Sapientia justificata, or, A vindication of the fifth chapter to the Romans and therein of the glory of the divine attributes, and that in the question or case of original sin, against any way of erroneous understanding it, whether old or new : more especially, an answer to Dr. Jeremy Taylors Deus justificatus / by John Gaule ...

2. Now for the Consequents of this Paraphrase.

THe consequent of this discourse (he says) must needs be this at least. If it be consequent to his discourse so: but it stands us in hand to examine, whe∣ther it be consequent to the Apostles words: but since he will needs impose them on us as Consequences, he will not be angry if I take them up as Inconsequen∣ces: For whether so or so, I refer them, Sir, both to yours, and every able and indifferent mans judgement (Conseq.) That it is impossible that the greatest part of mankind, should be left in the eter∣ternal bonds of Hell by Adam. Incon∣sequ. nothing is impossible with God, nothing is impossible that is just∣ly

done, and past; we say, not only the greatest part, but the whole race of mankind was so left; and yet all that aggravates it not to an impossibility. For why should it be thought an impos∣sibility, That all by Adam should be left in the etetnal bonds of Hell; since all in Adam had a possibility to be brought to the eternal Throne of Hea∣ven? (Conseq.) For then quite contrary to the discourse of the Apostle, there had been abundance of Sin, but a scarci∣ty of Grace; and the excesse had been on the part of Adam, not on the part of Christ. (Inconseq.) The abundance, or excess, which the Apostle here contends for, is not with respect to numbers or to multi∣tudes of persons, on either part, but in regard to Grace abounding Sin, and Life excelling Death, and Christs me∣rits infinitely exceeding both Adams and our own deserts. (Conseq.) So that the Presbyterian way is perfectly condemned by this discourse of the Apostle. (In∣conseq.) Though he tell them never so often, yet they will hardly beleeve him on his own word, till he can convince them from the Apostles words perfectly and indeed. (Conseq.) Nay, and yet

more particularly convince them, when their way of understanding in this point, is singular from the Church of England, or other reformed Churches Suffrage; the other m••re gentle way, which affirms that we were sentenc'd in Adam to eternal death, though the Execution is taken off by Christ, is also no way countenanced by any thing in this Chapter; (Inconseq.) No? these words (death passed, death reigned, the judgement was to condem∣nation) these (I say) countenance and confirm the sentence. Again (the Free gift came to justification of life, they shall reign in life by one Iesus Christ) these countenance and confirm the taking off the Execution; were it not thus both for the sentence and for the Execution, where then were all those excesses on Christs part? what excesse were it to make those righteous, that were not made Sinners before? what excess were it to justifie those to eternal life; that were never condemned to eternal death? let him look to it, either Christ must be preferred in these Acts and Excesses, or else his Attributes are but impaired. (Conseq.) That the judgement which came from Adams sin, unto the condem∣nation

of the world, was nothing but tem∣poral Death, is here affirmed. (In con∣seq. so far is it from being affirmed that upon right deduction, it is more than once denied. For it was Death entring by Sin, and that was something more than temporal death; It was Death reigning, and that was something more than death temporal; It was death opposed to the justification of life, and that must be something more than tem∣poral death; It was death opposed to reigning in life, and therefore must needs be more than temporal death. (Conseq.) It is in no sence imaginable, that the death which here St. Paul says passed upon all men, and which reigned from Adam to Moses, should be eterual Death. (Inconseq.) Will he allow no man a sensible imagination, besides his own understanding? or rather a sensible understanding besides his own imagina∣tion? Death passed upon all men, that is eternal death passed upon all men, ac∣cording to the justice of the sentence, and their due desert, There's one sense. That Death which reigned from Adam to Moses, was eternal death; for if you take the time of Deaths reigning

to be betwixt them two, terminally and exclusively, then was it not so much as a tempotal death passing upon all men; But death reigns not but from an eternal Law, and in and to eternity. There's a∣nother sense, yea Death reigned from Adam to Moses, and so onward until Christ, and would have reigned eter∣nally over all men, had not Christ ta∣ken it off. There's another sense. (Con∣seq.) the Apostle speaks of that death which was threatned to Adam. (Incon∣seq.) rather of the death which was threatned to the world in Adam, but take it as directed to Adams person, dy∣ing thou shalt die, Gen. 2. 17. The sa∣cred idiom serves to note the continuity, as well as the certainty of Death: and that was an intimation of the eternity. (Conseq.) The Apostle means such a Death which was afterwards threatned In Moses Law. (Inconseq.) well, but who takes a temporal death only? nay, who takes not an eternal death chiefly to be threatned upon the breach of the Mor∣ral Law? (Conseq.) and such a death which fell even upon the most righteous of Adams posterity. (Inconseq.) True it fell upon them in part, not that the other

part was not due unto them, but that it was taken off by Christ. (Conseq.) Upon the most righteous of Adam's poste∣rity, who did not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression. (Inconseq.) Such righteous ones of all his posterity were never yet known. Abel, Seth, and Methusala were certainly none such; for they and their like (even all the holy Pa∣triarks) were sinners, as well by imita∣tion, as by propagation; and sinned as well actually as originally. To say that those holy men sin not after the simili∣tude of Adams transgression, in that they sinned less, alas! that's but poor; for so even wicked men are said, not to sin after the similitude of one another. (Conseq.) Because in proportion to the e∣vil, so was the imputation of the Sin, it follows, That Adam's sin is ours me∣tonimycally and improperly. (Inconseq.) Here's nothing at all which follows a∣right: for even the first part of his argu∣ment is preposterous: By evil he in∣tends punishment, and then the conse∣quence is quite contrary, because the sin was not imputed in proportion to the punishment; but indeed the punishment was deputed in proportion to the Sin.

And therefore it must follow (by reason of contraries) That Adams sin was not tropically and tralatitiously, but even litterally and properly ours. But con∣sider what he says in effect; That God did measure the sin according to the pu∣nishment. Now good Lord! how can the Divine Attributes stand safe to such a saying? for what Justice is that, that regulates or proportions the sin by the punishment, and not the punishment by the Sin? In the imputation of God or men, who makes the sin to follow the punishment, and not rather the punish∣ment to follow the sin? But say his rule stood upon some right foot; yet how follows his argument from it? The Sin was imputed in proportion to the pu∣nishment; but the punishment was pro∣per and real, not figurative and equi∣vocal; and therefore so must the Sin be too: else who can tell what's become of all this proportion? (Conseq.) God was not finally angry with us, nor had so much as any designs of eternal displeasure upon that account. (Inconseq.) The way to vindicate Gods Attributes, is, not to pry into them too curiously; nor to de∣termine upon them too peremptorily:

nor to aggravate them too severe∣ly, nor to extenuate them too indul∣gently, but to believe them and ju∣stifie them, and magnifie them, so as they are revealed. God indeed was not finally angry with us (his Elect) nei∣ther upon our original, nor upon our a∣ctual account: And why? because his wrath was so appeased by Christ, satis∣faction. But was he not therefore so at the Sin simply and absolutely conside∣red? if he had no design of eternal dis∣pleasure, upon that account, then he sent Christ to die in vain. For Christ died to prevent, not the temporal, but the eternal death; Nor was that to re∣deem us from the mortality and conditi∣on of our Nature (for he suffered it him∣self, and left us to follow him in a con∣formity) but from the depravation and damnation of it. (Conseq.) This an∣ger went no further than the evils of this life; and therefore the imputation was not of a proper guilt; for that might justly have past beyond our grave, if the same had past beyond a Metonymie or a juridi∣cal external imputation. (Inconseq.) O rare consequent! the punishment was

but temporally inflicted, and therefore the Sin was not properly imputed. As if temporal punishments (whether from God, or men) were the arguments of improper Sins only. But O wonderfull vertue of a bare Trope, or figurative locution! to qualifie such a pravity, ex∣tenuate such a provocation, divert such a desert, yea to regulate such a Justice, or to restrain and limit such a power. If his Metonymical imputation be the same with Iuridical and external, then (me thinks) this proportion should be ob∣served in the proceeding, That as the Sin is imputed but only as it were in some shadow or resemblance of words; so should the punishment be inflicted, and not in any deed or substance. For he that is found guilty, but only in an imaginary Idea or picture, ought not to be executed, but only in conceit, or as it were in effigie. But I am forbidden to smile, since it is a matter of fighing, in regard the Divine Attributes are so stricken at: For what provocation can there be for Gods universal and continu∣al anger (for such it is against the Fall and original sin) without an, mputati∣on of a proper and participating guilt?

where the sin is properly imputed, there (he grants) the punishment may justly goe beyond our Graves, that is even to Hell. But if there be no such imputati∣on, no such propriety, no such partici∣pation; I can see no cause why those e∣vils should passe so far as this present life. Eternal death is little enough, if sin be properly and particularly impu∣ted: but if it be not so, I cannot see but that even a temporal death to all man∣kind, must be too much. (Conseq.) That as no man ever imposed penance for it (for original Sin) so God himself in nature, did never for it afflict or affright the Conscience. (Inconseq.) By pe∣nance surely he understands not private Repentance, but publick Discipline, or that of the Churches imposing; say it were so, the Churches power is to im∣pose the penance for publike, notorious, scandalous and exemplary Crimes and offences: it cannot take cognisance (as no external Law or administration can) of an inward, secret, unsearchable, (though worthily suspected) Sin, such as the Original is. Besides, whose should be the authority in such a cause or case, where all are concluded, and confest

guilty alike? As for the other part, I ask of him, did not God himself afflict and affright Adams Conscience for it, when he was forced to say; I heard thy voice in the Garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid my self. Gen. 3. 10. And we all feel and must confesse, this afflicting this affrighting was not of his person only, but in his and our Nature also; as woefull expe∣rience convinces us all to this very day. (Conseq.) And why, the conscience shall be for ever at so much peace for this sin, that a man shall never give one groan for his share of guilt in Adams sin, unlesse some or other scares him with an impertinent proposition. (Inconseq.) What the con∣science shall be for ever, is hard for him to say; And for what it hath been hitherto, he knows a Conscience is not always to be argued for pure and free, because it is quiet and still. But what says he to David? did not he groan for it in that Poenitential of his? Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my Mother conceived me, Psalm 51. 5. And to St. Paul, is this no groaning,? Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deli∣ver me from the body of this death? Rom.

7. 24. Nay shall we not beleeve what he but lately said of himself? For my part I cannot but confesse that to be which I feel and groan under, and by which all the world is miserable. Let him look to his Conscience, and see how his words agree first and last; I hope he will not now say it was some impertinent proposi∣tion that scared him thereunto. (Con∣seq.) Why the Conscience should not natu∣rally be afflicted for it, nor so much as naturally know it, I confesse I cannot yet make any reasonable conjecture, save this only; that it is not properly a Sin, but on∣ly Metonymically and improperly. (In∣conseq.) Such a conjecture is not reaso∣nable; for if to deny a Sin to be such, were sufficient, because the Conscience naturally smiles not for it, nor yet con∣vinces of it: so many actual sins might easily come to be denied. A strange con∣jecture for a figurative appellation to save a Conscience. I know the Consci∣ence can Syllogize, but I never knew that she could ever so Rhetoricate with her self: such a conjecture is so far from being worth the sole preferring, that it's not worth the naming, where better reasons are brought forth. As namely,

That Original sin her self has blinded and bedulled the Conscience, as touch∣ing the true and full apprehension of her self, and of Original sin. That the law and light of nature is exceedingly obscu∣red to all Consciences since the Fall That most mens Consciences are insensi∣ble even of their actual and sensual sins; how much more then of the Original and invisible? That men have pulled and seared both their own, and others Consciences, as touching the true sense of Original Sin, by dayly hatching and broaching such heresies and errors about it: No marvel then that men are here so insensible; we see it may easily come to passe through natural ignorance and ill habits, without this diminishing glass of a Metonymical spectacle. (Conseq.) there are some whole Churches which think themselves so little concerned in the matter of Original Sin, that they have not a word of it in all their Theologue. (Inconseq.) That they have not a word of it, their Theologue is defective to them, that they think themselves not concerned in it, they are defective to their Theologie. I could tell him of some Churches that in their Theologie

make no mention of the Decalogue; do they therefore think themselves but lit∣tle concerned in it? again some Chur∣ches think themselves so much concern∣ed in Original Sin, that they beleeve Souls, as well as Bodies, to be propaga∣ted from Adam. I spake this of the E∣thiopians and the Russians, no Church but is bound to have such a body of Di∣vinity as may comprehend the whole principles of Faith and Religion; yea, and to unfold them, and confess them so far as they are revealed in the word of God; but what is it to object some ob∣scure and confused Churches, to the Ca∣tholique universal, & to the most order∣ly and eminent Churches of the World? (Conseq.) The height of this imagina∣tion hath wrought so high in the Church of Rome, that when they would doe great honour to the Virgin Mary, they were pleased to allow unto her an immaculate conception, without any Original Sin. (Inconseq.) So far as the Church of Rome seemed to joyn with the Pri∣mitive Churches in the point of Ori∣ginal Sin, so far also have the Reform∣ed Churches joyned with them, as namely, That Original Sin is, That it

is properly and inherently a Sin. That it descendeth by natural propagation, not by imitation. That it hath in both a stain and guilt. That it subjected to misery and death in all senses and signi∣fications: That we are redeemed there∣from by the merits of Christ: These are heights indeed, but not heights of ima∣gination, but sound Doctrine. And these she pretended to hold forth against all those who affirmed, That Adam lost Original righteousnesse only for himself, and not for us his posterity: and that by Adams disobedience sin de∣scended not upon Mankind, but only a bodily death or punishment. Indeed here she hath also some heights of ima∣gination, as, That Original sin is not only remitted by Baptism, but utterly abolished and quite taken away. That the concupiscence remaining in the rege∣nerate, is no sin. That Original Sin is only in the inferiour, and not in the superiour faculties. That the blessed Virgin was conceived and born free from Original Sin, yea, and many more heights of imagination they have much disputed on among their Schola∣sticks, so that they owe their errors,

not to the simple profession of Original Sinne, but to their subtle disputation about it. As for their opinion of the blessed Virgins immaculate conception, it arose from no other height, but that o•• their own superstition, which is too no∣torious, in all they can feign or imagin•• for her, say of her, or doe to her. But I pray God this low imagination, o•• slender and slight conceit of a Metony∣mical, juridical, external collateral, nay, equivocal, abusive, phantastical imputa∣tion, serve not to be get a conceit or pre∣sumption of an immaculate conception in us all. I have read of one that would needs deny the immortality of the Soul, with intent to disprove the Popish pur∣gatory; but there are other ways to re∣fute this Error of the immaculate con∣ception, than by abating the truth or utmost truth of Original Sin.

One thing more (he saith) I am to ob∣serve before I leave considering the word of the Apostle. This one thing is not so much a consequent of what he would say for himself, as an argument against all such as would argue against him. The ground betwixt both is laid in these last words of the Apostle, As by one mans dis∣obedience

many were made Sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. Some (saith he) from hence suppose they argue strongly to the over∣throw of all that I have said, Thus, As by Christ we are made really righteous, so by Adam we are made really sinners. This we acknowledge not only to be our Argument, but our way of Augmenta∣tion; and if this standing good be suffi∣cient to overthrow all that he hath said, then it is easie to be observed to what purpose he hath spoken all this while, but to this he hath spoken in his Addres∣ses, and to them we can say nothing till we see them. But besides (saith he) I have something very material to reply to the form of the Argument, which is a ve∣ry trick and fallacy. Strong reason may be spoken very often without a formal Syllogisme; and where the matter cannot be denied to be true and good, 'tis but a kind of sophistical fallacy to stand too pedantically upon the form. — But to argue from hence, (as by Christ we are made really righteous, so by Adam we are made really sinners) is (saith he) to invert the purpose of the Apostle. The reciprocation or conversion of proposi∣tions

is no inversion of their purpose, where they may truly praedicate either way. Neither is the inverting of words in their order, always a perverting of them in their intent. But the Apostle argues from the lesse to the greater. In∣deed the Apostle in his comparison pro∣ceeds after such a manner, as from A∣dam to Christ, from Sin to Grace, from Death to Life: now Comparates (Ia∣nus-like) look 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for∣wards and backwards, and may argue mutually from one to another, Nay they must doe it, else could they not be Com∣parates; now though the Apostle argue from the lesse to the greater, by way of Amplification: yet he forbids not to ar∣gue from the greater to the lesse, for matter of reallity, and that is all our Argument. But we (saith he) make it conclude affirmatively from the greater to the lesse, in matter of power. Will he allow us to doe it negatively? why that will serve our turn sufficiently. Thus, As Christ's righteousnesse was not imputed only: so neither was Adams sin; or thus, As our righte∣ousness by Christ was not a Metonymi∣cal righteousnesse; so our sin by Adam

was not a Metonymical Sin. But (by his leave) we may take liberty to argue affir∣matively, as before, & yet offend against no Logical Law, or Canon of Comparates, nay and the consequence shall be of great force, even affirmatively, as Thus. As Christ did and suffered his Fathers will; so ought we to doe and suffer the same. As God charged his Angels with Folly, how much more may he us mor∣tal men? and from the Apostle in this place. As the Life was a real life, so the Death was a real Death: As the Grace was real Grace, so the Sin was real Sin. But he now assumes the trick or fallacy himself, taxing us for conclu∣ding affirmatively from the greater to the lesse in matter of power (as what a Man can doe, a Child can doe; What God is able to doe, &c. the Devil is able to doe, &c.) Whereas our manner of arguing is not in matter of power and prevalency; but for matter of being, and reallity. Now betwixt the greater and the lesse, though there may be a disproportionate action, yet there must be some proportionate being. And what is affirmed of the greater, may likewise be affirmed of the lesser, and

that in the same kind and manner, al∣though not according to the same mea∣sure or degree; yea very Opposites and and Disparates if they come to be com∣pared, are accepted as opposite and dif∣ferent only in their proper forms and adjuncts, but alike, and agreeing in their common Attributes, according to which they are compared; and without which there could be no ground for compari∣son. And where there is no ground for Collation; there can be no cause for prelation; as here in the Apostles worlds; Take away the reallity of Sin, and the Proper being of the offence, and in such a comparison, with what excesse, or excellency, can the Grace, the Free-gift, Iustification, and the righteousnesse of Christ be preferred thereunto? There's nothing now remaining, but to put it into an Hypothetical Syllogism, and so to leave it concluding without all Fallacy, according to his own conditi∣on, viz. If we be made really righte∣ous by Christ, then we were made really Sinners by Adam: But we are made re∣ally righteous by Christ, Ergo

And thus (worthy Sir) though I can∣not presume my self to be one of those

wise persons he speaks of; yet this I pre∣sume, that I am not unwarily perswaded by this way of arguing; neither can I (out of my simplicity) observe that it is this way, but rather his own whole way of arguing that appears unconclu∣ding. But let it be with your own judge∣ment how we either of us appear to you, from what we have said.