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
verse only there was the Disparity and excess betwixt the Sin and the Grace here betwixt the Gift and the person sinning There it was said to be more plentifully abounding here more powerfully effecting There by what Authors here to what Ends There the Free gift was opposed to the Sin but here to the Judgement For the Iudgement was by one to condemnation By the Judgement we understand not only the Decree on God's part but also the desert on our own In as much as the word in Scripture notes both the Act and the power of Judgement as likewise the cause and thing judged And if we did but truly consider this then durst we not be so bold in questioning the Divine Attributes in regard we are taught to apprehend it as a thing not only of his severity but of our own impiety also So by Condemnation we understand both the Sentence and Execution the threatning against as well as the inflicting on likewise we take the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the Neuter as wee doe the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the Masculine yea and from the diverse preposition we note some distinction namely of the matter and subject as well as of the cause and instrument and thereupon we doe not confound them as he doth by One Man sinning one sin but somewhat more distinctly by one sinning or that sinned we understand the Act with relation to Adams person but by the one sin we understand the thing it self with relation to our whole Nature even Original sin it self to note that one sin original sin in us is under the same judgement unto condemnation as was that one sinning in Adam and that in the very Act of his sinning we sinned as he seems to grant veâ—y much And moreover to that sinned which he grants not as bad as he that not only because of the likeness of Nature and of sin as he says but because of the very identity and sameness thereof in the main substance though not according to every circumstance For we Descendents from Adam were perfectly like him in nature his own real natural production and so we sinned as himself says well and now if he himself thinks there is so great a parity of reason that the evil he means this judgement unto condemnation should descend upon us then in all reason he ought to yeeld not only a likeness but also a parity of Sin Yet whereas he says the evil was threatned to Adam and not to his Children Then was it not judgement unto condemnation for judgement implies the Sentence and Commination as Condemnation does the Execution or effect But what not threatned and yet descending will the Lord strike before he warns I say no more but for Gods sake what kind of Vindication call you that to urge the evil or punishment so oft and admit so little of the fault or sin is I think verily the wrong way to a Vindication of the Divine Attributes But the Free gift is of many offences unto justification To prevent all our murmuring and censuring that judgement should be to condemnation by one man or person the Apostle bids us construe him rightly and says he means it by one Sin or offence for we shall never think Gods ways equal in this case till we can look upon it with a right Eye not only as the Sin of one man and so the Sin of another But as one sin of all men and so our own But the Sin of one and one Sin if this satisfie not yet this makes amends for all abundantly that the Free gift is of many offeuces unto justification For mark how it answers to every opposite the Free gift to the offence many to one and justification to condemnation The first shews how benignly the next how bountifully the last how beneficially the recompense is vouchsafed as it is the Free gift to the offence so it signs Grace in us not to be natural as the sin is As it is many to one so it betokens a liberal condonation of many actuals as well as that one Original As it is Iustification against condemnation so it signifies a making holy as well as happy against both the sin and the punishment Since then what God in Christ hath here done is to justifie let God in Christ be justified by all and in all Verse 14. For if by one mans offence Death reigned by one much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of Righteousness shall reign in life by one Iesus Christ FOr if by one Man's offence Death reigned by one It is of no small note that a mutual construction is here to be made of one Mans offence and one offence The diverse reading shews a coincidence and however the repetition seems as the note upon their narrow conjunction nothing has done more prejudice to the truth of this point and to the Divine Attributes as they are therein concerned than a dividing separating or over-severe and too nice distinguishing between the one man and the one offence For though the natural corruption may be distinguishd from the personal Act according to some circumstances yet in substance they are to be considered as one and the same because it was for the main substance the same sin that Adam committed that entred into the world by him and well might the same sin passe from the whole or head into all the parts members though not in the particular Act yet in the universal guilt so that in his very sin we might not amiss be said to sin originally although not actually The Apostle more than once expresly intimates it to be translated indifferently either the Sin and offence of one man or one sin and offence We should do well therefore to accept it so equally as he hath been pleased to expresse it But we look askew upon it in the personal Act only as that one mans sin and no more and so we ascribe and impute all to him most presumptuously and seek in like manner to shake it off from our selves Strange it is we dare not deny that God imputes it to us and yet we dare be bold to impute it solely to him For so the Paraphrast seems to do The Sin of Adam alone whereas in truth we ought humbly to conceive and consider it as one Sin both in him and us one Sin in our Nature one Sin in our kind and so coming to be but one Sin even in the persons of us all They that goe the first way are quite out of the way to vindicate the Divine Attributes For how is it possible to make it anothers sin alone and not our own in any proper respect and yet not give occasion to murmurers and repiners at the imputation to any purpose whatsoever Whereas if instead of imposing it altogether upon another we would be convinc'd and content to take what is our own unto our selves That heavy yoak which
places besides For as life and death go all along the Antithesis throughout for the express reward and punishment so doe Sin and Righteousnesse the offence and the Free gift distinctly as the vile anomie or obliquity or as the holy vertue or efficacy 3. The word Condemnation is by the Apnstle himself limited to signifie Temporal death no such matter by his favour for most certain it is condemnation is here opposed by him to the Iustification of life and that signifies life both spiritual and eternal and to take away the extent on either part is rather to make the Apostle limit the excess on the best part He must mean Temporal death for eternal death did not passe upon all men Yes that it did even passe upon all men from the just sentence though as he knows who said it did not invade all men to an uttermost Execution And if he means eternal death he must not mean that it came from Adams sin but in as much as all have sinned c. well corrected of himself but ill restrained by him Yea indeed but he must and very well he may not only in as much as but in whom all have sinned Even originally in his loyns although not actually in themselves If all have sinned in him an eternal death is little enough But if not even a Temporal death is too much 4. The Apostle here speaks of sin imputed therefore not of sin inherent why not one as well as the other imputed and inherent though they may be of some diverse consideration yet are they not of such contrariety that they may consist together and that in every kind of sin As actual sin is inherent and yet nevertheless is imputed so original sin may be imputed and yet inherent nevertheless will the imputation which is in respect of a Law take away the inhaesion of the fact or crime which is with respect to the person Neither doth the Apostle speak here directly of Sin imputed but of Sin not imputed And he knows that hath been construed by many for man's not so reputing it through want of knowledge or conscience of a law although it was never so much inherent 5. The Apostle says by the disobedience of one man many were made Sinnere so that it appears that in this we have no sin of our own neither is it at all our own formally inherently Whatsoever the appearance may be to us yet this is of no consequence from the words Because Adam is here often called one and one man not so much to distinguish or to divide him from us but to compare and parallel him with Christ And though it be called one man's disobedience in regard of the individual and circumstantial Act yet in regard of the specifical Act of the Common Nature the common union comprehension representation it was indeed all our act For so all have sinned and are made Sinners sc. inherently The Formality of Sin whether original or actual is anomie and obliquity to the Law of God and so it is imputed but with all it is ataxie and deformity of our nature and so it is inherent Neither was Adams Sin efficiently his persons only but his natures also and so it was ours And for Original Sin Adam's person was but the External efficient but the internal efficient was that law of corrupted Nature whereby a corrupt thing deserted did beget a corrupt thing like it self so that that which is born of flesh is flesh But for him to make it effectively ours as to some purposes of imputation Alas this is to bring God into the business whose wisdom and justice no doubt was efficient to some sad effects of punishment but then to say That it could not be a Sin in us formally and notwithstanding the Divine Justice both imputing and effecting such fearfull purposes as the dreadfull and direfull effects of Adam's and our Original Sin oh Divine Attributes What 's now become of your Vinditation I have heard of deputation to punishment but not of imputation without the crime or fault And if it be so that the sin ran in no sence be properly ours how stands this with the Divine Justice that the punishment should be ours in any sense whatsoever since even we our selves such is our natural and humane Justice kill or destroy not poysonous Serpents noisom vermin savage Beasts ravenous Birds or pestilent weeds but for some natural vitiosity seminally innately hereditarily intrinsecally inherently formally and properly in them 6. To his sixth saying I have spoken before particularly and say now moreover in summe That it is not our punishment that can redound to Adam but the guilt of his sin rather that redounds upon us That in actual external and particular Sins it may be just to afflict the relatives not only to punish the cause but for terrors sake to prevent the example but in this original internal natural and universal Sin it cannot be for terror or prevention to any since all are guilty all are punished That in our relation to Adam we are not only descendants from him in our persons but participants with him in our Natures and so may be formally denominated Sinners as well as he And if there be no more contradiction in it than for every man to say thus if I am formally by him a Sinner then I did really doe his action that may be easily said and not so easie to be contradicted For what hinders but that a man may say nay that he ought to say I did really doe his action though not in the personal and external circumstance yet in the natural and internal substance of doing I did really doe his action in his loyns and as a member of of the whole body of Nature Now if the Member of a mans body may formally be denominated sinfull from the sin of the whole man why then may not every man be so denominated here being an included Member of the whole body of Mankind 7. He says there is nothing in the design or purpose of the Apostle that can or ought to enforce any other thing than what than that we sinned lesse than Adam and therefore sinned not in him and that God imputed this sin less to us than to him I confesse I can see no such purpose in the Apostle and doubtlesse his design throughout the whole contraposition is not to lessen our sin to Adams but to lessen both Adams sinne and the sinne of us all to Christs righteousnesse yea and to lessen the Death which both he and we deserved to the life that Christ had merited for us and so indeed to heighten his Acts and Attributes in all But thus he argues If we have sinned less then we did not sin in him To which it may be thus answered the hand sins less than the mind did it not therefore sin in the body but we see no reason why we should not still say we sinned in him naturally though not personally and as
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