as being the eternal Law and eternally existing in the divine mind yea and more or less imprinted in the minds and consciences of Men from the beginning The Law therefore being before the Sin there was no time of the world after Sin wherein Sin was not imputed But much adoe is here made by the means of distinguishing or diversifying Questions viz. whether this imputing of Sin be by God or by men whether it be of Original Sin or of actual whether it be by the eternal and natural or by the written and published Law whether it be of the fault and corruption or of the guilt and punishment whether it be to penalty temporal or eternal whether this imputation be of our own sins or anothers Whether this imputation be distinguished or divided from inherence Thus we trouble our selves and one another and the Truth betwixt us with many a Fallacy of Division whereas much error were to be avoided by taking both together in a conjoyned sense and the Truth were easily determined in all those questions or in most part of any of the questions by accepting both parts indifferently even the one as well as the other As to speak only to this Authors words or divided Propositions The Apostle he saith speaketh here of Sin imputed therefore not of Sin inherent Not so by his leave for the Apostle speaks not here of any distinction at all betwixt imputed and inherent sin but of Sin indefinitely and universally and that imputed only by a Law now the Law properly imputes Sin be it never so properly inherent as in actual sins though they be inherent yet the Law properly does but impute them So in Original Sin the Law does impute it yet so as it is inherent So that in one or other the Sin is nevertheless inherent for being imputed nor imputed for being inherent And if imputed to such purposes as he here speaks of viz. to Temporal Death then it is neither a Sin properly nor yet imputable so eternal so far as is or can be implyed by the Apostles words Yes yes the contrary to all his in every purpose is not only implyed but apparent from the Apostles words For the Apostle speaks of Death indefinitely without any limitation to these or those purposes and that 's an universal implying all kinds of Death Besides Death here by Adam must so be taken as proportionably extending to the-life by Christ otherwise wrong is done to the whole comparison and consequently to all our Saviours Attributes Now the life we are here said to gain by the Excellency of Christ is not only a corporal life opposite to a temporal death but a justification of life opposite to a spiritual Death and a reigning in life opposite to an eternal Death Whensoever another mans sin is imputed to his relative therefore becaeuse it is anothers and imputed it can goe no further but to effect certain evils to afflict the relative but to punish the cause not formally to denominate the descendant or relative to be a Sinner So he saith again to which thus much is to be said That what perhaps may be congruously spoken betwixt one particular man and another is very inconsutile to be said betwixt Adam and all Mankind Betwixt Man and Man we know the Descendants of Traitors and Vassals in relation to their progenitors offences are punish'd though they were not formally the Offenders And therefore such words may say something in respect of proximate Parents and of relatives yet living upon whom their condition may reflect and to whom their example may be usefull but in relation betwixt the prime Parent and us his descendants they say nothing at all For he was not punished for our Sins but we for his neither was he punished in our punishment but we in his neither was his simply another mans sin but ours also neither was it imputed only but inherent also neither were we Relatives only but accessories only neither were we Descendants only but participants all this is to be understood of the Common nature union and representation and therefore here was enough to denominate us formally to be Sinners But I cannot but wonder at such a restrictive largness in the saying Another mans sin imputed therefore because it is anothers and imputed For the Sin or the crime to be imputed therefore because it is imputed and for the evil or punishment to be inflicted for another mans sin therefore because it is anothers this is horrid to think of even in Men what is it then to urge in such a case as this where it cannot but reflect even upon God himself But about this imputation he yet urges Nor Reason nor Sciptures nor Religion does enforce and no Divine attribute does permit that we should say that God did so impute Adams sin to his posterity that he did really esteem them to be guilty of Adams sin equally culpable equally hatefull though this latter part be said but by few yet this Scripture in hand inforces us to say That God did really esteem them to be guilty of Adams Sin in whom all have sinned that is really sinned and by whose disobedience they were made Sinners sc. really so made if he did so only impute as not really and verily esteem guilty what kind of imputation I pray was that imaginative opinionative suspitious pretensive presumptive conjectural phantastical equivocal abusive or as are his own words figurative Metonymical collateral indirect this we are sure no Reason no Scripture no Religion no Divine Attribute will permit to say so But because he wil have us say equally culpable equally hatefull c. we will say it in the most convenient sense we may be equally culpable in our common nature equally hatefull in our Natural Sin the same Malice of our Nature the same action of our Nature as much guilty as he according to that universal nature wherein he comprised and represented us all and so much he is not unknowing all Religions primitive and latter Protestant and Papists have said not without reason and Scripture nor is any Attribute of God to be objected there against But to suppose that we have sinned take us truly as in our Nature union mass root stock c. less than he or That God imputed this Sin lesse to us than to him this say we is but supposition and that is far from probation and therefore we would fain learn that Analogie of Faith those Words of Scripture that proportion and Notice of the Divine Attributes that would inforce us to suppose so much But I return to the Apostles supposition who here supposes that there was no time of the world since the First mans fall wherein there was not a Law and sin and the imputation How is it then that he says of Mankind They did do actions unnatural and vile enough but yet these sins were not yet so imputed were they indeed unnatural and vile and yet not so imputed upon what ground then does
to follow the punishment and not rather the punishment 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 punishment but the punishment was proper and real not figurative and equivocal 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 determine upon them too peremptorily nor to aggravate them too severely nor to extenuate them too indulgently but to believe them and justifie them and magnifie them so as they are revealed God indeed was not finally angry with us his Elect neither upon our original nor upon our actual account And why because his wrath was so appeased by Christ satisfaction But was he not therefore so at the Sin simply and absolutely considered if he had no design of eternal displeasure 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 redeem us from the mortality and condition of our Nature for he suffered it himself and left us to follow him in a conformity but from the depravation and damnation of it Conseq. This anger 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 juridical 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 extenuate 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 observed 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 continual anger for such it is against the Fall and original sin without an mputation 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 imputation no such propriety no such participation I can see no cause why those evils should passe so far as this present life Eternal death is little enough if sin be properly and particularly imputed but if it be not so I cannot see but that even a temporal death to all mankind 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 penance surely he understands not private Repentance but publick Discipline or that of the Churches imposing say it were so the Churches power is to impose 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 experience 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 conscience 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 deliver 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 proposition that scared him thereunto Conseq. Why the Conscience should not naturally 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 only Metonymically and improperly Inconseq Such a conjecture is not reasonable for if to deny a Sin to be such were sufficient because the Conscience naturally smiles not for it nor yet convinces of it so many actual sins might easily come to be denied A strange conjecture for a figurative appellation to save a Conscience I know the Conscience 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 touching the true and full apprehension of her self and of Original sin That the law and light of nature is exceedingly obscured to all Consciences since the Fall That most mens Consciences are insensible 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
is upon the Sons of Adam from the day that they goe out of their Mothers womb till the day that they return to the Mother of all things would not be so grievous or so unequal to their apprehensions But they would soon be convinc'd to lay their hands upon their mouths yea would be content to say every man for himself This is my Yoak the image of the earthy and I will bear it I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him which is never to be brought to passe if we once go about to unyoak our selves of the Sin But whether we will do so or no God will be true when all men are found Lyers his ways will be proved equal when our ways are reproved for unequal and wisdom will be justified and cleared when she is judged though no flesh living can be justified in her sight The very punishment and infliction from God is sufficient to argue the sin and guilt in us For Death reigned by one not only by one man in the Masculine as he spake immediately before but by one in the Neuter one Sin for death could never so have reigned by the one Man had it not been by the one sin Yet see how he would labour to bring the Original punishment on our heads that will not admit us to bring the Original Sin so much as upon our Shoulders For so he supposes it If the sin of Adam alone could bring death upon the world who by imitation of his transgression on the stock of their own natural choice did sin against God though not after the similitude of Adams transgression How says he no Sin but in imitation no punishment but for imitation he knows full well whose exploded heresie that was and therefore shall do very well to renounce both name and thing at once But how agree his own words to themselves sinning by imitation and yet not after the similitude of Adams transgression which cannot genuinely no nor conveniently be interpreted but of sinning actually and by imitation yea let it be understood of sinning less than he did yet so it is by imitation Again Sinning on the stock of their own natural choice and yet not sinning after the similitude of Adams transgression Why how sinned Adam but out of the stock of his own natural choice And how sinned we in him but out of the stock of his natural choice for indeed he was our natural stock and we were the branches thereof And it was he that received the whole stock of Natures choice liberty Free will and consent for himself and likewise for us all and out of this stock of natural choice and liberty it was that we sinned not only by him but in him and with him wherefore I heartily wish him to be wary how he exempts sinning after the similitude of Adams transgression and sinning on the stock of our own natural choice each from other lest he impâ—ir that stock and overthrow that Rock of liberty and Free will which against both Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians he laboured ere while so earnestly to establish and so prove to strike upon them and himself and the Divine Attributes all at once But to remedy all this here it is not only by one Man who had his personal choice but by one sin wherein was our natural choice and therefore let us go on to see what the Apostle inferrs and preferrs in such a case How much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse shall reign in life by one Iosus Christ sc. Though Death reigned much both by one man and by one sin yet by one Christ they shall reign much more But then they must be duely qualified for it is They which receive and that argues no capacity no ability in them notwithstanding the blemish of Orginal sin for thereby they were under Death's reign which was spiritual and not corporal only and held under the power and utter slavery of Sin as well as Death rather it convinces them of their privation and impotence as not having but as they receive yet notwithstanding such emptiness and unaptness being prepared and embled by Christs abundance they must receive that is rightly apply Grace sc. the grace of justification by Faith and likewise the Gift of Righteousness sc. the sanctification of the Spirit to holy walking And both these they shall have both in their kinds and measures sc. abundance namely for sufficiency but not to supererogation And so they shall reign in life sc. from Vassals under Sin and Death become Free-men nay Kings in life both of Grace and Glory And all this not of themselves nor for any worthiness of their own but by the sole merits and mediation of one Iesus Christ who is God all-sufficient and besides whom there is no Saviour All these Excellencies of Remedy put together serve but to set forth the destituteness and desperateness of the Disease Verse 18. Therefore as by the offence of one Iudgement came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousness of one the Free gift came upon all men unto justification of life THerefore as by the offence of one man judgement came upon all men c. This 18 verse by the illative seems to me rather to refer to the 16 verse than to any of the rest and may thence more expresly and peculiarly be supplyed Howbeit the Comparison was there with more precise respect to the Things huâ— here to the persons Therefore then the illative is a reduplicate and concludes so much the stronger as by the offence of one man or by one offence whether the primordial Act of his person or the original stain of our Nature judgement of the Divine Decree so wise so just came upon all men all common men and born after the ordinary way of Nature not the blessed Virgin none but Christ himself excepted unto condemnation at least from his sentence and according to our desert even so by the righteousnesse of his person natures offices the Free gift of grace and salvation came upon all men sufficiently yea and effectually too upon all the faithfull For he is the Saviour of all men especially of those that beleeve unto justification of life sc. that life which only the justified or which by justification only all men attain unto And here I have only those words of his to except against The proportion and comparison lies in the mayn emanation of death from one and life from the other That certainly it does not if we look at the Comparison no further than as it lies in the present verse for here the main proportion and comparison is betwixt the offence of one and the righteousness of one both here and throughout the whole Comparison Sin and Grace the offence and the free-gift these are the main opposites as being the principal causes The other two Death and Life are but secondarily set opposite as being but the consequents
punishment but no fault of sin properly defiling so the Pontificians and especially their Scholasticks That it is neither defection depravation corruption nor truly and properly a Sin but only an affliction or punishment descending upon posterity through the guilt of Adams transgression like as to be born a Slave or a Bastard is his shame only and not his sin That nothing was born in us and with us which was not good and the very work of God That Adams disobedience was in no wise ours neither were we therefore in any wise obnoxious to eternal death so the Pighians and the Catharinians That we become infected by Original sin not by way of Generation or Propagation but only by way of imitation and outward occasion That the death of the body is the sequel of Nature and no punishment for sin whether original or actual so the Socinians and Racovians That Original sin is not a vicious accident or adjunct but is become our very Nature Essence and Substance the very heart and flesh and body and soul so the Flaccians and Substantialists That a mans meer pure naturals notwithstanding the Fall are good and perfect That Original sin is but like a little spot upon the skin or light wound for all which there remain still in a man his natural capacities dispositions powers and forces to Good That Men from their Mothers womb are as fully endowed with Liberty and Freewill as Adam was before his fall That Original sin to a man's Freewill is but like Garlick to a Loadstone easily wipt off and so it falls to work as fresh as at the first That the Adamical will or will from Adams fall hath it self not merely passive in the act of Conversion but is thereunto actively cooperating together with God so the Erasmians the Sunergicts and Arminians That Original sin was but St. Augustins dream and Puppet That Infants under the New Testament are not born in Original sin That there 's no necessity to baptize Infants with respect to any benefit they thus can have against it That Original sin and all other is to be remedied only by revelations and raptures of the Spirit without any use either of Word or Sacraments so the Swenckfeldians the Enthousiasts Anabaptists Fanaticks and Familists That Original sin is not properly a sin but a Disease or a Condition or else figurative form of speaking viz. by a Metonymie may be so called so Zwinglius and some of the Zwinglians That God reprobates God damns men absolutely because it is his will and pleasure without any respect or condition whether of Original or Actual sin so the Supralapsarians Thus you see Sir what a crowd of Errors have obtruded only through mens leaning to their own understandings amongst which more than once this Author may find his own which to me at first view seems so like to diverse of the aforesaid Errors that taken up in strict syllables I begin to suspect it would not only appear so but appear so and much more But I look not upon him in a likenesse to them but in some unlikenesse to the Holy Scriptures and the Church of England taking his way of understanding it to be another both to what the first teaches to understand and in what the last would be understood And let him not think I speak this as one that would revile him but as one that according to his understanding must dissent from him using my liberty which I wish may be mutual but keeping my Charity nevertheless my understanding I doe faithfully and in all humility submit to those two witnesses neither will I oppose him in any thing but what I receive from them they that will undertake him in other passages that fall not directly within this compass let them do it as they shall find themselves concerned in it or called to it This I take to be the safest way to begin and if he will keep his own word the readiest way to make an end For taking the 5 Chapter to the Romans to be objected against him If it be so saies he I have done if it be not so say I I have nothing to do Let me be beleeved both by him and you in this I have look'd again and again upon his Paraphrase with a single eye only to find out truth and proper truth if there explained hoping he will doe likewise with this Exposition when it shall come to his sight In which I make his own words mine if I use any violence I can easily be reproved For the Scripture Rom. 5. 12. Wherefore as by one Man Sin entred into the World and Death by Sin and so Death passed upon all Men for that all have sinned {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Wherefore therefore for this cause I begin with the search and examination of the letter for it is the Grammatical sifting that must render the plain Construction and then the Rhetorical glossing may come in to adorn with a certain circumlocution and therefore a broad Paraphrase if it be not unsuitable yet it is untimely when it shall presume in place before a narrower Exposition have done its part For this canse so I am bold to render it because I find it mostly so rendred in this Epistle to the Romans chap. 1. 26. and 13. 6. and 15. 9. which very inference serves to shew plainly the principal reason or cause why it pleased God to permit the Entrance and Passage of Original Sin viz. For this cause even for the reconciliation and attonements sake immediately before spoken of vers 10. and 11. Therefore God suffered this sin to enter into the world The Enmity or hainous aversion the wrath or dreadfull desert of Original Sin can never be more truly and fully considered and measured than in and by Christs death and satisfaction which who so contends to lessen either for Fault or Guilt such endeavours to extenuate the vertue and merits of Christs reconciling and attoning Gods great end in the Fall was to manifest and magnifie the infinite perfection of his own Son who then would not labour earnestly that Wisdom might principally be justified in the point Doth not God herein commend his love towards us vers. 8. How then can we imagin there should be the least prejudice upon the Divine Attributes in such an Ordination or Permission upon such a motive or intention But was this inferential motive heedlesly escaped or not rather purposely pretermitted to usurp a more uncontrouled licence in the wanton daliances of words that I may not call them petulancies of prophanation It is no reputation to a Phisician to say he hath cured us of an Evil which we never had and shall we accuse the Father of mercies to have wounded us for no other reason but that his Son may have the honour to have cured us I understand not that he that makes a necessity that he may find a remedy is like c. The sufficiency and excellency of our Saviour in
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
or effects And this I note that Christs excellency might appear much more in remedying the cause than in removing the effect only Verse 19. For as by one Mans disobedience many were made Sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous FOr as by one man's disobedience many were made Sinners here concludes the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ and he says well this is the sum of all for 't is the principal scope of the Holy Ghost to prefer Christ making righteous to Adam making sinners And therefore he saith yet better we are made much more righteous by Christ than we were sinners by Adam and yet best of all the graces we derive from Christ shall be more and mightier than the corruption and declination by Adom because the excess and excellency of Christ appeareth much more in taking away the Sin and corruption than in a delivering from the misery and mortality of Original Sin And therefore the Apostle in this case and comparison concludes it for his greatest glory in making Sinners righteous above that of making the miserable happy or bringing those that were subject to Death to reign in life saying thus as the sum of all as by one mans disobedience Adams prime and personal Act with all the affections and circumstances Many {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the many that is all for none that ordinarily proceeded out of his loyns are to be excepted were made Sinners from and in that very Act not only imputed and accounted but constituted and really so effected And so the very word is used both by St. Paul in this place and by St. Peter 2 Pet. 1. 8. and by St. Iames Iam. 4. 4. to signifie the very being of the thing and not the bare reckoning only And we may take his own construction of the word put into the order of sinners but then we understand it of the humane and natural order as by generation and propagation and the like but not of the divine and eternal order as made such by Gods appointment It stranges me still that he who even now was so vehemently invective against both Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians upon the account of the horrible and necessitating Decree in this case of Original Sin as reproving their supposition if it be by the Decree of God by his choice and constitution that it should be so c. and again if God may ordain men to Hell for Adams Sin which is derived to them by Gods only constitution c. And now for all that that himself is here saying many were constituted or put into the order of sinners they were made such by Gods appointment to speak altogether so like them Is this the way I pray you to vindicate the Divine Attributes against them nor will such an exception salve it at all to say not that God could be the Author of a Sin to any but that he appointed the evil which is the consequent of Sin to be upon their heads who descended from the Sinner For though Sin and the Sinner may be put for the punishment and the punished in some other places of Scripture yet can neither be so understood or accepted in this to the Romans because the Sin and the punishment both are here noted again and again in their proper plain and distinct expressions and comparisons Neither is there truth much lesse safety to the Divine Attributes to speak in such a sense as that God appointed by his Decree the evil of punishment and misery which is the consequent of Sin anothers and not their own to be upon their heads outwardly and temporally though the pravity was never in their hearts who descended from the Sinner and yet descended not Sinners themselves For thus though he labours not to speak out a man of any strict observation or narrow search must needs accept him and the rather because of former passages to this purpose not a few besides what necessity is there to wrap in here the divine constituting either for sin or suffering where the humane constituting is so evident so sufficient It is but asking by whom or by what were many made sinners and the answer is here already made to our hands by one Mans disobedience to bid us satisfie all our curiosity in that and to seek no further for a constituting cause nor indeed will the whole Analogie endure it For the total comparison is not betwixt God and Christ but betwixt Christ and Adam neither is all this excesse or excellence of State wherein Christ constituted us above that wherein Adam destituted us spoken with any respect to God but in a direct and compleat respect to Adam only So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous By the obedience both active and passive of one Lord Jesus Christ who alone is sufficient to satisfie for all sins original and actual shall many even all the Elect all that beleeve be made righteous made as himself says well and constituted righteous And we hope he means really righteous by the Spirits imparting as well as Christs imputing else where were all this contrariety of the Comparison For what excesse or excellency were it to make a thing really righteous if it was not really sinfull and corrupt before and righteous that is not only happy but holy withall And therefore the Sinners must needs be understood not only as miserable and afflicted but as declined and corrupted and so signifying we joyn with him as we have already approved him in what he says to the end of the Paraphrase Nevertheless we may not doe so as touching the Consequents or Antecedents thereof Therefore 1. As to the Antecedents HIs Position which he intimates in opposition to the Objection is That to deny original sin to be a sin properly and inherently is not expresly against the words of St. Paul in the 5 chapter to the Romans And for this he hath these sayings For as for reasons he hath more reason than to call them so 1. He supposes the words are capable of interpretation otherwise than is vulgarly pretended Now I suppose that the interpretation of the Primitive Churches Councils Fathers Papists Protestants Lutherans Calvinists and the most learned and moderate of them is of other account with him than either as vulgar or as pretended Yea a reason or the Maior of it is propounded by him For any interpretation that does violence to right reason to Religion to holinesse of life and the divine Attributes of God is therefore to be rejected and another chosen True but then it remains on his part to be proved That such an Interpretation as is contrary to his understandiug does so in all or in some one of them at least And withall that an Interpretation of his own understanding be not such in all or any one of them 2. Sin in the Scripture is taken for the punishment what then it is not so here nor in more than hundreds of