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
they so continue they are in the way to damnation yet we cannot absolutely pronounce concerning the persons themselves it belongeth onely to God to judge of their final and eternal condition And for that place which you alledg that God sweareth that he desireth not the death of him that dyeth I pray you now tel us the particular man in our method and way of teaching hat is not a capable hearer of this doctrine Whatsoever God doth intend in his secret Decrees concerning the eternal state of men what is that to us We must make the tenders proposals and offers of grace according to the termes set down in the Gospel Indeed as men do submit to the promise and do take Christ for their Head so God doth bring about that which he hath determined in his secret will And therefore when you speak concerning this sort of people That they should not beleeve his revealed will at all if they hold his secret will to be the Superiour what good reason can you shew for that for though the secret will of God touching the salvation of his elect be the Superiour yet all the tenders of grace all faith in the promises are but the ordinary way to bring us to salvation Here is no contrariety of will against will but an excellent subordination Because the Lord had many people in the City of Corinth that did belong to him in the determination of his secret will therefore the Apostle had a command to preach the Gospel in that City and he did continue there the space of a year and six moneths Acts 18. ver 10 11. But if it be further objected how can you pray for the salvation of all seeing that the Lord doth determine to passe by a great number of men I answer though it be so we are to do the duty Paul did know that a greater part of the Jewes should be hardened and that a remnant onely should be saved yet for all this he did preach the Gospel and use all means that he might save some of them Rom. 11.7 8 9 10. Augustine one of the greatest assertors of the prerogative of free-grace in his book de correptione gratiâ hath these words We not knowing who belong to the number of the predestinate and who not ought so to be moved with the affection of charity that we should will all men to be saved And so far as it doth appertain to us who are not able to distinguish the predestinate from them who are not predestinate for this very thing because we ought to will all men to be saved we must medicinally use sharp reproof to all men to save them from perishing Dr. Twisse also hath these words moreover of those who are now alive though the greater part of them should be reprobated seeing this is not known to us there is nothing doth hinder but we may make supplications for all Vindic. grat lib. 2. Crimin 4. Sect. 9 Page 91. Many more testimonies I might bring of that kind of people as you call them who maintain the secret will of God to be the more prevailing yet in order to our understanding they shew that we are to look onely unto that which is revealed They do with one heart and with one mouth declare that you must begin at the lower end of the ladder before you can come to the top As for the secret and the revealed will of God though this seem to us to be contradictory there is no contradiction The river that in appearance seemeth to go another way if you follow it by divers mazes turnings it will bring you to the Sea at last But if you further urge how can the sending of Christ into the world to dy for the lost sonnes of men stand with the Decree of election where some onely are chosen to salvation Answ This point is solidly handled by Dr. Davenant in his answer to that book that bears the title Gods love to mankind and in another Treatise of the death of Christ The scope and tenor of the whole discourse is to shew that the non-elect may be partakers of many fruits of the death of Christ though they are not partakers of that grace which will certainly and infallibly bring them to salvation ☞ and so he doth concord the general attonement with the peculiar Decree of election But because this point is exceedingly controverted in these times and is as it were the very rock of offence I will particularly shew how farre I can go along with you First I do agree that by his death the Son hath removed the bar out of the way that hinders the salvation of man For God having once made a Law in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death according to the rigour of the Covenant of works and the strictnesse of divine justice there was no possibility for any mans salvation But the Lord Christ having once satisfied the justice of God and removed the barre there is now a possibility for all the lost sonnes of men to be saved they are brought into a savable condition notwithstanding all the strict demands of satisfaction according to the first Covenant And this I take to be the natural sense of that place which you and others stand so much upon Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men the Man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransome for all to be testified in due time 1 Tim. 2.4 5 6. The scope of which words is briefly this that seeing the Lord Jesus Christ did give himself as a ransome for all men there is a possibility of salvation forall upon termes of repentance and faith Secondly I do agree with you that by the death of Christ the Lord doth shew patience and long-suffering to the rebellious to invite them to repentance Rom. 2.4 And though since the fall of man the thoughts of his heart were evil from his child-hood yet respect being had to the Mediators blood typed in the sacrifice of Noah the promise to the whole world was that the Lord would no more curse the ground for mans sake but seed time and harvest winter and summer day and night should continue to the worlds end Thirdly I do also agree with you in this that the Lord Jesus by the shedding of his blood hath not onely procured a possibility for the lost sonnes of men but also at seasons he doth give them some portions of spirit enabling them to judge themselves And for temporary believers they go so far in the participation of the fruits of the death of the Son as to tast the good Word of God and the powers of the life to come Heb. 6.5 These are the general fruits of the death of Christ and in this sense we may say that he tasted death for every man In what sense then doth Christ dye for the elect
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
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
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
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
spirit He did desire that his defilement by natural generation might be done away by the work of the new creation And whereas these confident men would desire to know whether it be not Davids scope in his confession to aggravate his sinne I answer it is and therefore he doth cry out against the sinne of the nature he doth use the same expression in effect as Paul doth Rom. 7. I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing ver 18. And O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death ver 24. Where we may observe these three points First they who are inwardly and truly enlightned do feel the burden of a carnal mind which they have by natural generation whereas other men account the liberty of lust their greatest freedome Secondly they feeling the propension of their nature wholly to sinne do hereupon aggravate the sinfulnesse of their nature Thirdly by this means they do more highly prize the grace of Christ and that freedome which he doth bring to set them at liberty from the bondage of corruption and the reigne of their lusts Joh. 8.31 32 33. Isa 61.1 2 3. Mat. 12.20 The promise of Christ is that a bruised reed he will not break and the smoaking flax he will not quench untill he have brought forth judgment unto victory By judgment is here meant deliverance from under the tyranny and reign of original sin when men serve divers lusts and pleasures The deliverance from the power of corruption is the judgment meant in the text This deliverance is not wrought in an instant but by degrees and our Saviour is ready to help the weakest that flie to him in a sense of their own misery There is nothing more weak than a bruised reed and the least degree of fire will make flax to smoak Even so if there be the least grace to feel the bondage of corruption the Lord Christ is ready to cherish it and never to leave till he have brought forth judgment unto victory to make men conquerors of their lusts But the ground of all this is to feel the burden of a carnal mind which it is most probable these Censors are strangers to or else they would not so extenuate the sin of the nature as they do Now let us heare what interpretation they give of the Psalmists words It was say they the lie or lying promises of Sathan with the folly therein contained by which he was shapen in iniquitie or conceived in sin pag. 74. And they ground themselves upon that passage that the devil is the father of sin These are their words besides our natural parents we have spiritual fathers and mothers whether for our begetting in evil and iniquity or for our regeneration in grace and goodnesse Concerning our procreation in sin our Saviour speaks thus unto the Jewes Joh. 8.44 Ye are of your father the Devil and his lusts will ye do Now this father makes use of a twofold mother to beget men in wickednesse besides their own lust which when it is enticed and drawn away by temptation conceiveth and bringeth forth sin Jam. 1.14 15. And here first they reckon the lying word or promise by which Sathan deceiveth men and secondly the false Synagogue which thorough Sathans helps begets men in a false faith Page 75. 76. But this glosse will not serve their turn neither for though the Devil be the father of sin he is so onely by temptation and suggestion but the Psalmist speaketh of sin by derivation and propagation I was shapen in iniquitie and in sin did my mother conceive me And for that which they alledge out of the Epistle of St. James he doth onely speak of the order of generation of sin in the heart every man is drawn away of his own lust and enticed and lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin But what is this to the purpose of the Psalmist he doth not speak of the generation of lust or of sin in his heart but he doth speak of his own generation This is evident from the words themselves I was shapen in iniquitie and in sin did my mother conceive me Secondly it is manifest from the words that follow because he was defiled with the pollution of the natural birth by way of opposition he prayeth unto the Lord to create in him a clean heart because his old was defiled therefore he did beg a new nature Fourthly to that place Eph. 2.3 And were by nature the children of wrath as well as others they answer by a distinction It is one thing say they to be sinners from our first nativity and another thing in time to become the children of wrath by our personal fall and actual disobedience which also coming to passe in our natural man and by his default we may truly be said by nature to be the children of wrath when sin by custome becomes a second nature to us Page 78. Here I yield that the Ephesians before their conversion and all other natural men do thorough their own actual disobedience serve divers lusts and pleasures This is the truth but it is not the whole truth If they were only defiled by custome which in a sense may be called a second nature by good custome then they need onely a remedy of the evil of their nature and we need not the knowledge of Divinity but onely of Moral Philosophie toward the recovery out of our misery For that which is now the judgment of these Censors was sometimes the opinion of Aristotle He did beleeve that man in his birth was like a white sheet of paper and that thereupon the habit of vertue was attainable by many acts But the Apostle doth not deal upon such weak beggerly and Ethical grounds because the Ephesians were not only sinners by conversation but by nature also were the children of wrath hereupon in relation to their natural corruption he saith you hath he quickened which were dead in trespasses and sinnes Their quickening by the spirit a posteriori doth shew the pollution of their natures a priori But if they were the children of wrath only by custome a second nature by breaking off old customes they might reduce themselves to their ancient purity of nature And this is the Moral Philosophie of these Censors and the separate Churches of this way Fifthly for that place of the Romans by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin Chap. 5. v. 12. That we may more orderly proceed let us consider how they plant their own interpretation and then how they oppugne ours This one man say they by whom sinne entred into the world is not our first parent Adam but our own earthly or natural man which is called Adam and Edom from the earth of his foundation pag. 78. Here I do plainly and openly confesse I do not know what they meane by this Adam neither can I see how possibly they can apply such a sense to
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
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