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
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
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
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
he censure them for such that cannot be but a calumnious aspersion that prae-occupates the Law and precedes the Divine Imputation let him say how were they unnatural but because done against the Law of Nature and why vile enough but because that pure and perfect law was sufficient so to convince them Original Sin could never have been called so but that there was a Law of Original righteousness that went before it how then can actual sins be said to foregoe a Law For they did do actions personal actual Sins even these done and yet not imputed Oh what an imputation were this to the eternal Law the Law of Nature of right reason and true Conscience But will this salve it to say they were not yet so imputed that will not do it if he so means that nothing was imputed from the first upon their Original account to the eternal and internal but afterwards upon the external publication of the Law of Moses these things were imputed to them upon their personal account nor will that do it if he pretends these things were not imputed even unto death For it is out of question that Moses Law as to the morality of it added no new vertue goodness truth obligation imputation or penalty which was not in force before from the eternal and internal Law of God and Nature of which Moses Law was no more but the External publication but to speak of actual Sins being in Men and yet not imputed by God and of Origiginal Sin deputed to deadly punishment and yet not imputed by a Law I say to speak to such purposes is such an imputation to the Divine Attributes as I need not now to say Verse 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression who is the figure of him that is to come NEvertheless Death reigned from Adam to Moses But for all that the Law of Moses was not yet given or promulgated to a peculiar people Death notwithstanding reigned throughout the whole world For all that time comprehensively and inclusively from Adam his Fall his deprivation of the Image and depravation of Nature Till Moses his publication of the Law written in Tables of stone and so during that whole Oeconomie or dispensation even until Christ and the Gospel of his Grace by whom alone all that beleeve are justified from all things both Sin and Death from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses And therefore till then terminally and exclusively Death reigned and Sin likewise because the dominion and tyranny of these two always goe together Now after the duration the main thing remarkable is the domination or Deaths reigning which cannot exactly be but as she is understood in her whole law and power and in their full latitude or extent sc. in the forcible denunciation and infliction of Death temporal spiritual and eternael For where she is so restrained as to goe no farther than the corporal only so far is she then from any thing like to reigning that she is now as it were swallowed up in Victory but take her in her utmost Tyrany and she reigned from Adam to Moses that is for Original as well as for actual sin for consider her subjects and her power and authority was Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression That is over Infants whose reason and discretion will and affections had not yet made them ripe enough for action and imitation and therefore they had not sinned actually or in their own persons but Originally or in their first Parents loyus Adams similitude likeness or Image in which he begat his Posterity Gen. 5. 3. was that of Original sin because it was contradistinct to that image likeness or similitude in which God had made him Gen. 1 26 27. which was that of Original Righteousness And to Sin after the similitude of Adams transgression is to imitate him follow him make him our example and our selves altogether like him and therefore not to have sinned after that similitude is not to have done so Now then to construe it with this Author of sinning not so grievously or of sinning lesse than he did is to make it come little near to nay make it fall very much short of sinning after the similitude of his Transgression or according to the proportion of his prevarication To sin less is not to sin according to the aequallity But a man may sin less by much and yet sin after the similitude nevertheless He that ere this started this very notion non peccaverunt ad illius similitudinem hoc est non tam capitaliter non perinde graviter peccaverunt arque ille applies it rather as others besides him do to the Gentiles than to the Patriarks and indeed in such a construction the Gentiles should sin lesse than the Patriarks as not having the Law or the like means they had But if the same Man had been taken up or followed in his other suggestion regnavit mors in simitudine the reigning of Death had so been made as vain a semblance and as light a shadow as some would make that of Original Sin But they who suggest that this sinning after the similitude is neither to be understood of sinning after an internal principle nor yet after an external example but only upon and after the direct expression and express direction of a precept These ere they are a ware do take from the Actual and add to the Original while they thus exempt all before the written law as likewise all Heathens to this day from sinning after Adams similitude or rather doe thus deny to most men Sin both Original and Actual but though we may make Adam a Sin similitude to our selves in matters past yet it hath pleased God to propose him as a comfortable type for the future Who is the figure of him that was to come Behold here 's a typical promise sufficient to satisfie all querulous complaining and to prevent all quarrellous charging God foolishly in calling any of his Articles to question in the case Since Adam who received Gods similitude not for himself alone but for all his posterity after him had now forfeited the same both for himself and them all and had now begotten them in his own similitude of prevarication and defection and in that very similitude they were now found and so left left and that justly to the Tyranny of Sin and Death yea even those who had not as yet according to all actual circumstances sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression Neverthelesse they were yet in the estate of Natural corruption and by that Nature worthily born Children of wrath but what if they had already sinned after that similitude and had now made him their Example to sin and to die by yet hath God of his good pleasure made him the Type or figure of Christ intimating that they who are elected
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
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