-- CHAPTER III: How sin it derived from Adam to all mankind
considered by him, yet this sin having first entered, thereupon followed a doubting of the truth of what God had said, a jealousy that God kept him from eating of that tree out of envy, lest they should be as God, and so hoping to mend his condition another way than by obeying God, and to be free of the service of God, which by God's law he was (if he would have happiness from, God) to be subject unto; he rather chose to set up for himself, and seek his fortune, as we say, and so to be absolutely free as God is. And thus thinking he had found out a new trick to be happy, without and beyond what that condition would afford which God had set him in, he fell into sin and misery. And that this was the sin of his fall, is part of Solomon's meaning, when he saith, 'they sought out new inventions;' and having once left God, he doth now nothing else but seek a new way to be happy; but being a beggar of himself, finds he cannot himself support himself, and therefore is forced for happiness and comfort to go to every creature to supply him, and so is plunged into the worst of servitudes, 'whilst he promised himself liberty,' even to be a servant to every creature. This for that one man's sin.
CHAPTER III:
How sin it derived from Adam to all mankind What sin it is which is propagated by the first man to his posterity.
—Whether original sin consists only in a corruption of nature, or also in the guilt of Adam's first sin imputed to us.—The imputation of that sin proved.—Adam, a public person representing us.—By what law he came to be so.—The justice and equity of God's imputing the first sin of Adam to us all
Now there are but two ways to pass sin to another: the one is by way of example, as Jeroboam is said to have caused Israel to sin, and as Eve caused Adam; or else participatione culpæ, by partaking of the
sin of another. Now by the first way this sin is not derived, for besides that Adam being dead 4600 years ago, the force of this example reacheth not to us, nor to the multitudes of ages past; that this was the way of deriving it, is not intended in the text, for then not Adam the first man, but Eve and the devil, should have been assigned as those by whose offence sin entered into the world, in that they were the 'first in the transgression,' and also because then children (as the 14th verse of the 12th chapter of the Romans affirms) should not be guilty, as yet that verse affirms they are, in that they die. Now God exerciseth no punishment where there is no fault; also the apostle intends a comparison of Adam with Christ, that sin comes by Adam, as righteousness by Christ. Now Christ conveys not righteousness to all by example, for many persons saved by him lived afore him, as all under the Old Testament, as likewise infants. This indeed, as is likely, was the way by which the most of the angels fell, whom Satan as a head drew into the faction with him, and those whom his example prevailed not with did stand, and do still, which no man doth, but 'all have sinned.'
Now concerning the second way how we should come to be partakers of Adam's sin, the Scriptures elsewhere tell us it was by propagation natural or generation, as David: Ps. 51:5, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.' I will not earnestly contend that this way is directly expressed in this text, which yet Augustine pressed from the word 'entering into the world,' as a lues or contagion, and so passing and piercing through, or invading the whole world as it were by stealth; but this may justly be argued for it from the text, that even infant children are affirmed here to die upon the account of that first sin's entrance, 'who sinned not after the similitude of Adam's transgression,' that is, personally; which shews this to be the way of conveying this sin, for to them there can be no other. And why else were such children circumcised and now baptized, both being sacraments of remission of sin and sanctification? Col. 2:11–13, 'In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in
baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.'
And indeed this to be the way, other scriptures plainly affirm, not only that instance of David (though enough, for what could David have done before his conception that he should be conceived in sin? and there is the same case of all), but Christ plainly affirms it, John
3:6, 'Whatsoever is born of the flesh is flesh,' that is, what is born of fleshly generation. The first birth (for he opposeth it to the second birth) is flesh, that is, sinful; for flesh he opposeth to that grace which in the second birth the Spirit works, called spirit there; and so Paul, Ephes. 2:3, 'We are all the children of wrath by nature.' By nature, is there in part meant the natural course of propagating our nature, namely, generation, and conception, and propagation natural; and so Aristotle useth the word φύσις.
Now, if we be the 'children of wrath' by virtue of our natural birth, then, first, children of sin thereby; for God is not angry with us but for sin. And hence it is that because natural conception, by that ordinary law of generation, is the way of conveying sin, that therefore all men, all and every one, are corrupted; for to be sure all are born as from him, he being the first man, and having committed that sin ere he begat any. And why was it that Christ, though the son of Adam, Luke 3:38, as having the matter of his body from him, yet was without sin, and born an holy one? How came he to be free and exempted, but because he was conceived not by natural propagation from a man, but by the overshadowing of the Most High? Luke 1:35,
'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.' So that this remains the only means why men are sinful, that they are propagated from Adam after the natural manner of all flesh; the ground whereof you have hereafter.
The third question and demand will be, What sin it is that is propagated and entered upon the world, and of which all men, as soon as they are made men by conception or birth, are guilty, by that one man's offence?
To make way for the answer of which we must know that all sins are reduced unto two branches: 1, that which consists in the guilt of some act of sin done and perpetrated; or, 2, an inherent corruption in the heart contracted by that guilt. Now it is certain, that whether every man had had this original sin or not, that yet upon any act of sinning committed by any man, there doth and should have entered in that man a depravation of nature; for by sinning a man is made the servant 'of iniquity unto iniquity.' Rom. 6:19, 'I speak after the manner of men, because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness, and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now yield your members servants to righteousness, unto holiness.' Which comes to pass not upon that mistaken ground that an habit follows upon acts in a philosophical way; for then it must be that many reiterated acts produce such an inclination, and so not any one act of sin; but depravation followeth by way of curse and forfeiture, even of the spirit of all inherent holiness, because man's having of it did hold of a covenant of works, of which more hereafter. Now therefore according unto this, Adam sinning, there were two things befell him: 1, an everlasting guilt of that act committed, binding him over to death; 2, a forfeiture of the Holy
Ghost in him, and so of the image of God in holiness, and so by consequence the contrary depravation of his nature. Now Adam having contracted by his first sin both these to himself, if the question be, which of these two, or whether not both of these are the sin that entered, and is propagated by birth to all men?
The answer is, Both of them.
First, The guilt of that very act of disobedience, which was lately spoken of, so as we all are accounted guilty of it as he, and as truly as if we had had a hand in it; and that (besides what is to follow)
appears plainly out of Rom. 5:12. For, first, it is said, that 'all have sinned;' secondly, the 16th and 18th verses clear it, for they say, that 'by the offence of that man, judgment (that is, the guilt of that offence, whereby they were judged guilty as well as he) came on them all to condemn them.' Now God could not condemn them for that act, unless he did in justice judge them guilty of it. And whereas it is said here, they sinned, the very text viewed and compared cleareth its own intendment. A person may be said to have sinned, or to have done a thing two ways: 1, when one actually and personally doth it himself; and so we did not sin that sin, but Adam only; for in ver. 14, it is said of infants that they 'sinned not after the similitude of his transgression,' that is, in their own persons; yet, 2, one may be said to have sinned in another. And look as the text gives that part of the distinction, that they sinned, not personally as Adam did, so it appositely sets out this other ἐφʼ ὧ, 'in whom all have sinned,' speaking of Adam; for that may be when one actually himself doth it not; as what a whole body doth, a member of the same body may be said to do; and so the word here, they sinned, is to be understood, that is, they are to be accounted sinners, as the word is in 1 Kings
1:21, 'That I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders' (Heb., sinners), upon what ground you shall hear afterwards; and besides, I must speak presently to this very point again.
The second thing conveyed is, a corruption of nature, which is a sin that is inherent, remaining and residing in us, and conveyed to us from him, as a leprosy is from the parent to the child, so as it may be said to be in them. Of this Job speaks, chap. 15:14, 'What is man, that he should be clean? and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?' And in the 16th verse of that chapter, he calls man
'filthy and abominable, drinking in sin as water.' In which place you see, that, first, there is a want of righteousness, which once he was made in; secondly, a contrary uncleanness or proneness to sin, and therefore he calls him filthy or greedy of sinning; and, thirdly, this is conveyed by his natural propagation by man and woman; for it is inserted, 'that is born of a woman.' So that now you are to conceive thus of it: that Adam committing that act of disobedience, his nature
was thereby first in himself for ever defiled by it. We often see that one blow or fall strikes a man's members out of joint, so as of themselves they ever remain so, and so did that fall of his, though but one act of sin. If therefore we also be proved guilty of that act in him, then by the like reason also must that nature we receive from him by natural propagation be tainted with sin, as his was by virtue of that act; so as it must first be supposed that we are guilty of that act, as the ground and reason why our nature is thus infected, that being a consequent thereof, and in part a punishment of it, and so as indeed it could not have been inflicted on our natures as a sin, unless we be first found guilty of that act of sin itself.
Now, because this is questioned by some divines, I shall come next to speak unto this great and main proposal, namely,
Whether original sin doth consist only in a corruption and defilement of nature, and want of that first created righteousness?
Or, whether not also in the guilt of that first act of sin and disobedience of Adam's, by way of imputation derived down unto us, and that as the ground of that corruption propagated?
That the corruption conveyed is the whole of original sin, and not at all the guilt of that first disobedience as imputed to us, is maintained by some, but usually (if not generally) by such as withal deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness also. And indeed the occasion why they have denied the imputation of Adam's sin, hath been for the sake of their other opinion, that we are not justified by Christ's righteousness as imputed, but only for Christ's sake, and for his righteousness. For they see that if they should hold the imputation of Adam's first actual disobedience, that then they might as well assent unto the imputation of Christ's righteousness and obedience, Adam being Christ's type.
The point therefore to be proved now is not, that the corruption is conveyed, but that the guilt of the act of his first sin is also derived
down to us. I shall endeavour it out of this scripture, in Rom. 5:12, 13, &c. (Of the conveyance of the corruption itself I shall after speak.)
Now the proof of this is made up of these particulars laid together.
1. Let the general order of the apostle's discourse in this epistle about about man's sinfulness be considered. In the two first chapters, he had shewn how, in respect of actual sins and a state of wrath, first, the Gentiles, chap. 1, secondly, the Jews, chap 2, are all involved; and then, chap. 3, he speaks of both together, Jew and Gentile, laying open that inbred and general corruption of nature, concluding that 'all are unrighteous, and fallen short of the glory of God.' Now, then, in this fifth chapter, he proceeds to shew the source and spring of this corruption, viz., Adam's first sin: 'By one man sin entered into the world.' So then, having fully treated of the corruption afore, he here orderly next treats of the consequence of the guilt of the act, which is the ground of that corruption.
2. The sin of that one man which he treats of in this chapter was, the act of sinning, and not so much the corruption of nature in him, which also befell himself, for he termeth it a transgression, ver. 14; an offence, ver. 15–17; and says, that he sinned, ver. 16; and a disobedience, ver. 19; and ver. 17, termeth it, that one offence.
3. When he says, 'Sin entered into the world by that one man,' he by sin means one and the same sin, which by him as the author was first brought into the world, the guilt whereof accrued to himself as the perpetrator of it, and to his posterity; so as in that word, 'sin entered into the world,' himself first is to be understood as one of, yea, the head of, this world of mankind which sin entered upon; and he speaks of the first entrance of sin, therefore of that sin which was first begun in himself, and that is evidently the guilt of the act here spoken of, and therefore the same sin or guilt is to be understood, which is said that it goes on and is derived to the rest of mankind.
And if otherwise it be understood, then, whilst Adam's sin is spoken of, and that as begun in him, one kind of sin, namely, the guilt of the
act, but when the sin of the rest of mankind, then another kind of sin, viz., the corruption of nature, should be variously intended, which is not uniform to the apostle's scope.
4. He thereupon says, that 'death passed upon all,' this sin having first entered upon all; that is, death as the effect and punishment of that act of sin thus spoken of; and the connection of these two sayings is with an emphasis, 'and so death passed.' Every word is emphatical to this purpose: 1, passed, as a sentence upon a crime foregoing; and therefore, 2, he adds, καὶ οὑτῶς, and so, which words are causal, or assigning a reason why death and the sentence of death passed upon all, even because sin, and that sin of Adam had entered first upon all. And look as death seized on Adam for the act which he did, so still likewise the same sentence on us all for the same act.
Now we find that unto that act of disobedience it was that death was threatened: Gen. 2:17, 'That day thou eatest thou shalt die.' And look as it is one and the same death that seizeth on both Adam and us, so the guilt of one and the same sin entered on both.
5. And to that end he might be understood both to hold forth that sin of his to have been the cause of death, and also how sin, and what sin it was he intended, in saying it entered upon the world by that man, he further indigitates it and repeats it, in that (saith he) 'in whom all have sinned;' and this fully resolves us.
For, first, if no more had been said of all men, than that they sinned, ἥμαρτον it imports an act of sinning; he says not, made sinful, but have sinned; therefore his intention is to speak them guilty of that act of his first sin, of which he manifestly speaks of afore and after.
And further, seeing that many of them whom death reigned over were infant children, as well as others (for experience sheweth death reigneth over them also), and they are part of this world, which sin is said to have entered into, and that they are not guilty of any act of their own in themselves, therefore guilty they must be supposed of that act (if of any at all), viz., the first sin and disobedience of Adam
(which he, you see, is discoursing of), nor of any other can they be
supposed guilty in common together with all men else; so then put but all and have sinned together, it must be the guilt of his first sin that is intended; and then the manner of involving children in that guilt can be no otherwise than by imputation, for of personal sin in themselves they are not guilty.
6. Further, to clear this, take the words that follow: ver. 14, 'Death reigned,' saith he 'even over them that sinned not after the similitude of Adam's transgression.'
1st, That reigning attributed unto death upon sin's entrance hath, as Pareus observeth upon the words, a respect to those violent prerogative extraordinary judgments which were (long before Moses) executed, as the flood on the old world, and on Sodom and Gomorrah, &c., in which children and infants were involved as well as those of riper years.
And then, 2dly, those other words, 'even over them that sinned not after the similitude of Adam's transgression,' is a designing, by a periphrasis, infant children, and their case and condition, as those that death reigneth over, as well as others, though they had never actually or personally sinned, or in like manner as Adam had done.
Now, besides other considerations, if only inherent corruption were the sin that had been intended, upon which it is that death had passed on all, and as that wherein infants, as well as those of riper years, are in common and alike involved, then the apostle had put no difference between Adam and them; for concerning that sin it might be said of infants that they have inherent corruption in their persons, after the similitude that Adam had it in his person; for it is expressly said of it, Gen. 5:3, that 'Adam begat a son in his own image or likeness.' And those (with whom in this point I have now to do) all grant that same corruption to have been the punishment of that first act of Adam's, as well in Adam himself as in us, and so in all these respects bearing the very similitude of that sinful corruption that was in Adam; but it is not so in respect of the guilt of that first act; we are not sinners in respect thereof after the similitude of Adam's
transgression therein. So then, having first said that all had sinned, and yet of some of that all, namely infants, that they sinned not after the similitude of Adam's transgression, it is an explication or correction that they are to be understood to have sinned, not in their own persons, as Adam did, but that only by way of imputation it is yet reckoned to them, which is the only way whereby it can be imagined they should be said to have sinned therein.
And 7. After he had thus connected these two, the first man's sin and death, as cause and effect, he plainly sends us to that first curse directed against that very fact, 'That day thou eatest' (which was the first sin) 'thou shalt die the death.' And this the scope of his ensuing argumentation clearly shews that his meaning is, that death (then threatened) had, according to the tenor of that threatening upon that man's first sin, seized on all the world. His words that follow are these: ver. 13, 14, 'For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.' He lays his foundation of arguing thus: children and all men die, and death is but for some sin, and all sin must have some law it is committed against; now, what law should that be, says he?
He removes any kind of sins forbidden in Moses's law, or contained therein, to have been the cause of that death of mankind, yea, of children; and yet it must be a sin against some law that was in the world, which must be the cause of that death; for 'sin is not imputed where there is no law.' Now what law is it (that was no part of Moses's law, nor contained therein) against which all, even children, should be supposed to have sinned, and by virtue of which death should pass upon them and all, but that which was given to Adam, over and above any other command that is in Moses's law, which so expressly threateneth death in it? That law which he first sinned against, namely, in eating the forbidden fruit; and therefore it must be the sin against that law which brought in death upon the world, in which law or command this curse was in terminis, and expressly annexed, 'that day thou eatest thou shalt die.' It is certain, then, that
it must be by virtue of this law that children die, or by none, for they died when Moses's law was not yet given; so then, when you read that even children died afore Moses as well as others, you know what curse and what law to attribute it unto, even to the first law, and that first curse given to Adam, 'that day thou eatest, thou shalt die.'*
8. If it prove that the words, ver. 12, are to be read thus, 'In whom all have sinned,' then the matter is plain that the guilt of that his first act is the sin conveyed by imputation, and that we sinned in him. But those that are opposite to this great truth catch hold of this, that the words should be read, 'in that all have sinned,' and not 'in whom;' and so our translators were pleased to read, although in the margin they also vary it, and say 'in whom,' as knowing that this latter might stand as well as the former. Now yet, 1st, If it be 'in that all have sinned,' as taking ἔφʼ ὧ 'in that,' as a causal particle, yet still it implies that all have sinned, and were guilty of an act of sinning, as was argued.
2dly, Know that Pelagius was the first who brought up that other interpretation, 'in that, or for that all have sinned.' But Augustine, and all the fathers but Theodoret, say, 'in whom,' as meaning Adam, spoken of in the words before.
3dly, The apostle's speech seems an hyperbaton; for whereas the apostle in the beginning of the verse had said, 'As by one man sin entered,' and then should in the next sentence have repeated those words, 'by one man,' and so have gone on to have said, that thus or so death passed on all men by that one man, he omits the insertion of it there because of making a repetition, yet so as in this his close he emphatically brings it in, and with more advantage, in adding this as the reason or ground thereof, 'in whom all have sinned;' and so that ἔφʼ ὧ comes in fully referring to that one man, and to that his sin, as by whom he had said sin entered into the world, and death with it, as the reason of both.*
Then, 4thly, compare this sense given but with that speech, 1 Cor.
15:22, 'in Adam all die,' this place, Rom. 5:12, 'in whom all have sinned, and they are parallel; for look, as he plainly there affirms, that in Adam, as a common person, all did die, the same he affirms here of his sin, the cause of death, in whom all sinned. If, therefore, in the one place we are said to die in him as the consequent of that first sin (and actually in him we did not die when he died, for we are alive long after him), then much more it may be judged that the apostle intended to say here that we sinned in him then, when with the same breath he is proving that death entered upon all men upon the entrance of his first sin, so that the one place doth interpret the other. And although this here is put last in order of sentences, 'in whom all have sinned,' yet it is supposed first in order of causation, thus, in whom all having sinned, death hath by that passed on all; that is, all died in him, because they all sinned in him; for the law given him had said, 'That day thou eatest thou shalt die.' For these words there, 'in Adam all die,' do refer evidently to that curse in Gen.
2:17, 'That day thou eatest thou shalt die the death,' even that very same curse and law which in the seventh consideration I shewed
Paul pointed us unto. And if it were that by that law it came to pass they then died in Adam, then they must be considered in Adam when that was spoken unto him; and so this must have been, by the apostle's application and interpretation of it, God's intention, that when he said, 'thou shalt die,' that he included all mankind as considered in him when he spake it of and unto him.
To conclude this, consider but this further parallel of these two places, 1 Cor. 15, and this Rom. 5.
1. Adam is in both held forth as Christ's type, as I have in another discourse proved;* so in the Romans expressly, ver. 14, 'Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.' And as expressly, 1 Cor. 15:45, 'And so it is written, The first man, Adam, was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.'
And 2. Adam and Christ are held forth as public persons in both.
First, in that 1 Cor. 15:45, where he is therefore called the first man, not in respect of existence, but representation; for in what respect is
Christ there called the second man, and Adam the first man, but in the same sense that Christ is termed the second? For they are set together as type and antitype, otherwise Cain was in order the first after Adam. So, then, it is spoken in respect of his representing all mankind; and so it is of Adam here in this Rom. 5, for all along the emphasis is put upon this one man: ver. 19, it is said, 'by the sin of one man,' not one sin; and ver. 12, 'by one man sin entered.' I ask, seeing Eve sinned, and sinned first, was 'first in the transgression,' why was it not her sin? yea, and she was a root of propagation as well as Adam, why by that one man, Adam, and not Eve? No reason can be given but because Adam was the public person that represented us, and not she; so also why are not other parents as well? so why not Adam afterwards, but only in his first sin committed? Yet let me add this, that Christ and Adam are made public persons in a differing respect in these two places: in 1 Cor. 15:47, 48, in respect of qualifications, 'Such as is the first man earthy, such are they that are earthy of him.' But here in the Romans in respect of acts, or what the one and the other did, and therefore the sin of this one man is made the sin of all in him, as the obedience of the other is made the righteousness of all in him; as the one for 'justification of life,' so the other for 'condemnation of death,' in whom all have sinned, and in whom all died. And indeed it is the law of all nations that the acts of a public person are accounted theirs whom they personate; the heads of the people of Israel sacrificed for a murder in the name of the nation, the females were circumcised in the males.
Lastly, The scope of Paul in this chapter is to set Christ out by the illustration of Adam his type, in respect of his conveying the righteousness of justification; so ver. 16–18 expressly, 'And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness
shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.' And his conveying sanctification to us is made a new and distinct business from this, which upon occasion of this he enters upon, chap. 6 ver. 15 to 20, and this we argue against the papists. Now therefore, if Adam's type in respect of conveying sin be brought to set out Christ's justifying of us by his righteousness, then the imputation or charging of Adam's disobedience, and so the guilt of the act, must be intended, or it had not served Paul's purpose; for if Paul should have intended how Adam conveyed the sin of corruption of nature to us, to set forth how Christ conveys righteousness to justify us, it would have been foreign to his design, for these are things heterogeneal and of differing nature, and no way parallel. But the apostle's words in Rom. 5:19 are express, that in one and the same parallel respect it is that we are made sinners in Adam and righteous in Christ, 'for as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' And the word κατεστάθησαν and κατασταθήσονται, made righteous and made sinners, there used, is a word noting an act of forensical or outward authority, applied therefore to the constituting of elders: Acts 6:3, 'Wherefore, brethren, look you out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom ye may appoint over this business.' Καταστήσαμεν, the word is. And so Titus 1:3, 'But hath in due time manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour.'* Καταστήσῃς is the word there too. And so the justification of us by Christ's righteousness is an act of power, as when a king makes a man a nobleman by patent, constituting him such; and thus it is that Adam's sin makes us by nature's letters patents sinful, even by deriving down the guilt of that act, which, in Rom. 5:16, is thus expressed, 'The judgment was by one to condemnation;' that the judgment or sentence charging the crime, the guilt of the fact upon us, redounds to our condemnation.
And so much for this great point.
The next query may be, How and by what law Adam came to be a public person representing us? For it will be objected that there only it holds, that the act of a public person is reckoned or imputed, when he is chosen by the consent of those to whom it is imputed, which Adam was not by any of us. To which I answer,
First, Adam being, as was said, Christ's type, I might ask, How came Christ to be a public person? and who chose him to be so? To be sure, he was not chosen by any of us believers; and yet it is said, that sin is not imputed to us, because Christ was made sin for us. By God's choice, and his own undertaking, 2 Cor. 5:21, Christ was appointed by God, and that by virtue of a covenant made with him for all believers, that what he did should be theirs: Isa. 49:1–8, 'Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far: The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me; and said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain; yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my
God. And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord, that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.' Why may it not satisfy us, then, that by the like reason God should choose Adam, being the first that was created, as perfect as ever any after could have been, as the first man, the chief? And so God made as good a choice in it as men could have
done for themselves. And further, who being to be the father of all the rest, had the law of nature, as well as that of love and conscience
(which parents have generally towards their children's good as to their own), to poise and oblige him unto faithfulness, to whom God gave a law which did concern and bind his posterity in him as well as himself, and this covenant was expressly told him and made with him:—1. That he should be able to multiply and fill the earth: Gen.
1:28, 'And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.' And, 2, that, standing obedient, he should convey the same blessed estate to that his seed, and therefore that same which God speaks, Gen. 1:26, 'Let us make man according to our image,' is expounded by Solomon,
Eccles. 7:29, of all men in him, 'God made man righteous, but they,'
&c. He speaks generally of all in the one and in the other. And therefore also, Gen. 1:28, he bids him multiply, and have dominion over all; that is, his seed as well as he should have the same privilege.
Yet so, 3, as that if he disobeyed God, his seed should die as well as he; so that, 'That day thou eatest thou shalt die,' was understood by him, and spoken to him, as representing all, for it is so opened as the primitive intent of it in 1 Cor. 15:22, 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' All are said there to die in him, which could not have been unless they had first all lived in him.
But, secondly, to clear this the more, there are three ways by which it may be conceived or understood, that he was made a public person.
1. By the absolute prerogative of God, resolving it wholly into his own secret ordination and appointment of him so to be. Thus some. But this cuts the knot indeed, but unties it not; and I dare not wholly put it on that account. The covenant with Adam, both for himself and us, was the covenant of nature, as I have shewn: and it were hard to say, that in such a covenant he should use his prerogative alone; and in some respects this was higher (if we suppose it such) than that with Christ, with whom he dealt distinctly, fully making known to him all
things that concerned that covenant, which he also voluntarily undertook for to his Father, as in that place cited in Isaiah, and also here appears.
2. A second way, therefore, is when it is by a covenant, and that so as though God's will to have it so, that he should represent us, was the main foundation it should be resolved into; yet so as withal God should plainly utter this, and declare it aforehand to him, as he did to Christ in that place of Isaiah, 'I will give thee for a covenant to the Gentiles,' &c. Now, there is no such record of this, more than what hath been mentioned in the former answer, now extant I know of, whereby God declared he would constitute him such, or laid it explicitly upon him, otherwise than in those particulars which yet I confess by just and like reason do infer it, so as I would not wholly put it upon that account neither; for we read not of God's saying this to him in distinct words, nor of his accepting or undertaking so to be, namely, a public person, that if he sinned his posterity should sin in him. Therefore, 3. I should think it to be mixed of the two latter, both that God made him and appointed him to be a public person, as 1 Cor. 15:45 (see my exposition on those words*), yet not so out of mere will, but that it also had for its foundation so natural and so necessary a ground, as it was rather a natural than a voluntary thing. And necessary it was he should be so appointed, if the law of nature were attainted. And to assert this, I am induced, among other grounds, by that which, in handling the state of Adam in innocency, I then† pursued. That his covenant was a natural covenant, and such as according to the law of his creation was due and requisite, and founded upon, and consonant to the principles of nature, and therefore I judge this law concerning the propagation of man's nature to his posterity to be such, and that God did not put forth his prerogative in giving forth this alone; but that it being a part of his covenant by the law of nature, it was therefore so well known to him, by the light and law of nature, that he needed not have it given him by word of mouth; though in those fore-mentioned charters, common to him and his
posterity, of having dominion over the creatures, and begetting in his likeness or kind, it was sufficiently held forth; and so as that threatening was to be understood in the same manner by him, 'That day thou eatest thou shalt die,' wherein all mankind are not only meant, but expressed by the same law that they are in those words,
'subdue the earth:' Gen. 1:28, 'And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth;' which are spoken to Adam immediately, and yet meant of his posterity. And it is certain that, in respect of conveying all that which was good, he was a common person; as in that of conveying a lordship over the creatures, a covenant of life to them, &c., and by the same reason he was a common person to convey sin too. And truly those words, that we are said to be 'children of wrath by nature,'
I understand not only (though so too) by birth, but even to extend to this sense, by the law of nature. See my exposition on those words.*
Now, the natural necessity upon which this designation of him to be a public person was made is this: God had, as author of nature, made this the law of nature, that man should beget in his own image or likeness. Look what it should prove to be either through his standing or falling afore he puts this nature out of his hands; and this law is in their kind common to beasts. So, then, in this first man the whole nature of man being reposited, as a common receptacle or cistern of it, from whence it was to flow to others, therefore what befalls this nature in him by any action of his, that nature is so to be propagated from him, God's ordinance in the law of nature being, that all should be made of one blood, which could not have been said of any other man than of him (no, not of Noah, because of the mixture of marriages afore with the posterity of Cain). And thus, also, man's condition differed from that of the angels, of whom each stood as single persons by themselves, being all and each of them created by God, immediately, as even Adam, the first man, himself was. But all men universally by the law of nature were to receive their nature from him in his likeness; that is, if he stood and obeyed, then the
image of holiness had been conveyed, as it was at first created; if he fell by sin, then seeing he should thereby corrupt that nature, and that that corruption of nature was also to be his sin in relation to, and as the consequent of, that act of sin that caused it, therefore, if the law of nature were ever fulfilled so as to convey his own image as sinful (suppose he should sin), so as it should be reckoned sin in his children, as it was in himself, this could not take place, but they must be guilty of that act that caused it, so far as it cast it, as well as himself. If indeed any way could have been supposed how he might have been bereft of that holiness he was created in, without a precedaneous act of sinning as the cause, then indeed we might have said that privation of holiness should not have been reckoned sin either to himself nor his posterity in that case. This corruption of nature, or want of original righteousness, in such case would not have been, nor could not have been accounted a sin, (a punishment it might), but it comes only to be a sin as it referreth to, and is connected with, the guilt of an act of sin that caused that corruption of nature. If, therefore, that corruption became truly and properly a sin in them as well as in him (and else it hath not the formale of his image), he must necessarily be constituted a public person, representing them even in respect of that act of sin, which should thus first infect and pollute their nature in him, or else the law of nature will not in this respect have its due effect; for that which makes it a sin is not the want of it simply, but as relating to a forfeiture and losing of it by some act those are first guilty of who lose it. Hence, therefore (I repeat the force of my reason again), if he will convey this image acquired by his sin as sinful, there must be a guilt of that act of his sin which was the cause of it, and therefore he must be a public person in that first act of sin; so as without this, as the case stood, the law of nature could not have had its course. See more of this in my sermons on Ephes. 2:3, 'Children of wrath by nature.'
Two objections clog this.
1. Assertion. Why should not, for the same reason, his actual righteousness be conveyed?
I answer, There is a differing reason: for his acts of righteousness they were only means of preserving holiness in him, as causes without which he should else lose it (for omission would have lost it as well as commission), yet he had it not given him at first from acts of righteousness, but by creation and free donation. But this sinful image, considered as sinful, was to come in wholly and merely from a sinful act, as the sole efficient or meritorious cause of it; and that was it alone could bereave him of it, and which alone could make the want of that righteousness to be sin.
2. The second objection is, Why was not Adam, in others of his sins (which also corrupted his nature), a public person, to convey the guilt of them with that corruption, as well as this first, seeing the law of nature is to beget in his image? Yea, why are not other parents public persons also, seeing this law to beget in their likeness is theirs as well as Adam's?
Ans. 1. It was the first act of sin in Adam that first cast his condition, that is, himself and all his posterity, into that utter privation of all righteousness, which was equally, for the substance of it (if I may use such an expression of sin), to be communicated to all mankind; and as in the being of man it is in the integral substantial image, not the gradual, that the law of nature seizeth on, as to beget an entire whole man, not of such a stature, &c., so it is in corruption the integral body of sin, the integral substance of that corruption, which is equally to be derived to all, was at first cast and caused by that first act of his, and therefore upon that he ceaseth to be a public person, for there was wrought in him thereby an utter privation of all righteousness. It was a privation total and integral, that had all sin it; and, therefore, though he by other acts might afterwards corrupt himself more by degrees, yet the law of nature for begetting in his likeness extends not to degrees in any kind, but integralitas, a wholeness of parts; as to beget a whole man, a soul that hath all faculties, a body that hath
all members; but the degrees of abilities or stature, that is not in the common law of nature; for else Seth should have been more corrupted than Cain, and the latter children of a wicked man than the elder; and that is a strong argument that it is not by mere propagation, but as conveying with it the guilt of the first sin.
And, 2, for other parents; though they are means to derive down this image from him, yet they are not public persons; nor was it necessary, for the condition of all Adam's acts being cast by that first act, and a total entire privation of all righteousness, as the common standard of all men's original sinfulness, being cast by Adam and his first act of sinning, there needed not such constituting other parents as public persons, but only as bare instruments by generation (which is but the channel of it) to convey it down. For the full scope and extent of the law of nature to convey the whole image of sin, for the substantial and integral parts of it, was by his sin enough attained; and therefore himself ceased upon it to be a public person, and other parents are never put into that office. And the scope of the law of nature is not to convey more or less degrees of sinning, according to the degrees of corruption in the parents that beget, as it is not to begat children as great or wise as themselves.
The next thing to be spoken unto is the justice and equity of the imputation of this first act of sin unto us by God.
The difference of this our first parent, and that of other parents, why he, and not they, were singled out to represent us, and stand for us, having spoken to, even now in answer to an objection, and also afore; and so supposing the justness of that difference, I shall now come to the clearing of the justness of this imputation of his first sin to us, and the corruption of it.
Now for this general ground which the text holds out, that he was that one man, as hath been shewn, as no father else is said to be.
There are several ways by which a multitude are reckoned as one man, as included in one other man that stands for them.
First, One that is head of many; and Adam was the first head and father of mankind. Now the elders and first heads of any tribe did still appear as public persons in the stead of the rest, as our knights in parliament do for a shire, and for kingdoms or nations, only they are chosen by the multitude they represent; but by the law of nature, the first had that privilege by nature, and so all the rest of that tribe were looked at as one man, in that man that represented them. And this holds good to this day in nations, namely, that some one represents a multitude, and stands for a whole corporation in matters of greatest moment: what such an one passeth, they are said to enact. It is Aristotle's maxim, Quod facit princeps civitatis, id tota facit civitas. Now in this sense all mankind were (upon the principles we have given) but as one man in this one man; and therefore the Scripture puts it upon this first man Adam, as from whom we receive the image which was in him, and by him left in our nature: 1 Cor.
15:47–49, 'The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.' And he was also thereto ordained and made by God in his first creation to represent us; and so what this the head did, is reckoned to us the parts and members of him. His will was voluntas totius generis humani; his will was the will of us all, as the will of the head or chief is of the whole corporation. The Scripture declareth him the first man, to have all men in him; why else is
Christ termed the last man? and so all sinned in him, as in that one man. And this justly derives the second.
Secondly, We were all as one man in him, tanquam in origine; so the buds or branches are one with the root, and receive their tincture or kind from it; and also may be reckoned to be in it long before they sprout forth. Rebekah having two sons in her womb, is said to have two nations, which were to spring out of each of them, as the respective roots of them: Gen. 25:23, 'And the Lord said unto her,
Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels.' This is spoken of them long afore these
nations came forth out from them. And Adam was the root of all the world, and had the whole of man's nature in him, tanquam in origine; and was, as all other things, even as plants, to bring forth in their kinds, so he in his kind. We were all made of one blood: Acts
17:26, 'And hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth.' And if that blood were tainted in him, the law of nature and nations justifies this attainder; and if the apostle
Paul makes use of a law of nature, in the case of God's election by grace, to say, 'If the root be holy, so are the branches,' Rom. 11:16
(God haying, in his ordinations of grace, often taken in the rules and ordinary laws of nature, as I have elsewhere shewn*), this maxim must needs justly hold much more here. If the root be sinful and corrupted, so are the branches; and therefore it is. Gen. 5:3, remarkably said of Adam, when fallen, he 'begat his son in his own likeness;' and so, 1 Cor. 15:47–49, he calls Adam the earthy man, of whom are all earthy men; and as he is (says he) such are they for qualities as well as for substance; and by that common law is that which the apostle there adds, 'We have borne the image of the earthy man;' which, though spoken in respect of the substance of flesh and blood, yet when fallen, it holds good by the same common law to both substance of our nature and qualities of our nature; and because that generation is the means by which we spring out of this root, therefore this is the means of propagation. And therefore, though Adam's nature personally was afterwards sanctified, and do are many of his sons, that beget children, as Abraham, &c., yet all are still begotten in Adam's sinful image, because a man begets not his like in person, but in the common nature; and the common nature of man, whilst betrusted as in common for us, in him and with him, having been in him corrupted, therefore, though in his own person his nature was afterwards sanctified again, and in others also; yet men beget their like corruption of nature, as a grain cast into the ground without chaff comes up with chaff, for that it is the common nature of it to do so; and a man circumcised begets a son with uncircumcision, because it is according to the common nature of all to be born so; so it is here.
I further add, thirdly, Suppose that a king should raise up a man out of nothing, to a great and noble condition, which he also gave him not for his own person only, but for his seed for ever, might he not make this covenant with him, that if he ever turned traitor, he should forfeit all for himself, and his posterity likewise to be made slaves?
And would not this law justly take hold of them, though they were not born then? Yes, God will justify his proceedings by this course in the world generally in all kingdoms, which shews it is the law of nature, and there is a justice in it, for the law makes the blood of a nobleman a traitor, tainted till restored; it is all the world over, it was so in other ages also. Therefore also Esther, a godly woman, made a request that not Haman only, who was advanced by the king, but that his sons also, should be hanged, and they were so, Esther 9:12–
14.
Fourthly, It is an equal rule, that by the same law, by virtue of which one may come to receive good freely, he should upon the same terms receive the contrary evil deservedly upon offending; as Job said,
'Shall we receive good from God, and not evil?' Job 2:10; so say I.
Shouldst thou have received the fruit of Adam's obedience in having an holy image conveyed to thee, if thou hadst stood; and shouldst thou not have received the contrary if he fell through the guilt of his sin? If God had made the law only to have received evil upon his offending, who could have found fault? Much less when he put him into an estate which would have proved so happy for us if he had not offended?
Again, fifthly, it was equal, for it was indeed the best way; for else all men should have stood on their own bottom, and after never so long standing have been subject to have fallen, and so by the poll every man might have fallen off from God; whereas this is put upon one man's obedience, who was as good as any of them.
Sixthly, If this course yet seem severity, then consider the goodness of God making use of the same rule for the salvation of multitudes of mankind, in ordaining Christ in our nature, a second Adam; in like