A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is

As for that place insisted upon by so many, 1 Cor. 4. 6. These things I have in a figure transferred to my self and Apollo, &c. and from thence gathering, That it is ordinary with Paul by a figure to assume another habit (as it were) then his own. Suppose it be granted, Doth it therefore follow he doth here in this place? What, doth the Apostle never speak in his own person? If we will not take this as spoken of himself, Why do the Dissentients take the second verse in the next Chapter, as to be understood of his own person? The Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, hath freed me from the Law of sin and death. Besides this very place maketh against them: for when the Apostle doth thus assume a person, he plainly discovereth he doth so; you see he doth expressly say, that what he did, he did by a figure, but here is not the least hint given of any such thing, there is not a syllable by which we may gather any such transfiguration: So that it is a wonder that the Apostle should continue in such a long discourse, and that with so much vehemency, and yet give no discovery that he doth not mean it of himself, especially when the Adversaries to this Exposition say, That to understand it of Paul, is so contumelious to the Spirit of God, and so destructive to all godliness. Certainly if so, the Apostle would have manifested something to remove this stumbling block. Although I may add that even that very Text, I have in a figure transferred to my self and Apollo, &c. doth not necessarily allude, to that mention made of th••, 1 Cor. 2. 12. where speaking of their factions, some said they were of Paul, others of Apollo; as if the Apostle did by figure, use their names, intending thereby the false Apostles; for (say they) The Corinthians made their divisions by occasion of the false Apostles glorying in them, and exalting them against those that were faithful. But if so, what argument could there be in Paul's words? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? If he did mean false Apostles, and not himself, why should he thank God that he had baptized so few? Therefore Pareus acknowledgeth, that the common Interpretation of that Text, as if Paul by a figure use his name and Apollo for the false Apostles, is no ways agreeable with the scope of the place:

As for that place insisted upon by so many,