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
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
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
bondage of the soul under the tyranny of a carnal mind Sixthly He addeth that David thought nothing of this or any thing like it we may understand by the preceding words which are a preface to these in the objection against thee only have I sinned Reply We willingly yield that it was the purpose of David to cleare the justice of God but here is no need to call his justice in question for though David was borne in sin the act of murther and adultery were the deeds of his own will besides the lust of his heart might have been cured by the grace of God Seaventhly saith he if this had been natural and unavoidable God who knew perfectly well would have expected nothing else of him For he will not require of a stone to speak nor a fire to be cold unlesse himself be pleased to work a miracle to have them so Repl. The case is not all one It is not in the nature of stones to speak but men may avoid many outward acts of sinne and the evil of their natural disposition may be mortified by the Spirit The Apostle speaking of certain that had eyes full of adulery that cannot cease from sinne 2 Pet. 2.14 Our Authour in his answer to the Bishops letter doth expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eyes full of the adulteresse therefore they cannot cease from sin This sheweth how hard it is to escape adultery when men have received the beauty of the adulteresse into their eye Why then are Laws made against this sinne It is in their power outwardly to fly such occasions that lead thereto The wise man saith remove thy way farre from her and come not neare the doore of her house Is not this too precise and strict a point No some mens natures are like tinder to the fire they must not onely fly sinnes but all occasions that lead thereto Now it is plain that in these things men have a power to forbear the evil and therefore the wise man accordingly doth temper his exhortation And for the lust of the heart though a man cannot flee from it yet God is able to give more grace which he is alway ready to do to those who in the sense of their own emptinesse do flee to him for help Where is the man that did ever truely desire and continue desiring helps against his infirmities that God did ever neglect If this could be proved then something may be said to the purpose Now we go to the next Scripture Among whom we in all times past had our conversation in the lusts of the flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others He hath many observations upon the words of this text This therefoore saith he as appears by the discourse of the Apostle relates not to riginal sinne but to actual Repl. It relates to both as the Ephesians had their conversation in the lusts of the flesh and did fulfill the lusts of the flesh and minde so it doth relate to actual sinne But as they were by nature the children of wrath this is with reference to original sinne And whereas he doth bring in Justin Martyr arguing upon this ground that therefore it cannot be extended to Christ we willingly yield that Christ is an exempt person by reason of his extraordinary birth and conception but then in Justines sense all else infants as well as others will partake of the sinne of the nature But he further addes Heires of wrath signifies persons liable to punishment heires of death It is an usual expression among the Hebrewes So sons of death in the holy Scripture are those that deserve death or are condemned to dye Repl. It is true that the Hebrews call a man the son of death that hath deserved death specially when he is condemned to die Though all this be granted it doth not void the force of our reason for we do not argue so much from the Apostles words that the Ephesians before conversion were the children of wrath but from those words were by nature the children of wrath The scope of all which is to shew that they were not onely subjected to wrath through a sinful conversation but through an evil nature the root of that evil conversation If therefore our Authour or any man else will make use of the Hebrew Idiotisme the words will go fairely in this sense that the beleeving Ephesians both by the condition of the natural birth and the whole course of their conversation as they did serve divers lusts and pleasures were liable to wrath and the onely mean by which they did escape was the quickning and enlivening work of the Spirit by and through which they were brought out of that estate in which they were born But he hath another evasion By nature is here most likely to be meant that which Galen calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an acquisite nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 customes and evil habits Repl. If we would apply our selves to authours and to the ordinary speech of men custome and nature are usually opposed each to other In some cases a man may be said to have a thing both by nature and custome very rarely or never we say that custome is nature Sometimes men speak in a more general sense that custome is as it were a second nature But because he stands upon it that it is most likely that the words of the Apostle are meant onely of custome and acquired nature for so he desires to speak then by this rule we must say that the beleeving Ephesians before conversion were by ill custome onely the children of wrath If this be so why doth the Apostle say you hath he quickned who were dead in trespasses and sinnes What need of the infusion of a new life to bring them off off an ill custome In such a case it were onely requisite to reduce nature to her original purity and to amend that by good usuages which ill customes had marred Besides seeing several Nations have their customes was it a peculiar custome to the Ephesians Or was it common to all Nations to be the children of wrath It was peculiar to the Ephesians then they onely had need of the infusion of a new life If it was common to all Nations How did they all generally agree in such a custome And what was the cause of the agreement Besides seeing there are some in their tender years of whom we may presume that they are neither quickned by grace nor hardened by ill custome whether such may be saved without the infusion of a new life yea or no If they may be saved without the infusion of a new life this will be against the scope of the Apostle who tells us they were saved from wrath by the inward quickning But if he will say that such cannot be saved without the infusion of a new life then 't is plain that by nature must be meant more than acquired