it to any man to judge whither the same mutatis mutandis may not be said of our opinion though infants are borne in Original sin and are by nature the children of wrath yet they may be saved by grace By all this it is evident that we are as faire for the salvation of infants as he is and by the same doore as he goes out we will go out at the same And for the sayings of our writers I have three things to answer First some speak more mildly in the point rather inclining to the salvation than the damnation of infants Junius in his collation de naturâ gratiâ hath these words Nemo nostrum it a fuerit aut furere compertus est c. There is none of ours that is so mad or was ever found so void of reason who would simply affirme infants to be damned They which teach otherwise let themselves look to it by what right they moy do it and by what authority it may be done For although in respect of their own selves and that common nature of ours they may be in a state lyable to damnation it follows not that we should passe the sentence of damnation upon them c. In the processe of his discourse he giveth sundry reasons First the promise of God to believers and their natural seed Secondly his mercy to thousands and that through many descents where the Ancestors have sometimes belonged to the Covenant Thirdly The judgement of charity seeing it is the Lords pleasure to take them away in their infancy we may presume that by that fatherly act of his he intends to receive them to mercy Other testimonies may be brought of such that have gone in the milder way but these shall suffice A second sort of our Expositiors there are that do pitch more hard They say that some infants may go to hell yet they moderate their sentence as Chamier Non abhorret a verisimilitudine paenas eorum esse mitissimas It is very probable their punishments are most mild A third sort leave the matter wholly in suspence they think it sufficient to believe that all infants are borne in a state lyable to damnation they have in them the seeds of all evil yet for all this they conceive that God may shew mercy in and through Christ specially to the infants of such that do belong to the Covenant specially where conscience is made to enter them into the outward visible Church by baptisme And this is all that we will say of this question Leaving this businesse of the state of infants and reserving to God the secrets of election or non-election we will come to the point that is more useful and more easie to be understood And here he questions whether Adam did debauch our nature and corrupt our will and manner by his fall And if he did it he further enquires after the manner how it was done First whether it was done by a natural or physical efficiency of sin it selfe Secondly whether was it because we are all in the loynes of Adam or Thirdly whether was the sentence and the decree of God the cause thereof he hath foure arguments against a physical efficiency which we have in part handled already and shall have occasion to speak afterwards And therefore to avoid repetition we will come to the second branch whether Adam did debauch our nature because we are all in his loynes Against this he hath sundry reasons that follow in order By the same reason saith he we are guilty of all the sins that he committed while we were in his loynes there being no imaginable reason why the first should be propagated and not the rest Answ As I have formerly shewed so I declare againe the pollution of nature can only be propagated from the first sin because in that only Adam did act as a publick man in which sence the Apostle calls him the figure of him that is to come But of this I have spoken already Secondly upon this account saith he all the sins of all our progenitours will be imputed to us because we were in their loynes when they sinn'd them Answ Not so neither for though we were in their loynes when they sinned yet in a strict sence they are only vehicula so many conduit pipes of the conveyances of the nature from the first root To speak properly there are only two roots of the nature Adam the root of corruption to all his branches Christ the root of grace and spiritual life to all his branches If any question be made of the truth of this there is every where in the doctrine of St. Paul an antithesis between the flesh and the spirit between the old man and the new betwixt generation and regeneration betwixt Adam and Christ Between these two there is a plaine opposition in three things in point of justification Secondly in point of sanctification Thirdly in point of the resurrection from the dead And therefore whereas the first man by his act brings us under the guilt of sin the second washes away the guilt of sin by his blood and whereas the first man pollutes our nature and is the root of the corruption of nature the second man sanctifies our nature and is the root of a new nature to all his branches And whereas the first man did bring in death and all the miseries of nature upon our bodies that lead to death the second man frees us from all these by the resurrection from the dead But he further alledgeth Thirdly Sin saith he is seated in the will it is an action and so transient and when it dwels or abides it abides no where but in the will by approbation and love to which is naturally consequent a readinesse in the inferiour faculties to obey and act accordingly and therefore sin doth not infect our meer natural faculties but the will only and not that in the natural capacity but in its moral only Answ Though it be true that sin is principally seated in the will yet we shall finde all along that the Scriptures do lay great weight upon the blindnesse and the perversity of the judgement and as in the old creation so it is in the new The first work that is done is the creation of light Besides the Christ-like disposition is begun and carried on by degrees and all this by the renovation of light The understanding is first enlightned and then the will comes to choose the things of God Further let it be supposed that sin is only seated in the will
Great difference is to be made between the will of other sinners and the will of the first man The will of other sinners doth only redundare in personam it doth encrease the habit of sin in their own persons alone the will of the first man did redundare in naturam it did vitiate and deprave the whole nature as we have formerly shewed And yet thirdly whereas he saith that sin doth infect the will not in its natural capacity but in its moral only This expression of his must under favour be taken with a graine of salt We do willingly yield that the will is morally or rather spiritually corrupt because she wents that holinesse that purity and righteousnesse which the law requires yet if we look to the reasons of things the corruption was brought into the will by the fall of Adam They then do not speak improperly that call the corruption of the will pravitatem physicomoralem It is a moral depravation because it is against the rectitude of the moral law it is a natural depravation because it flows from the first man as the root of corruption For the proofe of the latter let us have recourse to that place of the Apostle ye have put off the old man with his deeds and have put on the new man In these words of his there is a direct opposition between the old man and the new By the old man he meaneth the pravity and corruption of nature which though it hath had its being in hundreds thousands and millions of men yet originally all comes out of one root In this regard the whole nature is called by the title of the old man So proportionably the Christ-like disposition though it hath been diffused into infinite persons who have lived in several ages of the Church yet the whole nature doth originally proceed out of one root and therefore in this regard is elegantly called by the title of the new man Secondly the opposition is between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their being uncloathed and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their being cloathed upon By this way of expression the Apostle doth insinuate the corrupt disposition of the flesh is that which the soul is cloathed upon which cloathing she had from Adam the root of corruption Now the believing Colossians because they had a living principal within and had begun to put off and did so continue in putting off the old man he speaks of it as a work already done ye have put off the old man with his deeds So likewise the new nature or the Christ-like disposition is here resembled to a garment with which they were cloathed upon because they had begun and did so continue to put it on by degrees he doth speak of it as a matter already effected ye have put on the new man From all which we gather the pravity of the will though it be in its own nature a moral or rather spiritual obliquity Yet respecting the cause it proceeds from Adam the root of corruption If this truth be not admitted we shall crosse and hinder the very chief designe of the Gospel For the corruption of nature being laid in the first Adam it doth cast us all upon the seeking longing desiring the new nature that is to be had from the second Fourthly saith he to him that considers it it will seem strange and monstrous that a moral obliquity in a single instance should make an universal change in a natural suscipient and in a natural capacity Answ This is no more strange then true we say that Adams disobedience was a moral obliquity and he by that single act of his did cause an universal change in the whole nature of man By it the souls of men come to be cloathed upon with the habit of sin and their bodies with corruption And if he or any man else shall marvel at this they must upon this account wonder at the chiefe foundations of the Gospel For we will not doubt to say in the parallel case as the Lord Christ did humble himselfe to the death of the crosse it was in genere moris a moral obedience he did obey the command of his Father Yet by this one act of his he did make a change not only in a moral but also in a natural suscipient he did a thing by and through which the souls of the Saints may be freed from inward pravity and corruption and their bodies raised from the dead at the last day Phil. 3. ult Fifthly He reasons no man can transmit a good habit a grace or a virtue By natural generation as a great Scholars son cannot be borne with learning c. and how can it be that a naughty quality should be more apt to be disseminated than a good one when it is not in the goodnesse or badnesse of the quality that hinders his dissemination but its being an acquired and superinduced quality that makes it cannot naturally descend Answ We willingly yield that a good quality is as apt to be disseminated as a bad and therefore had Adam stood he had disseminated the image of God to the posterity that did come of him But seeing that he fell by his fall he doth now disseminate Original corruption to all his branches Further though Adam doth disseminate corruption by natural generation mankind is not left under an absolute necessity of perishing as long as a second Adam is prepared to disseminate grace and spiritual life by regeneration Excellent is that speech of Hillary upon the fourty eighth Psalm Quoniam animarum medicus non venit vocare justos c. Because the Physitian of souls came not to call the just but sinners to repentance therefore he ordained that whatsoever was worst in every company should be soonest called Of all men living upon the earth the heathen were the worst yet they were the soonest called Further whereas our Author saith that a great Schollars son cannot be borne with learning and the child of a Judge cannot upon his birth-day give wise sentences the reason is plaine personal priviledges and acquired habits do not naturally descend But with the two Adams the case is far otherwise for they have a nature to communicate to all their branches The first doth communicate it by generation the second by regeneration as we have formerly proved And whereas he argues How can a quality morally bad be directly and regularly transmitted by an action morally good and since that neither God that is the Maker of all doth amisse and the Father that begets sins not and the child that is begotten cannot sin by what conveyance can any positive evil be derived to posterity To this we say that the body and the soul are both the workmanship of God yet both may be made the subject and the seat of sin through the temptation of Sathan and a vitious propagation Neither is the evil any way to be ascribed to the Creatour but to the temptation of Sathan and the
not break Mat. 12.20 Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden Mat. 11.28 Will not your heavenly Father give his Spirit to them that ask it Luk. 11.13 and many more places of the like nature This is the whole answer which our Divines do commonly give when they speak of the necessity of sinning and of the inability which is brought upon man by the fall of Adam In this case they do not simply and absolutely deny all abilitie for then of what use would exhortations reproofes and commands be Only they deny a natural ability and such an ability which our Author seems to plead for Next he tells us It is all one with the case of voluntary and affected ignorance He that refuseth knowledge lest he should understand his duty and he that disables himselfe that he may not do it may be punisht not only for not doing it but for making it impossible to be done But that was not Adams case so far as we know it is certaine that it was not ours in the matter of his sin Answ We confesse that we did neither personally nor individually disable our selves in the matter of his sinne but he that stood in our stead did voluntarily disable himself and us too And therefore his will doth interpretively virtually and potentially go for the will of the whole nature as we have formerly proved Perhaps he will say how can we be justly punished if we are disabled by the act of another This would have some colour provided that there were no Christ no grace no mercy to be had Our great fault is that we do not seek for help where help is to be found But saith he If a man commits a fault that doth accidentally disable him as if he eate too much and be sick the next day and fall into a fever he may indeed and is justly punished for his gluttony but he is not punishable for omitting that which in his present weaknesse he can no way performe Answ Here he speaks as if we did leave men to strive with an unavoidable necessity whereas the necessity of sinning is not absolute for that which is unavoidable by nature may be avoidable by grace And to the particular case suppose a centinal drink too much and through his default a great party of the Army come to have their throats cut will he say that he is onely to be punished for his drunkennesse but is not punishable for the omitting of that which in his present weaknesse he was not able to performe By the laws of the land he should onely pay five shillings Next he saith In lawes to be imposed afterwards the case is otherwise because the persons are not capable of any such law and God knowing they cannot performe cannot intend they should and therefore cannot justly punish them for not doing which himselfe did never heartily intend they should do because he knew they could not Ans If this be so let him give a reason why the old world was drowned in the waters of the flood All flesh had corrupted their way and if he himself may beleived the reason was not so much from the corruption of nature but because Gods laws did command such things which were a restraint to the indifferent and otherwise lawful inclinations of nature Besides he tells us that they had no spiritual promises in those times The commands were heightned above all natural abilities spiritual promises were denyed God never intended if he speak true that his Laws should be obeyed he knew they could not Let him fairly tell us the reason then why the old world was drowned Now on the contrary we say no such thing the commandment was given to Adam in proportion to the abilities he had in possession he falling all ability is to be had from Christ in the covenant of grace And there was a covenant of grace sutable to the times that were before the flood Jesus Christ yesterday and today and the same for ever Heb. 13.8 But now in the close of this Section we will speak a little practically to the purpose in hand You will say why doth God give commands above natural ability It is to this end that in the sense of their own emptinesse men should go to Christ when they so come they shall be graciously received You will say how doth that appear I answer As by the general tenders of the Word so specially by that place Ho every one that thirsteth come ye to the waters and he that hath no money come ye buy and eat yea come by wine and milk without money and without price Isaiah 55.1 Here many things are to be observed First by wine and milk are understood the spiritual comforts and excellencies of the Gospel for as wine and milk are truely refreshing to the bodies of men So are these really sweet to their spiritual taste Secondly by buying of wine and milk is meant the earnest seeking after these things in all those wayes that the Lord hath sanctified and in all those means where they may be found Thirdly without money or price It would be thought a solecisme in merchandizing to buy a Cow and Horse and a parcel of Sheep and give no money for them Usually men buy when they give an equivolent price But in matter of salvation we have no ability of our own all ability is to be had from the freenesse and fulness of the promise Fourthly the persons invited Ho every one that thirsteth come to the waters c. In matters of the world men may have a great desire after riches long life honours favour of Princes popular applause and yet they may never attain what they desire nay the thing desired as their own shadow may flee from them But in matters of salvation the case is otherwise If men truly desire and continue desiring praying longing waiting they cannot misse what they desire The greatest part of the work is done already and all the residue doth remain upon the fidelity and the truth of the Promiser to make good Lastly it is spoken to every one that thirsteth There are divers degrees and kinds of spiritual thirsting some that are scorched with the feeling of the wrath of God earnestly desire salvation and remission of sinne by Christs blood and these commonly are the first desires of those that are babes in Christ Others feeling the bondage of corruption do as earnestly long for that spiritual freedome that is to be had from the Son A third sort go higher they desire the excellency of Christ purely for that excellency that is in himself they do not love him so much for his portion as for his person I count all things but losse for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord Phil. 3.8 A fourth sort go to the highest point They love the appearing of the Lord Jesus which others do tremble at and the Spirit and the Bride say come and let him that heareth say
only to call him a very wicked person but not that he had derived his sin originally and from his birth for that had been their own case as much as his To all which we reply the Pharisees might think him or his Parents to be some great sinners because he was borne blind for the disciples themselves did put such a kinde of question to our Saviour himselfe did this man or his parents sin that he was borne blinde verse the second Further suppose that the Pharisees had been of the judgement that it had been this mans peculiar infelicity and that it was not the common misery of man to be borne in original sin must their errour be a prejudice to the truth Nicodemus himselfe was darke in the point of regeneration must his ignorance be a rule to us Secondly saith he if David had meant it literally it had not signified that himselfe was borne in original sin but his Father and his Mother sinn'd when they begot him Reply It s very rational to conceive that his Father that went for an old man in the dayes of Saul and his Mother that bare him specially he being the youngest were both dead at the time of the making of the Psalm To what purpose should he confesse the sinne of the dead and pray for the dead But suppose he did confesse the sin of his Parents he must needs look upon them as the conduit-pipes and the conveyances of the corruption of the nature from the first root This doth strengthen the truth of our interpretation and therefore he doth devoutly and pathetically pray Create in me a cleane heart renew within me a right spirit wash me with hysop and I shall be cleane Thirdly saith he if it did relate to his own person he might meane that he was begotten with that sanguine disposition and libidinous temper that was the original of his vile adultery and then though David said this truely of himselfe it is not true of all nor of those whose temper is flegmatick and unactive Reply By this rule we may gather that the phlegmatick and unactive whatsoever the sanguine be are free from original sinne and that it doth not belong so much to Divines as to Physicians to judge of the sin of the nature But in this he is greatly deceived David doth not confesse the sinne of adultery alone but the sin of murther deliver me from blood-guiltinesse thou God of my righteousnesse verse the sixteenth Nay that which did principally affect him was his unbeliefe unthankfulnesse neglect and contempt of the goodnesse and mercy of God and his making the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme And therefore he saith Against thee thee only have I sinned verse the sixth Though he had sinned against Vriah against himselfe and against the Church yet the most aggravating circumstance was that he had sinned against God This we may see in the parable of Nathan who thereupon did argue with him upon the considerations of mercies received so then when the Psalmist saith I was borne in iniquity he hath not respect only to the libidinous temper but also to a sinful temper of a more general nature Fourthly saith he if David had meant this of himselfe and that in regard of original sin this had been so far from being a penitential expression or a confessing of his sinne that it had been a plaine accusation of God and an excusing of himselfe As if he had said O Lord I confesse I have sinned in this horrible murther and adultery but thou O Lord knowest how it comes to passe even by that fatal punishment which thou didst for the sin of Adam inflict on me and all mankind above three thousand years before I was borne Thereby making me to fall into so horrible corruption of nature that unlesse thou didst unresistibly force me from it I cannot abstaine from my sin being most naturally enclined to evil Reply To all which we rejoyne though there was a necessity laid upon David as upon other men to be borne in original sinne and this three thousand years before he was borne yet neverthelesse it will be no plea to excuse his murther and adultery For howsoever he was borne in sinne his murther and adultery were his own voluntary acts Ordinary experience shewetn by the common assistance of God that men have a power to avoid many outward evils to which their natures are enclined Further for the inward lust though it was inflicted as a punishment upon him as upon all mankind this can be no charge upon God seeing he hath provided a remedy to help men out of their misery David had rather cause to accuse himselfe for fulfilling the lusts of his nature and for the neglecting of that grace that was promised to him and to other believers in the Jewish Church to cleanse out the sin of the nature I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed that thou mightest love the Lord thy God Deut. 30.6 So then though David was born in original sin the fruits of that sinne were his own voluntary acts and the living in that sinne also was his own free choise Bernard in his Homily 81. on the Canticles hath an excellent passage to this purpose Homo interveniente peccato patitur quandam vincet ipse c. Man by the intervening of sin he himselfe doth suffer a kinde of necessity from his will not from nature that so truely he may not be deprived of his inbred liberty For that the soul cannot rise of her selfe the will is the cause who languishing and laying prostrate with the vitiated and vicious love of a corrupted body doth not withal admit the love of righteousnesse It is so I know not by what wounderful meane the will being made worse she her selfe doth make a necessity to her selfe That the necessity while its voluntary may not be able to excuse the will Neither the will while t is drawn may have power to shake off the necessity for truely after a sort this is a voluntary necessity In these words of his he doth elegantly set forth the truth of the thing and therein he doth liken the soul to a man grovelling upon the earth he cannot rise because he will not He will not rise because his nature doth encline him to lye down under the power of his lusts And this was Davids very case he was born in iniquity and he did freely and voluntarily bring forth the fruits that were the very product and result of a sinful nature he did too much neglect the grace by which he might be cured and though his necessity was natural respecting the inclinations that came from his birth yet also it was a voluntary necessity All natural men do account the liberty of lusts to be the greatest freedome and therefore they be not captives so much against as with their wills The first step therefore to salvation is as to understand the guilt of sinne so also the spiritual captivity and
nature Infants are born in a sinful nature and do need the sanctification of the Spirit But he hath a passage out of Suidas when the Apostle saith you were by nature the children of wrath he means not that which is the usual signification of nature for then it were not their fault but the fault of him that made them such To which we rejoyn In men of ripe years it is both their fault that they do abide in the sinne of the nature and it is also the fault of Adam that did vitiate and deprave the nature at his fall That men do fulfill the lusts of the flesh and mind is their own voluntary act And though indeed and in truth it is not their personal fault that men are born in original sinne yet it is their fault that they fulfill the lusts of their nature and continue in that state at least that they do not use and hearken to those precursory motions and previous workings of the Spirit which the Lord doth administer to them at some seasons at least The end of all which is to bring them out of the evil of that state The first workes of the Spirit are to reprove to convince to accuse to terrifie men to humble them for their evil deeds that so they may come to Christ for pardon of their sin and for the healing of their nature But here they wilfully shut out the light will not see what they may and this will be the great condemnation Joh. 3.18 19 and 20 verses He goes on By nature the Apostle saith he means not by birth natural extraction or any other original derivation from Adam Rep. By the same reason he might argue that the Ephesians when they were quickned had not a new life by regeneration or spiritual extraction out of the second Adam which is immediatly opposed to the other as the counterpane or the other part of a deed In seeking to deny the misery by the first he must take away the happinesse grace and life that comes in by the second man But he gives his reason The Ephesians were no more guilty than every one else and no more before their conversion than after We say the same in effect and it is the force of our argument because all need a new life a new birth a new extraction out of the second Adam as well as the Ephesians therefore all are equally by nature the children of wrath and do partake of the sinne of the nature as well as they But whereas he addes that the Ephesians were no more guilty of this sinne before conversion than they were after in this he is monstrous absurd For after conversion the guilt of that sinne was done away and the power of it was broken by the inward work of the Spirit now he cannot say that this was done before their conversion He further addeth By nature the children of wrath must be expounded as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really and truly the children of wrath it is agreeable to the usuage of the same phrase Galatians 4.8 Ye did service to them that by nature were no gods that is which really are none Repl. We may understand the meaning of the Apostle in this Scripture by comparing it with others God that made the world and all that is therein dwelleth not in Temples made with hands Acts 17.24 The invisible things of him are clearly seen from the creation of the world even his eternal power and Godhead Rom 1.20 So in the present case when the Galatians did service to those that by nature were not gods his meaning is no other but this they did service to them that had not the essence and the being of the Godhead As in a little case the nature of Birds Beasts and Fishes is taken for the essence and the being it self As in the expression of Saint James every kinde of Birds that is every nature of Birds Beasts and Fishes is tamed and hath been tamed by mankind or according to the original by the nature of man So in the present case when the Apostle saith that the Ephesians were by nature the children of wrath he doth not say onely that they were really and truly the children of wrath For so they might be by ill-custome when their nature was good as the water is really and truely hot though it be not naturally hot But his meaning is this that their very essence and being was sinful and that their corruption was in the very nature it self as they did derive out of Adam a common root The scope of the text doth plainly shew that this is the meaning the sinfulnesse of nature immediately opposed to that life spiritualnesse and new nature they had from the second Adam And whereas he saith as these Ephesians were before their conversion so were the Israclites in the dayes of their rebellion a wicked stubborne people insomuch that they are by the Prophet called children of transgression a seed of falshood All this doth confirme the truth of our interpretation he calleth them a seed of evil doers meaning that they were not onely sinners by custome and evil ensample but by propagation of the kind Let him grant this in the case of the Ephesians and the question is at an end This is all that he hath in his Vnum Necessarium Now let us consider what further he saith to this Scripture in his answer to the Bishops letter Here he tells us that these words do not at all relate to the matter of original but to the state of Heathens sinnes habitual Idolatries and impurities in which the world was dead before the great Reformation by Christ page 74. Repl. By this account when the Ephesians had a new life infused this was onely to cure them of their heathenish Idolatries and superstitions In which sense the Jewes free from such Idolatries needed no new life at all Besides how is it possible that the words are to be understood onely of heathenish Idolatries and impurities when the Apostle himself expressely saith among whom we all had our conversation Did he live in heathenish Idolatries before his conversion or was he an Idolater before his calling But seeing our Authour tells us how the Bishop did admonish him to remember how often the Apostle calleth concupiscence sinne we will urge the text a little more closely and consider what is the value of his answers To ground the businesse we argue thus If the Ephesians were accounted the children of wrath because they had their conversation in the lusts of the flesh by this reason then the flesh must needs be evil because it was evil to converse in those lusts Further to come to the point If the lusts of the flesh be evil it must be true in a sense that the flesh it self must be more evil because it is the very fountain from which the lusts do streame When he hath said all that he can when he hath accused the Ephesians of an evil
conversation of evil customes of evil acts of evil desires he must come to an evil nature that lies at the bottome and that which is worst of all he will find it to be the very root and cause of the the mischief The Apostle doth very elegantly call all lusts the works and effects of the flesh because they are the effects that the flesh doth produce in opposition to the effects and fruits of the Spirit Gal. 5.19 20 21. This ground being laid let us come to his exceptions as they follow in their order First saith he I know Saint Paul reckons concupiscence to be one of the works of the flesh and consequently such as excludes from heaven Col. 3.5 Evil concupiscence concupiscence with something superadded but certainly that is nothing that is natural for God made nothing that is evil and whatsoever is natural and necessary cannot be mortified Repl. That which is natural and necessary by creation we confesse cannot nor ought not to be mortified Of this kind is the lust after meat drink sleep c. but that which is natural and necessary by corruption ought chiefly to be mortified nay it is the prime work of Christianity to put off the Adam-like and by degrees to put on the Christ-like disposition Gal. 5.24 He proceedeth I come saith he to consider that by concupiscence either must be meant the first inclinations to their object or the proper acts of Election which are the second acts of concupiscence If the first inclinations be meant then certainly that cannot be a sinne which is natural and necessary Repl. We do willingly admit such a distinction concupiscence is sometime taken for the habit or the root it self and sometimes for those second acts that do flow from the root Now in such a case it is to me a great wonder that any should own the second acts of concupiscence to be sinne and yet own no sinfulnesse in the concupiscence that is more radical and fundamental Acts do flow from the nature and therefore where acts be bad the nature cannot be good It is our Saviours own argument Men do not gather grapes of thornes nor figs of thistles And whereas he stands upon this subtilty that the first inclinations are unavoidable therefore they are not sinful If he means that they are absolutely unavoidable this we deny For that which is unavoidable by nature may be avoided by grace The guilt of concupiscence may be taken away that it be not imputed the power of it may be broken by the Spirit and the remainders of it may be clean extinguished in the life of glory Now he proceedeth To desire that to which all men tend naturally is no more a sin than to desire to be happy is a sin Desire is no more a sin than joy or sorrow is Repl. If he speak of the natural tendency of desire as it is by creation We willingly subscribe and so it is no sinne to desire to eat drink or to long after an happy estate But if he speak of natural desires as they are now since the fall The desires of the flesh do wholly rend to evil The flesh lusteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the Spirit and the works of the flesh are manifest adultry fornication c. Gal. 5.18 c. He further argues Then there can be no reason told why it is more a sin to will evil than to understand it and how doth that which is moral differ from that which is natural For the understanding is first and primely moved by his object Rep. The Scripture doth testifie of the blindnesse of the minde and the perversity of the judgement as well as of the pravity of the will Not to go far for an instance the words of the text are plaine The Ephesians are said to be the children of wrath under this title and formality because they did fulfill the lusts of their minde or according to the original the wills of their cogitations and their reasonings They are tearmed the wills of the cogitation because the choise of the will and the disorder of that choise doth arise commonly from the blindnesse of judgement As for his question how doth that which is natural differ from that which is moral We need not trouble our selves in the businesse For the blindnesse of the judgement and the perversity of the will are natural and moral both They are natural so far forth as they come by propagation from the first root they are moral in respect of the anomy and irregularity as being contrary to the spiritual holy and pure law of God He goeth on I cannot but wonder saith he why men are pleased where-ever they finde the word concupiscence in the new Testament presently to dreame of original sinne and make that to be the summe total of it whereas concupiscence if it were the product of Adams fall is but one small part of it Rep. There is a double reason may be given as I conceive where men finde mention made of concupiscence they do thereby understand original sinne First because that sinne is commonly called by the title of concupiscence Secondly Those derivative concupiscences as I may so say which are by choice and election do all flow from the mother concupiscence and do exceedingly symbolize with her As in that famous passage of the Apostle Every man is drawn away with his own lust and enticed and lust when it hath conceived it bringeth forth sinne and sinne when it is finished bringeth forth death Jam. 1.14 15. By sinne he must needs meane the open act of sinne as it is in the publick view of man After this he speaks of finishing of sinne when men have filled the measure of their iniquity then death comes at last as the wages of sin Though this be so in the end yet at the first all sin is brooded in the lust of the heart All secondary acts of concupiscence do spring from the original concupiscence which is the cause of all Upon these grounds The sinful disposition of the nature may well passe under the name and notion of concupiscence because the operations within do chiefly consist in lusting and all the acts of sinne do flow from the lust of the heart within Concupiscence saith he is but one of the passions and in the utmost extension of the word it can be taken but for one halfe of the passions for not only all the passions of the concupiscible faculty can be a principle of sinne but the irascible doth more hurt in the world that is more sensual this more devilish pag. 94. Rep. It is true in moral Philosophy the usual distinction is into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the irascible and concupiscible faculty but what need is there of such a difference in the case that we now speak for the Apostle reckons up the lusts of the flesh adultery fornication uncleannesse hatred variance emulation c. Gal. 5.19 There is no man will
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
And for infants though we hold them guilty of sinne by the disobedience of the first man what detriment or dammage is this to them as long as mercy is extended through the obedience of the second man By all that I can understand these men are afraid of nothing more than that Christ should have too much honour given to him in releeving the miserable lost sonnes of men otherwise they would never stand so much as they do upon the purity of the natural birth SECT 2. NOW let us heare what answers they return to our arguments And here I say they are extreamely fallacious for as they do not produce some of our arguments which have most cogent proof so they do mention others which are of small moment which is scarce honest dealing But for the places which they do alledge there are four in number which do carry some weight with them First from that place Gen. 8.21 for the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth they gather thus much Even as Esau or Edom though he had a birth-right yet sold it in his youth to satisfie some strong desires kindled in him so men though created innocent do in the time of temptation and tryall too often and too soon yield unto the temptation and sell or forfeit that their innocency and birth-right and so their imaginations become evil from their youth but are not so from their birth unlesse you here understand a spiritual conception or birth in sinne by our personal fall page 71. In this I do agree with them that men in time of their tempration too often and too easily fall from God thorough their own actual disobedience This is a part but it is not the whole truth for if they had compared the text as they should have done with Gen. 6. ver 3.4 5. they would finde that both Scriptures speak of the sinne of the nature First the Lord saith my Spirit shall not alway strive with man for that he also is flesh ver 3. As who would say in plainer times because his nature is defiled I will destroy him from the earth Secondly the whole nature must needs be depraved because the principles and lively fountaines are corrupt every imagination of the thoughts of his heart are evil Thirdly the universality of the depravation it is not spoken of this or that particular imagination but every imagination of his heart is evil and that which is more it is onely evil without the combination connexion and commixture of any good Fourthly the perpetuity of the time in the one text it is said the thoughts of his heart are onely evil continually and in the other the imagination of mans heart is evil from his childhood If we put altogether we may plainly see that there is a depravation of nature that this depravation is generally in all parts and in all times from the very birth and conception And for that example of Esau which they alledge that he sold his birth-right that primogeniture was a special priviledge in the family of the Patriarchs but what is this to every mans natural birth-right can he forfeit that natural innocency which he never had Again Esau did sell his birth-right at a certain time of his age by a deliberate and a free choyce when Jacob and he were come near to mans estate and therefore the Apostle saith Let there be no profane person among you as Esau who for one morsel of meat sold his birth right Heb. 12.16 Now it is otherwise with the the words of the text there it is expressed that the thoughts of the imaginations of his heart are evil from his childhood As much in sense as that the whole nature is depraved and that depravation doth beginne from the very birth Secondly for the texts cited out of Job I do agree with the Examiners in the general that those wise men speaking of the purity of God in relation to the imperfection of the creature do oftentimes use an hyperbolical way of expression As in that passage of Eliphaz behold he putteth no trust in his Saints yea the heavens are not clear in his sight Job 15.15 I do agree also that men do voluntarily corrupt themselves how much more abominable and filthy is man who drinketh iniquity like water ver 16. Though these things be true yet they do not contain the whole truth nor the Emphasis of that Scripture for the words immediately going before are concerning the natural generation of man what is man that he should be clean and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous ver 14. The same in substance is spoken by Job himself touching the natural birth who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean not one Chap. 14 4. Both Scriptures do plainly shew that the nature is defiled because it doth proceed from so unclean a fountain And this doth agree with the doctrine of our Saviour when he presseth a necessity of regeneration that which is born of flesh is flesh therfore there is a necessity that man should be born again The whole force of the argument is thus much in effect from the greater to the lesse If the heavens and the Saints which are the more perfect creatures are not pure in the sight of God what righteousnesse is in man who is defiled with original sinne even from the very birth This is the natural sense of the words of Eliphas Thirdly to that place Psal 51.5 behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sinne did my mother conceive me they answer We would say they First gladly know of you whether it be not Davids scope in this confession to aggravate his sinne But if he here pleadeth the inevitable corruption of nature which you hold forth his words will be found a meere extenuation of his offences if not a throwing off all or most of the blame upon God who had brought him forth so corrupt and averse to all good and so propense to all evil and that without hope of an absolute cure while he was in this world page 75. Where is the honesty and conscience of these men when they patch that upon others which is none of their doctrine For where can they shew that either the Assembly of Divines or any other serious Authors did ever teach that the nature of man is corrupt and propense to evil without any hope of cure while he is in this world and that in this case man doth lie under an inevitable necessity Do not the Assembly of Divines and all other Authors almost speak of the Covenant of grace after they have shewed the misery of nature For though the nature of man is wholly defiled yet from Christ there is hope to have the nature cleansed Though David was born in original sinne yet he was not destitute of a remedy he beleeved the grace of God made known in the promise and therefore prayeth create in me a clean heart renew in me a right