[...], Wherefore, there­fore, for this cause] I begin with the search and examination of the letter, for it is the Grammatical sifting, that must render the plain Constructi­on, and then the Rhetorical glossing may come in to adorn with a certain circum­locution; and therefore a broad Para­phrase if it be not unsuitable, yet it is untimely, when it shall presume in place, before a narrower Exposition have done its part. For this canse, so I am bold to render it, because I find it most­ly so rendred in this Epistle to the Ro­mans, [Page 15] chap. 1. 26. and 13. 6. and 15. 9. which very inference serves to shew plainly the principal reason or cause why it pleased God to permit the Entrance and Passage of Original Sin, viz. For this cause, even for the reconciliation and attonements sake immediately be­fore spoken of, vers: 10. and 11. There­fore God suffered this sin to enter into the world, The Enmity, or hainous a­version, the wrath or dreadfull desert of Original Sin can never be more truly and fully considered and measured than in and by Christs death and satisfaction, which who so contends to lessen either for Fault or Guilt, such endeavours to extenuate the vertue and merits of Christs reconciling and attoning. Gods great end in the Fall was to manifest and magnifie the infinite perfection of his own Son; who then would not la­bour earnestly, that Wisdom might principally, be justified in the point? Doth not God herein commend his love towards us, vers. 8. How then can we imagin there should be the least prejudice upon the Divine Attri­butes in such an Ordination or Permissi­on, upon such a motive or intention? [Page 16] But was this inferential motive heedlesly escaped or not rather purposely preter­mitted to usurp a more uncontrouled li­cence in the wanton daliances of words, that I may not call them petulancies of prophanation? It is no reputation to a Phisician to say he hath cured us of an E­vil which we never had, and shall we ac­cuse the Father of mercies to have wound­ed us for no other reason, but that his Son may have the honour to have cured us? I understand not that; he that makes a ne­cessity that he may find a remedy, is like, &c. The sufficiency and excellency of our Saviour (in 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 [Page 17] 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, [Page 18] 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 [Page 19] 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; [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 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, [Page 23] 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 [...] it came into, even the reduplicated praeposition is a note of more intimate [Page 24] 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 [Page 25] 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, [Page 26] 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 [Page 27] (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 [Page 28] 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 [Page 29] 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) [Page 30] 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 ( [...]) be translated so flatly in the Neuter Gender, when 'tis 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 [Page 31] 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 [Page 32] 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, [...] and [...] and will hardly be perswaded of [...] for [...] in the Dative Case, yet at length acknowledges, Be­cause the use of Greek Prepositions are so various, I dare not affirm that [...] 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.

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; [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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) d [...]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 [Page 36] 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 [Page 37] 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 'twas 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 actnal 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 [Page 38] 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 [Page 39] 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 [Page 40] 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, 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 [Page 41] 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. [Page 42] 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 [Page 43] 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 [Page 44] 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 [Page 45] 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 [Page 46] 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 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 [Page 47] 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.

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; [Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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, [Page 52] 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 lest; 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 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 [Page 53] 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.

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 [...], 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 [...], 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 [Page 55] 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 [Page 56] 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 [Page 57] grant again by the first one, and through his one way many be dead, understand it withall emphatically spoken [...]; 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; [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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.

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 verse; only there was the Disparity and excess betwixt the Sin and the Grace; here betwixt the Gift, and the person sinning: There it was said to be more plentifully abounding, here more pow­erfully effecting; There by what Au­thors, here to what Ends; There the Free gift was opposed to the Sin, but here to the Judgement.

For the Iudgement was by one to con­demnation] By the Judgement we un­derstand not only the Decree on God's part, but also the desert on our own; In as much as the word in Scripture notes both the Act and the power of Judgement, as likewise the cause and thing judged: And if we did but truly consider this, then durst we not be so [Page 61] bold in questioning the Divine Attri­butes, in regard we are taught to appre­hend it as a thing not only of his severi­ty, but of our own impiety also: So by Condemnation we understand both the Sentence and Execution; the threatning against, as well as the inflicting on; likewise we take the ( [...]) in the Neuter; as wee doe the ( [...]) in the Masculine; yea and from the di­verse preposition, we note some distin­ction, namely of the matter and subject, as well as of the cause and instrument: and thereupon we doe not confound them (as he doth) by One Man sinning one sin; but somewhat more distinctly, by one sinning, or that sinned, we un­derstand the Act with relation to A­dams person; but by the one sin we un­derstand the thing it self with relation to our whole Nature, even Original sin it self, to note that one sin (original sin) in us, is under the same judgement unto condemnation, as was that one sinning in Adam; and that in the very Act of his sinning, we sinned (as he seems to grant) ve [...]y much: And moreover to that, sinned (which he grants not) as bad as he & that not only because of the [Page 92] likeness of Nature, and of sin (as he says) but because of the very identity and sameness thereof, in the main substance, though not according to every circum­stance; For we Descendents from A­dam, were perfectly like him in nature, his own real, natural production, and so we sinned, as himself says well; and now if he himself thinks there is so great a pa­rity of reason that the evil (he means this judgement unto condemnation) should descend upon us; then in all reason he ought to yeeld not only a likeness, but also a parity of Sin. Yet whereas he says, the evil was threatned to Adam, and not to his Children: Then was it not judgement unto condemnation, for judgement implies the Sentence and Commination, as Condemnation does the Execution, or effect. But what? not threatned, and yet descending? will the Lord strike before he warns? I say no more, but (for Gods sake) what kind of Vindication call you that? to urge the evil or punishment so oft, and ad­mit so little of the fault or sin, is (I think verily) the wrong way to a Vin­dication of the Divine Attributes.

But the Free gift is, of many offences [Page 63] unto justification] To prevent all our murmuring and censuring, that judge­ment should be to condemnation by one man or person, the Apostle bids us con­strue him rightly, and says he means it by one Sin or offence; for we shall ne­ver think Gods ways equal in this case, till we can look upon it with a right Eye, not only as the Sin of one man, and so the Sin of another; But as one sin of all men, and so our own: But the Sin of one, and one Sin, if this satisfie not; yet this makes amends for all abundantly; that the Free gift is of many offeuces unto justification. For mark how it answers to every opposite, the Free gift to the offence, many to one, and justification to condemnation. The first shews how benignly, the next, how bountifully, the last how beneficially the recompense is vouchsafed; as it is the Free gift to the offence; so it signs Grace in us not to be natural, as the sin is. As it is many to one; so it betokens a liberal condo­nation of many actuals, as well as that one Original. As it is Iustification a­gainst condemnation; so it signifies a making holy as well as happy, against both the sin and the punishment. Since [Page 64] then what God in Christ hath here done, is to justifie; let God in Christ be justi­fied by all, and in all.

FOr if by one Man's offence Death reigned by one] It is of no small note, that a mutual construction is here to be made of one Mans offence, and one offence: The diverse reading shews a co­incidence; and however the repetition seems as the note upon their narrow conjunction; nothing has done more prejudice to the truth of this point, and to the Divine Attributes, as they are therein concerned, than a dividing, se­parating, or over-severe and too nice distinguishing between the one man, and the one offence; For though the natural corruption may be distinguishd from the personal Act; according to some circum­stances, [Page 65] yet in substance they are to be considered as one, and the same, be­cause it was (for the main substance) the same sin that Adam committed, that entred into the world by him; and well might the same sin passe from the whole, or head, into all the parts, & members; though not in the particular Act, yet in the universal guilt; so that in his very sin we might (not amiss) be said to sin originally, although not actually. The Apostle more than once expresly inti­mates it to be translated indifferently, ei­ther the Sin and offence of one man, or one sin and offence. We should do well therefore to accept it so equally, as he hath been pleased to expresse it: But we look askew upon it, in the personal Act only; as that one mans sin, and no more; and so we ascribe and impute all to him most presumptuously; and seek in like manner to shake it off from our selves. Strange it is! we dare not deny that God imputes it to us; and yet we dare be bold to impute it solely to him. For so the Paraphrast seems to do: The Sin of Adam alone, whereas (in truth) we ought humbly to conceive, and consider it as one Sin, both in him, and us; one [Page 66] Sin in our Nature, one Sin in our kind: and so coming to be but one Sin even in the persons of us all. They that goe the first way, are quite out of the way to vindicate the Divine Attributes; For how is it possible to make it anothers sin alone, and not our own in any proper respect, and yet not give occasion to murmurers and repiners at the imputati­on, to any purpose whatsoever. Where­as if instead of imposing it altogether upon another, we would be convinc'd and content to take what is our own, un­to our selves, That heavy yoak which 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 [Page 67] 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 [Page 70] 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 imp [...]ir that stock, and overthrow that [Page 71] 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; [...] [Page 70] [...] [Page 71] [Page 72] 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.

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; hu [...] 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 [Page 74] 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.

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 'tis 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 [Page 74] 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, [...] 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 [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] 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.

[Page 77] 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.