And in the first place we cannot but reject those Expositors of that text fore-quoted,1 who understand us to be sinners in Adam, only by imitation, or by propagation merely, as from a corrupted fountain; but we suppose it to be by imputation: Adam (by Gods Covenant) being an universal person, and so as Austin said, Omnes ille unus homo fuerunt, All were that one man. And therefore these do not rise up to the full scope of the text, who parallel Christ and Adam only as two roots, Origens or fountains; for there must be a further consideration of them as two common persons, for our immediate fathers are a corrupted root, and we are corrupted by them, yet their sins are not made ours, as Adams was. Hence the Apostle layeth the whole transgression upon one, as by one mans disobedience, &c. Those that deny imputation of Adams sin (as the Pelagians of old, and Erasmus with others of late) do not relish that translation of those words [Greek or Hebrew], in whom all have sinned, but prefer the other, Forasmuch as all have sinned in him; but both come to the same sense: and howsoever Erasmus say, that [Greek or Hebrew] with a dative case must be understood causally, yet that is not universally true; for Mar. 2.4. there is mention made of the bed, [Greek or Hebrew] in which the paralytic lay, it would be ridiculous to translate that inasmuch. So Act. 2. Be baptized, [Greek or Hebrew], in the name, Heb. 9. Those ordinances consisted [Greek or Hebrew], in meats. We therefore grant, That Adams sin was ours by imputation, before we had any actual consent to it. In which sense Bernard called it, Alienum & nostrum, another's sin and ours: yea, it is so far from being ours by consent, that if a man on purpose should now will that Adams sin should be his, this would not make Adams sin imputed to him, it would be a new actual sin in the man, it would not be Adams sin imputed to him. Now although all this be concluded upon, yet it ⟨p. 184⟩followeth not, that therefore we are justified in Christ before we believe. I acknowledge some eminent Divines have pressed this comparison; but there is a vast difference in this very act of imputation, and the ground of it: for supposing the Covenant at first made with Adam, all his posterity by a natural way are involved in his guilt, and so whether they will or no, antecedently to their own acts they are obnoxious to this guilt.
And in the first place we cannot but reject those Expositors of that text fore-quoted,1 who understand us to be sinners in Adam, only by imitation, or by propagation meerly, as from a corrupted fountain; but we suppose it to be by imputation: Adam (by Gods Covenant) being an universal person, and so as Austin said, Omnes ille unus homo fuerunt, All were that one man. And therefore these do not rise up to the full scope of the text, who parallel Christ and Adam only as two roots, Origens or fountains; for there must be a further consideration of them as two common persons, for our immediate fathers are a corrupted root, and we are corrupted by them, yet their sins are not made ours, as Adams was. Hence the Apostle laieth the whole transgression upon one, as by one mans disobedience, &c. Those that deny imputation of Adams sin (as the Pelagians of old, and Erasmus with others of late) do not relish that translation of those words 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, in whom all have sinned, but prefer the other, Forasmuch as all have sinned in him; but both come to the same sense: and howsoever Erasmus say, that 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 with a dative case must be understood causally, yet that is not universally true; for Mar. 2.4. there is mention made of the bed, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 in which the paralytique lay, it would be ridiculous to translate that inasmuch. So Act. 2. Be baptized, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, in the name, Heb. 9. Those ordinances consisted 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, in meats. We therefore grant, That Adams sin was ours by imputation, before we had any actual consent to it. In which sense Bernard called it, Alienum & nostrum, anothers sin and ours: yea, it is so farre from being ours by consent, that if a man on purpose should now will that Adams sin should be his, this would not make Adams sin imputed to him, it would be a new actual sin in the man, it would not be Adams sin imputed to him. Now although all this be concluded upon, yet it ⟨p. 184⟩followeth not, that therefore we are justified in Christ before we believe. I acknowledge some eminent Divines have pressed this comparison; but there is a vast difference in this very act of imputation, and the ground of it: for supposing the Covenant at first made with Adam, all his posterity by a naturall way are involved in his guilt, and so whether they will or no, antecedently to their own acts they are obnoxious to this guilt.
- 1Answ.
