and effects only that an internal cause then should be put for an external effect must needs be most unusual Entred into the World We may understand this Entrance of Sin in divers senses and that very Orthodoxally 1. Sin was not in the beginning for it had no being before the Entring and therefore was no eternal evil principle but only the issue of some inordinate and irregular Act. 2. It entered not as a creature or substance that had some existence in it self but as a vicious accident that could not subsist without a Subject in which it must inhere And therefore though it entred into our Nature and substance yet our nature and Substance it was not 3. It entered not of it self but by means by one man by a second cause Therefore himself grants Sin had its beginning and thence let the fault and guilt be fetcht causally what need is there to seek further than the beginning why then is there such prying into the first cause such disputing such labouring to entitle hereunto his Decreeing his ordaining and permitting disposing dispensing c. For so indeed the most we do is bus to disparage and dishonour him in his glorious Titles and Attribut It is enough for us to beleeve him to be just wise good c. in all things because he cannot possibly be otherwise although in some dispensations it is not possible for us to comprehend him 4 If entred into Loe the Apostle speaks plainly of an ingression not as of an accession of a thing inward and not outward only doubtless then it must needs be something inherent and not imputed only 5. It entred into the World {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} it came into even the reduplicated praeposition is a note of more intimate and peculiar manner of introduction namely by way of Generation and Propagation not by Temptation nor by Imitation not by Temptation for so it came from the Devil to Eve not by Imitation for so it came from Eve to Adam but by Propagation for so it came from Adam to us all Had it been otherwise than so Sin could not in any adaptness or propriety have been said to have Entred into the world but the world must then have caused it and called it and sought it and brought it and taught it to it self And death by Sin that is to say by the same Sin which came into the world by one Man namely the Original So then death it is that cannot be denied But now men must be Judges and take upon them to determine what kind of death albeit the Apostle speak it never so indefinitely He must mean temporal death says he well and thus he may inferr it because St. Paul speaks of such a Death as entred into this world and that 's but temporal But then he ought to observe withall that St. Paul speaks here not only of Deaths first Entrance but of Deaths through passage now such a passage is out of the world and beyond it and so must be eternal But he objects eternal death did not pass upon all men That 's easie to be answered from some of his own words The Sentence did though the Execution did not in the one was the Divine Justice to be magnified and his Mercy in the other Thus the Divine Attributes know how to save and to exalt themselves on either side if men would not seek to make them seem to clash by humbling those high things to their low and weak apprehensions And so Death passed upon all men sc. Death entred by Sin and so by Sin Death passed So that whether we consider the terminus a quo or ad quem we may directly hence collect that Death even the coporal as well as the eternal was not the sequel or necessity of Nature but even the penalty and wages of Sin because death is a separation quite contrary to the natural union especially to that of Nature in her integrity and original perfection But say that because of a composition and that of contrary Elements there might be nevertheless some kind of mutation migration melioration yet this was far from separation dissolution confusion and that dolorous and ignominious execrable and damnable This makes me I cannot so well brook or digest those passages of his His Sin left him to his Nature we returned to the state of meer nature of our prime creation thrust back to the form of Nature was remanded to his mortal natural State means he to a corrupt state of Nature that was not the former or from the prime Creation or means he by the form of Nature that of Natures first forming why that was after the Divine Image and similitude or means he by meer Nature those they call Pure Naturals which indeed are nothing because Nature cannot be so abstractly considered but either in the state of Integrity or in the state of Corruption a third state before between of after those two never was and therefore is not to be imagined Ever since the Fall and Original Sin we aptly conceive that there is a difference still to be made betwixt the substance of Nature and the corruption of Nature But that this Nature and this corruption was ever separated in any Christ only excepted we beleeve not or that there shall be a State of pure Naturals again till the Resurrection of the Dead We all know and beleeve Adam by his disobedience defected and fell from what he was before sc. from the Image and Original Righteousness but that by his Sin he fell into a Nature or state which he had before or without original righteousness that we understand not not yet of any remanding obtruding or returning thither Indeed we read God said Dust thou art and to Dust thou shalt return Gen. 3. 19. but that noted only some materials in part but no certain state neither had that dust returned to the dust but that the Image and righteousness was forfeited and lost For we see it was so not by a natural propensity so much as by a provoked Commination Besides this methinks he says something to oppose himself in this part when he says our Nature is of Gods making and consequently is good or Nature is almost the same c. What good and yet punished nay and we remanded to it for a punishment What almost the same in goodness and yet nothing the same in immortality and the blessing Thus here again Gods Justice is brought upon the Stage nay and upon the rack too especially by our scanning betwixt the two Terms of Death entring by one man and Death passing upon all men For we cry why the punishment and how of all for one so forth Mean while it is not considered by us Nay not believed how we were all in the lump loyns of that one which remains hereafter to be demonstrated only thus much is now to be said That while the Divine Attributes are pretended for saved harmless by us either
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
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
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
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
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
much as he neither do we look that our sin in him should by him be lessened to us but by Christ only both to him and to us all 2. Now for the Consequents of this Paraphrase THe consequent of this discourse he says must needs be this at least If it be consequent to his discourse so but it stands us in hand to examine whether it be consequent to the Apostles words but since he will needs impose them on us as Consequences he will not be angry if I take them up as Inconsequences For whether so or so I refer them Sir both to yours and every able and indifferent mans judgement Conseq. That it is impossible that the greatest part of mankind should be left in the eterternal bonds of Hell by Adam Inconsequ nothing is impossible with God nothing is impossible that is justly done and past we say not only the greatest part but the whole race of mankind was so left and yet all that aggravates it not to an impossibility For why should it be thought an impossibility That all by Adam should be left in the eternal bonds of Hell since all in Adam had a possibility to be brought to the eternal Throne of Heaven Conseq. For then quite contrary to the discourse of the Apostle there had been abundance of Sin but a scarcity of Grace and the excesse had been on the part of Adam not on the part of Christ Inconseq The abundance or excess which the Apostle here contends for is not with respect to numbers or to multitudes of persons on either part but in regard to Grace abounding Sin and Life excelling Death and Christs merits infinitely exceeding both Adams and our own deserts Conseq. So that the Presbyterian way is perfectly condemned by this discourse of the Apostle Inconseq Though he tell them never so often yet they will hardly beleeve him on his own word till he can convince them from the Apostles words perfectly and indeed Conseq. Nay and yet more particularly convince them when their way of understanding in this point is singular from the Church of England or other reformed Churches Suffrage the other mâ—re gentle way which affirms that we were sentenc'd in Adam to eternal death though the Execution is taken off by Christ is also no way countenanced by any thing in this Chapter Inconseq No these words death passed death reigned the judgement was to condemnation these I say countenance and confirm the sentence Again the Free gift came to justification of life they shall reign in life by one Iesus Christ these countenance and confirm the taking off the Execution were it not thus both for the sentence and for the Execution where then were all those excesses on Christs part what excesse were it to make those righteous that were not made Sinners before what excess were it to justifie those to eternal life that were never condemned to eternal death let him look to it either Christ must be preferred in these Acts and Excesses or else his Attributes are but impaired Conseq. That the judgement which came from Adams sin unto the condemnation of the world was nothing but temporal Death is here affirmed In conseq so far is it from being affirmed that upon right deduction it is more than once denied For it was Death entring by Sin and that was something more than temporal death It was Death reigning and that was something more than death temporal It was death opposed to the justification of life and that must be something more than temporal death It was death opposed to reigning in life and therefore must needs be more than temporal death Conseq. It is in no sence imaginable that the death which here St. Paul says passed upon all men and which reigned from Adam to Moses should be eternal Death Inconseq Will he allow no man a sensible imagination besides his own understanding or rather a sensible understanding besides his own imagination Death passed upon all men that is eternal death passed upon all men according to the justice of the sentence and their due desert There 's one sense That Death which reigned from Adam to Moses was eternal death for if you take the time of Deaths reigning to be betwixt them two terminally and exclusively then was it not so much as a tempotal death passing upon all men But death reigns not but from an eternal Law and in and to eternity There 's another sense yea Death reigned from Adam to Moses and so onward until Christ and would have reigned eternally over all men had not Christ taken it off There 's another sense Conseq. the Apostle speaks of that death which was threatned to Adam Inconseq rather of the death which was threatned to the world in Adam but take it as directed to Adams person dying thou shalt die Gen. 2. 17. The sacred idiom serves to note the continuity as well as the certainty of Death and that was an intimation of the eternity Conseq. The Apostle means such a Death which was afterwards threatned In Moses Law Inconseq well but who takes a temporal death only nay who takes not an eternal death chiefly to be threatned upon the breach of the Morral Law Conseq. and such a death which fell even upon the most righteous of Adams posterity Inconseq True it fell upon them in part not that the other part was not due unto them but that it was taken off by Christ Conseq. Upon the most righteous of Adam's posterity who did not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression Inconseq Such righteous ones of all his posterity were never yet known Abel Seth and Methusala were certainly none such for they and their like even all the holy Patriarks were sinners as well by imitation as by propagation and sinned as well actually as originally To say that those holy men sin not after the similitude of Adams transgression in that they sinned less alas that 's but poor for so even wicked men are said not to sin after the similitude of one another Conseq. Because in proportion to the evil so was the imputation of the Sin it follows That Adam's sin is ours metonimycally and improperly Inconseq Here 's nothing at all which follows aright for even the first part of his argument is preposterous By evil he intends punishment and then the consequence is quite contrary because the sin was not imputed in proportion to the punishment but indeed the punishment was deputed in proportion to the Sin And therefore it must follow by reason of contraries That Adams sin was not tropically and tralatitiously but even litterally and properly ours But consider what he says in effect That God did measure the sin according to the punishment Now good Lord how can the Divine Attributes stand safe to such a saying for what Justice is that that regulates or proportions the sin by the punishment and not the punishment by the Sin In the imputation of God or men who makes the sin
here so insensible we see it may easily come to passe through natural ignorance and ill habits without this diminishing glass of a Metonymical spectacle Conseq. there are some whole Churches which think themselves so little concerned in the matter of Original Sin that they have not a word of it in all their Theologue Inconseq That they have not a word of it their Theologue is defective to them that they think themselves not concerned in it they are defective to their Theologie I could tell him of some Churches that in their Theologie make no mention of the Decalogue do they therefore think themselves but little concerned in it again some Churches think themselves so much concerned in Original Sin that they beleeve Souls as well as Bodies to be propagated from Adam I spake this of the Ethiopians and the Russians no Church but is bound to have such a body of Divinity as may comprehend the whole principles of Faith and Religion yea and to unfold them and confess them so far as they are revealed in the word of God but what is it to object some obscure and confused Churches to the Catholique universal to the most orderly and eminent Churches of the World Conseq. The height of this imagination hath wrought so high in the Church of Rome that when they would doe great honour to the Virgin Mary they were pleased to allow unto her an immaculate conception without any Original Sin Inconseq So far as the Church of Rome seemed to joyn with the Primitive Churches in the point of Original Sin so far also have the Reformed Churches joyned with them as namely That Original Sin is That it is properly and inherently a Sin That it descendeth by natural propagation not by imitation That it hath in both a stain and guilt That it subjected to misery and death in all senses and significations That we are redeemed therefrom by the merits of Christ These are heights indeed but not heights of imagination but sound Doctrine And these she pretended to hold forth against all those who affirmed That Adam lost Original righteousnesse only for himself and not for us his posterity and that by Adams disobedience sin descended not upon Mankind but only a bodily death or punishment Indeed here she hath also some heights of imagination as That Original sin is not only remitted by Baptism but utterly abolished and quite taken away That the concupiscence remaining in the regenerate is no sin That Original Sin is only in the inferiour and not in the superiour faculties That the blessed Virgin was conceived and born free from Original Sin yea and many more heights of imagination they have much disputed on among their Scholasticks so that they owe their errors not to the simple profession of Original Sinne but to their subtle disputation about it As for their opinion of the blessed Virgins immaculate conception it arose from no other height but that oâ— their own superstition which is too notorious in all they can feign or imaginâ— for her say of her or doe to her But I pray God this low imagination oâ— slender and slight conceit of a Metonymical juridical external collateral nay equivocal abusive phantastical imputation serve not to be get a conceit or presumption of an immaculate conception in us all I have read of one that would needs deny the immortality of the Soul with intent to disprove the Popish purgatory but there are other ways to refute this Error of the immaculate conception than by abating the truth or utmost truth of Original Sin One thing more he saith I am to observe before I leave considering the word of the Apostle This one thing is not so much a consequent of what he would say for himself as an argument against all such as would argue against him The ground betwixt both is laid in these last words of the Apostle As by one mans disobedience many were made Sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Some saith he from hence suppose they argue strongly to the overthrow of all that I have said Thus As by Christ we are made really righteous so by Adam we are made really sinners This we acknowledge not only to be our Argument but our way of Augmentation and if this standing good be sufficient to overthrow all that he hath said then it is easie to be observed to what purpose he hath spoken all this while but to this he hath spoken in his Addresses and to them we can say nothing till we see them But besides saith he I have something very material to reply to the form of the Argument which is a very trick and fallacy Strong reason may be spoken very often without a formal Syllogisme and where the matter cannot be denied to be true and good 't is but a kind of sophistical fallacy to stand too pedantically upon the form But to argue from hence as by Christ we are made really righteous so by Adam we are made really sinners is saith he to invert the purpose of the Apostle The reciprocation or conversion of propositions is no inversion of their purpose where they may truly praedicate either way Neither is the inverting of words in their order always a perverting of them in their intent But the Apostle argues from the lesse to the greater Indeed the Apostle in his comparison proceeds after such a manner as from Adam to Christ from Sin to Grace from Death to Life now Comparates Ianus-like look {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} forwards and backwards and may argue mutually from one to another Nay they must doe it else could they not be Comparates now though the Apostle argue from the lesse to the greater by way of Amplification yet he forbids not to argue from the greater to the lesse for matter of reallity and that is all our Argument But we saith he make it conclude affirmatively from the greater to the lesse in matter of power Will he allow us to doe it negatively why that will serve our turn sufficiently Thus As Christ's righteousnesse was not imputed only so neither was Adams sin or thus As our righteousness by Christ was not a Metonymical righteousnesse so our sin by Adam was not a Metonymical Sin But by his leave we may take liberty to argue affirmatively as before yet offend against no Logical Law or Canon of Comparates nay and the consequence shall be of great force even affirmatively as Thus As Christ did and suffered his Fathers will so ought we to doe and suffer the same As God charged his Angels with Folly how much more may he us mortal men and from the Apostle in this place As the Life was a real life so the Death was a real Death As the Grace was real Grace so the Sin was real Sin But he now assumes the trick or fallacy himself taxing us for concluding affirmatively from the greater to the lesse in matter of power as what a
the promulgated Law that followed it and was directed chiefly to persons and actions as by the internal law of the Image which went before it with a perpetual obligation of integrity to the whole Nature of such a Law speaks the Apostle in this Epistle When the Gentiles which have not the Law do by Nature the things contained in the Law these having not the Law are a Law unto themselves which shew the work of the Law written in their hearts their conscience also bearing witness and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another Rom. 2. 14 15. And this certainly was Law sufficient both to convince men of this Sin and condemn them for it Say the Law of Nature be greatly obscured and the conscience thereupon blinded yet for all that it is usually making this argument upon any pecrancy Something now is which ought not to be and therefore by consequence something is not which ought to be and thus by the exorbitances grows conscious of the defects and this Collection is enough for conviction of the want of natural goodness and that is a divine apprehension of the loss of original righteousness wherefore then speaks he thus Nature alone gives rules but does not bind to penalties if by Nature alone he means fallen corrupted nature now in her defections she gives neither rules nor binds to penalties but only lies bound both to rules and to penalties But to speak of Nature in her integrity and perfection she doth them both directly for she were not perfect without a rule neither were her rule perfect without a penalty upon the violation of it his other words in my judgement as they are little to the Apostles meaning so they are lesse to common Truth Death he says dâ—d presently descend upon all Mankind even before a Law was given them with an appendant penalty viz. with the express intermination of death was not that Law exprest enough In that day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die Gen. 2. 17 I need not ask him whether this Law did concern the man alone for he confesses it did presently descend upon all Mankind But what death without a Law and a Law without a penalty He that contended so before to vindicate Gods attributes in regard of a Sentence without Execution how will he extricate himself from impinging thereupon in talking thus of an Execution without a Sentence certainly the Divine Attributes are much more out of question in pronouncing utterly upon all and yet sparing some than in executing upon all although but in the least degree having not yet denounced against any As for his next words let him look well to what he saies it is impossible they should passe even moderate men without a censure or some scanning at the least with him that is with Adam God being angry was he provoked against the person only and not against the whole Nature was pleased to curse was not that pleasure in a manner absolute that had no more but an improper respect to curse all for the Sin of one To curse him also in his posterity nay was it not rather to curse his posterity in him for he but little felt his curse in them but they were long to feel their curse in him and leave them also in their meer natural condition was this natural condition any kind of state before the Fall then could it not be cursed or miserable was it that after the Fall then was it not meer or pure natural but altogether depraved and corrupted But God was pleased to leave them So then Gods great and easily justifiable action was the good pleasure of his desertion wisely justly to leave them destitute of the forfeited Image and to let them alone to themselves in that corrupt condition to which they betrayed But he says more To which yet they disposed themselves To what to their meer natural condition to which God curst them in which he left them But how disposed themselves hereunto I hope he will not say 't was any personal disposition of ours for that goes far beyond all that hath been said of our natural inclination but if he intend it only of our actual and following sins they did not dispose us to our fall'n estate and corrupt natural condition but only confirm us in it what can be spoken more against Order than that following actions should dispose to a foregoing condition we use to say the first person corrupted our Nature but in all else it is the nature that corrupts the persons personal sins are no whit disposing to the Nature but aggravating to the person only Original Sin though it doe not act alike in all yet it is but one and alike in all be the personal actions more or less He concludes yet for the anger which God had against Mankind he left that Death which he threatned to Adam expresly by implication to fall upon his posterity Now I demand but this Was the anger of God with Adam and against Mankind the same well then it had the same provocation Nay but he will have this last to be upon our own evil Commissions and deserts Then I must demand again why was that Death the same is it righteous that should be the same penalty and not the same provocation But he left it to fall by Implication that 's an implicated word and may imply Error as well as truth If he implies our Original defection that 's a truth but if our actual Commissions only that 's the Error But I will take by implication as he here contradistinguishes it to Expressively threatned and so it draws near nay comes home to the truth of my Text That before Moses Law sin was in the world even Original Sin and the Sin of the first Parent and that by a Law of its own which Law though it was Expressively threatned but to Adam only yet by implication of Sin and corruption in the whole nature the punishment through that implying Law justly fell upon the whole posterity But Sin is not imputed where there is no Law In these words St. Pauls intention is not so much to prove the being of Sin from the being of a Law but rather the being of a Law from the being of a Sin And therefore he thus argues Sin was in the world before the promulgation of Moses Law but that could not be unless there was a Law to convince it so to be Ergo A law there was And again Sin is not imputed when there is no Law but it was imputed Ergo there was a Law And this is the more certain and infallible way of arguing because the being of a Law does not necessarily and always argue the being of a Sin but the being of a Sin does necessarily and always argue the being of a Law For a Law may be a Law though no sin be yet committed but a Sin is no Sin till the Law be imposed now the Law was always
by him and beleeve in him shall not die by the one in whom they sinned but shall live by the other in whom they beleeved For as the First man Adam was the head and principle of Nature to us and after that of Sin so is this second Man Adam Christ the Lord the principle and head of Grace to us and after that of Glory Behold then each one the goodness and severity of God On them which fell severity But towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness And thus indeed are the Divine Attributes to be magnified by us on either part Verse 15. But not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one Man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many BUt not as the offence so also is the free gift The Comparison is now not interrupted but pursued with a correction For he confesses that in the Analogy there lies a great deal of disparity There may be a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or some resemblance between the persons as each of them being the First the Author the Head the Root the Foundation the Representative of his kind but there is a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} an utter difference of the things as betwixt Sin and Grace Death and Life And therefore though there may be comparing of the persons with an infinite preferring on the one part yet there can be no conferring of the things but with an utter differing both for account and effect because there may be some Typical proportion betwixt Adam and Christ with the due honour reserved to the Great Reconciler but betwixt the offence of one and the Free gift of the other remains an utter disproportion never to be reconciled For the one both is from and is the Image of the Earthly the other is from and is the Image of the Heavenly the one is naturally transmitted the other supernaturally conferred the one from Free-will the other from Free grace the one tending to Death but the other to everlasting life For if through the offence of one many be dead c. In this part of the collation this is one main instance of prelation from the disparity of power and effect as if he had thus said suppose the worst that followed Original Sin that innace offence yet forasmuch as the remedy propounded so far exceeded the propagated malady what cause is here to complain or challenge any of the Divine Attributes since wisdom herein manifests and magnifies her self so excellently so exceedingly both for substance and measure why should not her children herein seek to justifie her herein above all what if it was through the offence of one ought that to offend were we not one Nature one Species of Men both he and we In the participation of that Species all men were to be reckoned as one Man the sundry persons of men being to that one Man but as the several Members are to the same body Moreover this may be enough to satisfie all minds and stop all mouths The Grace of God and the gift of Grace both his liberal favour and our competent measure is also by one Man Iesus Christ And why then should we set our selves to wrangle so with God with our selves and one another because of the Justice and Severity which descends to us but duly from the one in one way and not rather rest our selves contented and greatly rejoyce for the Grace and Mercy that most freely and superabundantly proceeds towards us from that one man Iesus Christ another way Oh! what peevish things we are to vex our selves in thinking how we were made subject to the punishment on the one hand when we might sweetly satisfie our selves in beleeving how we are made capable of the exceeding recompence of reward on the other And grant again by the first one and through his one way many be dead understand it withall emphatically spoken {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the many that is All for it is not many comparatively but absolutely not so spoken as to except some but to intimate All All I say collectively and inclusively and not so sparingly or seemingly as he speaks even as it were all Enoch also contrary to his mind not excepted how much less those few more of whom peradventure mention is not made The first is a fond conceit but the next a vainer crotchet For take Many as he would in the restrained way and Dead but for corporally so yet even Enoch was among that many so is dead For it is not his peculiar and abstruse way of dying that can hinder to say truly he is dead For Heb. 11. 7. though he was translated by an extraordinary power that he should not see Death after the common way yet for the verity and reality of Death it was said of him together with the rest These all died vers. 13. But taking it according to the Apostle in the largest sense I must say more All are dead namely though not effectually yet virtually though not naturally yet deservedly according to a just sentence though not according to the fearfull Execution But notwithstanding all this and all that can be said of the offences worst and Death's utmost how would it appease our consciences and comfort our spirits even in all wherein the Divine Majesty has been pleased to reveal either himself or our selves to us to conceive rightly and heartily consider the grace of God which is to be understood his good will and pleasure free goodnesse everlasting love exceeding favour with all his beloved Sons merits and Holy Spirits efficacies and the gift by Grace sc. our measures of Sanctification with the duties required the comforts promised and the benefits received And all this by One man Iesus Christ sc. by his life and actions by his death and passion by his merits and mediation alone To whom we had no natural or necessary relation as we had unto the other but as he was made Man and so freely and gratiously gave himself to us and for us And thus the grace of God hath much more abounded in pardoning all kinds and measures of sin and in preventing the same as concerning punishment But the Free gift hath abounded also we being made both more holy and more happy in Christ than in Adam we were made corrupt and miserable yea and this abounded unto Many that is All again and that in sufficiency though not in effect else the excess here spoken of should fall short inasmuch as Sin and Death passed upon All Verse 16. And not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift for the judgement was by one to condemnation but the Free gift is of many offences unto justification ANd not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift It is partly a repetition of the first words in the former