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

First, Because the Apostle still chargeth our guilt and sinfulness upon Adam only, upon that one man, and upon that one offence, whereas if it were by example and imitation only, it might be upon our parents and others, and upon their transgressions: So that the Apostle might have said, By many men, and many disobediences, we are made sinners; but still he chargeth it on one man, and one offence.

Secondly, If Imitation be taken strictly, then a man must know, and have in his eye that which he doth imitate; but how many thousands are there, that run into all excess of wickedness, and never heard of Adam, much less could not propound his sin for a pattern to follow? So that even in the Pelagian sense, to be sinners by Imitation cannot be properly used in this Controversy.

Secondly, If Imitation be taken strictly, then a man must know, and have in his eye that which he doth imitate; but how many thousands are there, that runne into all excess of wickedness, and never heard of Adam, much less could not propound his sin for a patern to follow? So that even in the Pelagian sense, to be sinners by Imitation cannot be properly used in this Controversie.

Thirdly, If the Apostle understood sin only by Imitation, or occasion, not Propagation, then as Austin of old well urged; it might be more properly fastened upon the Devil, as the Original; for it was not by Adam, but the Devil that sin came into the world, in this sense, and so death by sin; Hence the Devil is said to be a manslayer from the beginning, Joh. 8. 44. or a murderer, and that both of souls and bodies; Insomuch that the Devil was the occasion of all the wickedness, and death the consequent thereof: And hence our Saviour speaking of wicked men, Joh 8. saith, They are of their Father the Devil, and what they see him do, that they do. So that the Devil is made to be the original of sin by imitation to wicked men, and not Adam.