we our selves doe it or else give occasion for others to quarrel at them For that all have sinned This clause thus translated was greedily snatch'd at of old to extenuate and excuse the severity of Deaths universal passing and not only so but to alter and divert the cause and guilt from the Original Sin to the Actual For this cause the Antients did either reject this Translation or did not so wel accept it But I am to speak of this our Paraphrast whose words by reason of this Translation are imposing on the Apostle if he means eternal Death he must not mean that it came for Adams sin but in as much as all men have sinned that is upon all those upon whom eternal death did come it came because they also have sinned and again in passing on us For that all have sinned that is the sin was reckoned to all not to make them guilty like Adam but Adams Sin pas'd upon all imprinting this real calamity on us all but yet death descended also upon Adam's posterity for their own Sins for since all did Sin all should die His also once and again seems to admit of original sin for her share in this reckoning but his in asmuch quite thrusts it out brings in actual sin in its stead Actual sin I say is obtruded and Original sin excluded at least for propriety for guilt for imputation for likeness for equality Yet I shall not therefore reject this Translation because I see our Church hath accepted it and shall hope to make it stand good in this sense For that all have sinned that is sinned Originally although not Actually sinned naturally in Adams Sin although as yet not personally or in their own and am confident he is not ignorant I can find Abettors for this exposition amongst the reformed and Orthodox Expositors far before him But Sir if you will be pleased to look upon the Margin which I suppose he winked at know it is pointed at by our Church as a note of equal indifferency and authority and there you find in whom all have sinned this speaks plainly of sinning not actually in our selves but originally in Adam and this Translation is every whit as much and rather more congruous to the Original Text for my part I rather embrace this latter Translation with most Translaters or Interpreters old or late And with them conceive it to be the safer as not giving such way to the Errors of the Pelagians old or new Nay I hold it to be the sounder and more consonant to the very Letter for why should {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} be translated so flatly in the Neuter Gender when 't is found so Emphatically in the Masculine being it may with so close and so apt Concotd be referred to the One Man spoken of before for construe it in the Masculine and the Relative fairly agrees with the proximate and eminent Antecedent but take it in the Neuter and then the Relative is without any Antecedent at all or else must be turned into some obscurer and less significant part of speech Erasmus who labours like a Critick to draw it this other way would not allow of St. Augustines referring it to Sin because of the different gender though he confesses it to be the same in sense to say in which Man or in which Sin As for Erasmus whom all have occasion to honour from the Cradle to the Crown of learning him this Author recommends to us more precisely to be reckoned amongst the greatest and the best Expositors of Scripture that any age since the Apostles and their immediate Successors hath brought forth as for the learned Grotius whom he reckons with him I only say thus much As he was a most eminent Adversary to the Socinian so he was sometimes a not approved Advocate of the Arminian both which are reproved for their opinions about Original sin But on Gods name let him add all he can to Erasmus yet I would not have him detract any thing from St. Augustin which thing was sometime charged upon Erasmus himself both are to be mentioned with honour as the Worthies of their Ages And therefore all he hath said had it been more should have past for me without exception had he spoken it at another time and upon another place For upon on this place he cannot but know That Erasmus hath not only been suspected but taxed even by learned men of his own time and religion for more than I now think fit to express only as to the clause nay and whole verse in hand Erasmus is much contending for a Tropologie and peradventure hence it was that he hinted his Metonymie But for all his Rhetorick he turns Grammarian and plaies the Critick betwixt {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and will hardly be perswaded of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the Dative Case yet at length acknowledges Because the use of Greek Prepositions are so various I dare not affirm that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is no where joyned with a Dative Case where one thing is declared to be in another like as the Tree is in the seed A most apt similitude to illustrate our being in Adam and our sinning in him too Were it not for this his confession places of such construction were easie to be produced but I spare them as likewise his propter unum his pervasit his quatenus peccavimus which also might be of a facile connivence were it not in case of dangerous consequence and contention besides my task is to pursue not his but this Authors paraphrase Verse 13. For until the Law Sin was in the World but sin is not imputed where there is no Law FOr until the Law Sin was in the world That is from the beginning of the world all that time which went before until that very period wherein the Law was externally promulgated Sin was nevertheless even all that while in the world For the Apostle so speaks now with intent to occur to a certain objection an Objection not so much of mens Mervail or Scruple but rather of their Petulancy and Cavillation an objection that indeed hath been always but too much inculcated by the Adversaries of Original Sin Thus Where there is no Law there is no transgression But there is no Law given against Original Sin Ergo This is it which the Apostle here prevents by saying Sin was in the world during all that space of time which went before the giving or promulging of the Law of Moses notwithstanding it was not a Sin without a Law but so it was by vertue of the Law of Nature the rule of original righteousness the dictates of right reason the eternal moral Law the Law written in Mens hearts before it was written in Tables of stone For Original sin was not so much forbidden convinced condemned by
this case is a thing that both he and we all are bound to understand and seriously beleeve and not only that but Gods ordination and dispensation to such an end as the manifestation of his honour and glory But why such playing with a thing so sacred As here 's nothing to provoke his spleen to indignation from an horrible decree of absolute necessitating and damning so neither can I see any thing that should move it to laughter or levity the Apostle himself defines what affection it is that should hence be raised We joy in God through our Lord Iesus Christ ver. 11. and well we may since the sufferance or entrance of Sin is here referred to the gracious purpose of Reconciling attoning and saving Is this the way of vindicating the glory of the Divine Attributes to make no more but a light jest at Christs honour in this kind still I say Wisdom is justified of all her Children Luk. 7. 34 39. this he himself spake when men imputed to him a carnal Dispensation with our actual Sins and so much may we say when any man will deprive him of that honour is due unto him from his spiritual dispensation in our Originals Neither let him say to us That the honour of our blessed Saviour does no way depend upon our imaginations and weak Propositions we will say so too and peradventure might say so more justly against him only we let him know right inferences are no imaginations neither are strong deductions weak propositions And if what I have drawn hence be not directly from the Text let him but be pleased to take the illative along with him and then inferr what he can otherwise or to the contrary I confess I would not in any wise have this illation thought redundant for that were to make the Scripture either impure and corrupt or or else idle and superfluous yet should I not have excepted at all if any following my Siriack Transletion had omitted it upon this consideration That it is a hard matter especially in a comparison betwixt Adam and Christ to define a cause or give a reason for Original Sins entrance into the world or descent upon posterity But then this should be observed withall if such a thing be hardly rendred it should not be rashly inquired into because our inquisitiveness in this case tends more to the dishonour than all our Resolution can to the honour of the Divine Attributes As by one Man Whom we may not amiss understand in an unity of name order person nature sex action and Type 1. Of name Adam which appellation comprehends also both the person the sex and the kind 2. Of Order sc. the first man Adam 1 Cor. 15. 45. and so the very Hebraism or Grecism of the cardinal for the ordinal would give it if need were 3. Of Person sc. in the individual in number singularly and precisely taken and so Original Sin properly derived from the prime and not from the proximate Parents or according to their pluralities 4. Of sex the male and not the female who though she was first in the transgression yet some will have him to be solely understood in this propagation But for my part I confesse I can see no cause for such an exception but that they may be understood one Flesh one in the Image one in the praevarication and so one in the Propagation 5. Of Nature as one not only in individuo but in specie one comprehending and representing the whole root and stock and seed and generation and nature and condition of Mankind so Adam is taken for the whole species of Men and the Beast singularly for the whole species of Beasts 6. Of Act namely one in the Dis-obedience or Offence For it was not the simple or meer nature that was the means of such a derivation but the offending and disobedient Nature by which causally and instrumentally this privation and depravatiou this stain and guilt descended upon all yea not only the Offence of one but one offence for it was his first Act that was imputed to us and none of the rest 7. Of Type for Adam is here said to be the Figure or Type of Christ under this notion of one as much as in any thing else he whole Comparison throughout Sin No great matter how many and various soever be the acceptions of Sin in the Scriptures since in this place it is defined by the Apostle to be Sin in the singular and not said plurally Sins as if he would precisely determine it of that one root of Sin distinct from those many following fruits Yea it may be thus rendred the Sin very Emphatically and is understood by almost all from antient to modern for no other but Original Sin simply so accepted as the only Sin which came by one Man singularly and entred into all the world universally whereas actual sins are by many men neither enter they into all the world in general but rather into these and those particulars therein yea it is Sin simply absolutely properly formally For as himself grants this Sin had its beginning by the disobedience of Adam and disobedience is a transgression of a Law and that 's the very formality of Sin and that law was the law of the Image or of perfect Nature Now see Sir I beseech you what is here but in the least shew whereby to collect this sin to be Metonymically so called or what kind of Metonymie would he have it is it a Metonymie of the cause put for the effect So it seems he would have it because it is the effect of one sin Surely that one sin was a proper and real cause how strange is it then That it should beget an effect like to it in no thing but in a Tropical or Tralatitious an equivocal and abusive name if by the cause for the effect be meant Sin but for the Punishment how contrary is that to St. Pauls express words Sin entred into the world and death by Sin so far is he from confounding them that in most express manner he distinguishes between them both in name and signification For should his words be made to signifie thus Death that is the punishment entered by Sin that is the punishment Death the punishment of the punishment I beseech you what sense were this yet we grant though it is not so to be argued from the word in this place Original Sin is both a Sin and a punishment too A sin from the humane injustice perverting a punishment from the Divine Justice deserting Or will he have it a Metonymie of the Effect put for the Cause for so his other words intimate because it is the cause of many sins and those many sins without doubt he means properly so called then seems it so much the more strange and almost prodigious that so many real effects should proceed from a poorly equivocal and transnominated cause Rhetoricians observe that such kind of Metonymies are usual in external causes
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 although not according to the same measure or degree yea very Opposites and and Disparates if they come to be compared are accepted as opposite and different 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 comparison 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 condition viz. If we be made really righteous by Christ then we were made really Sinners by Adam But we are made really righteous by Christ Ergo And thus worthy Sir though I cannot presume my self to be one of those wise persons he speaks of yet this I presume 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 unconcluding But let it be with your own judgement how we either of us appear to you from what we have said 2. For the Church TO this objection That his Doctrine is against the 9th Article in the Church of England He saith I have already answered it in some additional Papers which are already published I would I might have had the opportunity to have seen them supposing they may contain some kind of Apologie which might have saved me the labour of an Additional in this latter part But for what I here see he must give me leave for to speak as that he may see That in judgement though not in Charity we are Two His zeal for the Church of England seems to be such and so much that he is protesting before hand against all that shall but seem to suspect it But he is indigning him in especial that shall take upon him to tax him for it in the least degree I hope this will not overprovoke his patience only to intreat him First to reconcile his own understanding to his subscription and then his own words to the words of the Article First A faithfull subscription of a dutifull Son of the Church is to submit his understanding and consent simply unto her suffrage And to under-write with hand and heart her Articles and Canons accepted in their plain literal sense And not to bring to them nor yet reserve from them any other understanding or intention of his own Laws we say are to be interpreted and accepted according to the mind of the Law-givers and a promissary Oath ought to be performed according to the intention of him to whom the promise is made Now for him to say I have oftentimes subscribed that Article and I am ready a thousand times to subscribe that Article and yet to say again I doe not understand the words of that Article as most men doe but I understand them as they can be true and as they can very fairly signifie and as they agree with the word of God and right reason What kind of subscription call you this with such a liberty or reservation a man might have without all scruple taken the Protestation the Covenant the Engagement or an Oath of Abjuration But whom means he by those most men certainly not the Adversaries of the Church who refuse to subscribe them But the Sons of the Church his brethren who have subscribed them as well as he The Adversaries though they consent for the most part to the Doctrine yet they refuse to subscribe the Article meerly because it is our Churches But as it is the Churches so we that are Sons and Brethren doe with one understanding simply subscribe it nor doe we make our own conditions by way of exception but we take them all in an undoubted concession For we also understand the words of the Article as they can be true and as they can fairly signifie and that is even in their literal and grammatical sense And likewise as they agree with the Word of God and right reason for so we suppose them in the sense aforesaid And although we confesse with him that the Church used an incomparable wisdom and temper in composing her Articles both with respect to New-reformists and Non-conformists too notwithstanding we believe her Prudence and Piety was such that she intended not so to secure the outward Peace of the Church against either as that the Truth of it in either part might be prejudiced thereby much less that she contrived any thing in such a charitable latitude as to give license to any for passing the rectitude and arctitude of Verity or that any one should presume upon his private and dissentaneous opinion notwithstanding her publique and unanimous Judgement It was discovered by some of themselves that when the Councel of Trent compleated her Canons of Original Sin and many particulars of them appearing so consonant to the Scriptures and to Orthodox Antiquity yet they studied to compile the whole with such Artifice as that notwithstanding they might leave to their own Scholasticks a liberty of disputing and opining what they pleased But I trust the like shall never be said of the Church of England either as touching this or any other of her Articles and for my part I conceive it to be a truer part of a Son of the Church rather to restrain his sense to her words than to strain or enlarge her words to his own sense Secondly As concerning this Article of Original birth or Sin or Birth-Sin in as much as he says if I had cause to dissent from it I would certainly doe it in those just measures which my duty on the one side and the interest of truth on the other would require of me Hereupon I am very willing to beleeve him on his own word as liking exceeding well of his ingenious Confession I have no cause to disagree and not much misliking his resolution I will not suffer my self to be supposed to be of a differing judgement from my dear Mother which is the best Church of the world Wherefore I shall doe no more which is the least that can be done in an appearing difference but set down the