and Free-will. parts. My thoughts are thefe : r. That we werefeminally and virtually really in Adam; having the very effence of our Souls derived from him; not being in him only as the Houfe is in the head of the Ar- chiteEi, but asanejntialform is in the generater 5 though we call both, of in carp. 2. That we were not perfonallyin Adam (thoughfeminally) that is, we were not natural perfons in him, when he finned. 3. God fuppofeth no manto have been what he wasnot, or done what he did not : For he erreth not. 4. God is not the Author ofSin : Therefore hedothnot by arbitrary imputingof Adam'saft, and reputing us tohave done what we did not, make all men Sinners, which Adam could not do. g. But God doth truly repute us to have beenfeminally in Adam, and to havenoEffence but whatis really derived from his Effence: And as when a man is guilty, no part ofhim is innocent, neq; femen neq; fangale, though theyhave not adiltinft guilt, but participativequapartes rei 5 fo we wereSinners in that aft, and guilty,of that aft, fo far as we werepartes Adami, and in him. 6. This was not tobeat that time guil- ty asdiflin& perfons ; for we were notfuch. 7. But we that were then only feminally inexiftent, after became real diiinEl perfonr, and then that guilt even of Adam's fart, adhering trillto us, became reatas per- fine, becaufe theSubjects of it are perfonr. Even as ifEve had been made after the Fall, ofAdam'sRib, that Ribat first was guilty, not by another, but the famenumerical guilt that Adamwas, aspart ofa Sinner : For it was a capable Subje& of no more: But when that fame Rib was madeaperfon, it would bea guilty perfon 5 For it loft not theguilt by that change. But then it isnot only or chiefly ourBodies which are fromAdam (which are from the elements inour daily food) but our Souls. And therefore the adherence ofthe guilt to a rational fpi- rit effentially flowing from anothers effence, is more eafily underftood anddefended than that of the corporal Rib-could be. 8. I do ( con- trary to excellent yof. Placers) fuppofe that in primo infanti, this our participation in Adam's guilt is in order beforeour qualitative pravity : And that God doth therefore deny us his Spirit first, tomake us originally holy, not onlybecaufe Adam, but becaufe we in Adam (asaforefaid ) did forfeit and expel it. 9. I think that mens affertionof a Decree or Covenant of God, that if Adam fell, any more fhould be imputed to his Off-fpring than they were thus reallyguiltyof themfelves, is the boldad- ditionofmens invention, of greater audacity than the addition ofCe- remonies to theWerfhipof God, which yet Tome are more fenfible of. lo. I think that ifAdam had not finned that fame first fin, but had fin- nedanother fin the next hour, or day, or moneth, or year, or any time beforeGeneration, it would havebeen equally ours, as this first was, be- caufe we were equally in him, and no Scripture -Covenant makes a difference. 11. I think that whereas Adam's fin had twenty particular fins as parts of the whole, wewere guilty of all, as well as of the first aft or part; elfe we fhould not be guilty of his eating the forbidden fruit; for doubtiefs that was not the first : His incogitancy, and non- Nolitionand finful Volitions were beforeit. Yea I doubt not but we are guilty ofall the fin that Adam committed, fromhis first fin till the making of the New -Covenant, at leaft. 12. I doubt not but if Adam had never finned, yet (fuppofing the fame Covenant to ftand) if his Sons after himhad finned, we fhouldhave been guilty of it as we are of his fin : yea had it beenbut our neareft Parents. 13. I doubt not but that weare frill fo guilty of our nearer Parents Sins, further than as the introdu&ionof the newpardoning Covenant, and the oft pardons by it, and
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=