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
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
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
to follow the punishment and not rather the punishment to follow the sin But say his rule stood upon some right foot yet how follows his argument from it The Sin was imputed in proportion to the punishment but the punishment was proper and real not figurative and equivocal and therefore so must the Sin be too else who can tell what 's become of all this proportion Conseq. God was not finally angry with us nor had so much as any designs of eternal displeasure upon that account Inconseq The way to vindicate Gods Attributes is not to pry into them too curiously nor to determine upon them too peremptorily nor to aggravate them too severely nor to extenuate them too indulgently but to believe them and justifie them and magnifie them so as they are revealed God indeed was not finally angry with us his Elect neither upon our original nor upon our actual account And why because his wrath was so appeased by Christ satisfaction But was he not therefore so at the Sin simply and absolutely considered if he had no design of eternal displeasure upon that account then he sent Christ to die in vain For Christ died to prevent not the temporal but the eternal death Nor was that to redeem us from the mortality and condition of our Nature for he suffered it himself and left us to follow him in a conformity but from the depravation and damnation of it Conseq. This anger went no further than the evils of this life and therefore the imputation was not of a proper guilt for that might justly have past beyond our grave if the same had past beyond a Metonymie or a juridical external imputation Inconseq O rare consequent the punishment was but temporally inflicted and therefore the Sin was not properly imputed As if temporal punishments whether from God or men were the arguments of improper Sins only But O wonderfull vertue of a bare Trope or figurative locution to qualifie such a pravity extenuate such a provocation divert such a desert yea to regulate such a Justice or to restrain and limit such a power If his Metonymical imputation be the same with Iuridical and external then me thinks this proportion should be observed in the proceeding That as the Sin is imputed but only as it were in some shadow or resemblance of words so should the punishment be inflicted and not in any deed or substance For he that is found guilty but only in an imaginary Idea or picture ought not to be executed but only in conceit or as it were in effigie But I am forbidden to smile since it is a matter of fighing in regard the Divine Attributes are so stricken at For what provocation can there be for Gods universal and continual anger for such it is against the Fall and original sin without an mputation of a proper and participating guilt where the sin is properly imputed there he grants the punishment may justly goe beyond our Graves that is even to Hell But if there be no such imputation no such propriety no such participation I can see no cause why those evils should passe so far as this present life Eternal death is little enough if sin be properly and particularly imputed but if it be not so I cannot see but that even a temporal death to all mankind must be too much Conseq. That as no man ever imposed penance for it for original Sin so God himself in nature did never for it afflict or affright the Conscience Inconseq By penance surely he understands not private Repentance but publick Discipline or that of the Churches imposing say it were so the Churches power is to impose the penance for publike notorious scandalous and exemplary Crimes and offences it cannot take cognisance as no external Law or administration can of an inward secret unsearchable though worthily suspected Sin such as the Original is Besides whose should be the authority in such a cause or case where all are concluded and confest guilty alike As for the other part I ask of him did not God himself afflict and affright Adams Conscience for it when he was forced to say I heard thy voice in the Garden and I was afraid because I was naked and I hid my self Gen. 3. 10. And we all feel and must confesse this afflicting this affrighting was not of his person only but in his and our Nature also as woefull experience convinces us all to this very day Conseq. And why the conscience shall be for ever at so much peace for this sin that a man shall never give one groan for his share of guilt in Adams sin unlesse some or other scares him with an impertinent proposition Inconseq What the conscience shall be for ever is hard for him to say And for what it hath been hitherto he knows a Conscience is not always to be argued for pure and free because it is quiet and still But what says he to David did not he groan for it in that Poenitential of his Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin hath my Mother conceived me Psalm 51. 5. And to St. Paul is this no groaning Oh wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death Rom. 7. 24. Nay shall we not beleeve what he but lately said of himself For my part I cannot but confesse that to be which I feel and groan under and by which all the world is miserable Let him look to his Conscience and see how his words agree first and last I hope he will not now say it was some impertinent proposition that scared him thereunto Conseq. Why the Conscience should not naturally be afflicted for it nor so much as naturally know it I confesse I cannot yet make any reasonable conjecture save this only that it is not properly a Sin but only Metonymically and improperly Inconseq Such a conjecture is not reasonable for if to deny a Sin to be such were sufficient because the Conscience naturally smiles not for it nor yet convinces of it so many actual sins might easily come to be denied A strange conjecture for a figurative appellation to save a Conscience I know the Conscience can Syllogize but I never knew that she could ever so Rhetoricate with her self such a conjecture is so far from being worth the sole preferring that it 's not worth the naming where better reasons are brought forth As namely That Original sin her self has blinded and bedulled the Conscience as touching the true and full apprehension of her self and of Original sin That the law and light of nature is exceedingly obscured to all Consciences since the Fall That most mens Consciences are insensible even of their actual and sensual sins how much more then of the Original and invisible That men have pulled and seared both their own and others Consciences as touching the true sense of Original Sin by dayly hatching and broaching such heresies and errors about it No marvel then that men are
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