sages to the point in hand, the sense of them, and whether any injury is done thereunto. And,

1. As to the passage in Irenæus, whether antiqua serpentis plaga be rendered the old blow, or stroke, or wound, or sore, or plaque, or disease of the serpent, it certainly intends some hurt or mischief done by the old serpent, the devil, to our first parents, and to all mankind. This man says that Irenæus, by this pestilential disorder (and which surely, then, must be a plague), with which the old serpent has infected mankind, understands not original corruption, or the vitiosity whereby man's nature is depraved, but only death and mortality. But let the words of Irenæus be produced and considered, which are these: "Men cannot else be saved from the old wound (the pestilential disorder) of the serpent, nisi credant in eum, except they believe on him, who, in the likeness of sinful flesh, was lifted up from the earth, on the tree of martyrdom, who draws all things to himself, and quickens the dead." Now, are they that believe in Christ saved by him from mortality and death? Are they not as liable to mortality? And do they not labour under the same diseases of body, and die a corporal death, as other men do? Are these the persons only that will be cured of this mortal disorder, the disease of death, by a resurrection from the dead? Will there not be a resurrection of the just and unjust, believers and unbelievers? Who then can conceive that this should be the meaning of Irenæus? As to the passage which Dr. Whitby cites in favour of the sense this author from him has espoused, it makes more against him than for him; for Irenæust does not say that plaga, the disorder itself, but dolor plaga, "the pain of it," or what arises from it, "with which man was stricken in the beginning, in Adam inobediens, being disobedient in Adam; this is the death which God will cure, by raising us from the dead, and restoring us to our forefathers' inheritance." So that corporal death, according to Irenæus, is not the blow, the disorder itself, but what arises from it is the fruit and effect of it. Besides, how he, or any other man, can imagine that even mortality and death should be inflicted on men for Adam's disobedience, unless they are involved in the guilt of it, or that is reckoned to them, which is what we contend for, is unaccountable. And further, it may be observed, that we have here another testimony from this ancient writer in favour of our sentiments, when he says, 66 man was disobedient in Adam," as elsewhere‡, "he offended in him," which is entirely agreeable to, and confirms our sense of, Rom. v. 12, in whom all have sinned: for the reason which § Dr. Whitby gives of his use of such phrases, "because we were born of Adam after he was overcome by sin, we receive our name from him," is exceeding trifling, and ridiculous to the last degree. Upon the whole, since our Lord Jesus Christ saves those that believe in him, not from mortality and a corporal death, but as from their actual transgressions, so from original sin; from the corruption and vitiosity of their nature; from the damning power of it, by his death; and * Adv. Heres. lib. 4, c. 5, p. 322. + Ib. c. 34, P. 500.

§ Treatise of Original Sin, p. 269.

Ib. c. 16, p. 460.

from its governing influence by his Spirit and grace; there is the strongest reason to conclude that this is the sense of Irenæus; and in this I am supported by such great names as Austin*, Vossius †, Polyander, Rivet, Walæus, and Thysius; nay, even Feuardentius the Papists, though otherwise a strenuous advocate for free will, insists upon it, that this passage of Irenæus is a proof that the doctrine of original sin was held by the ancients before the time of Austin; and since then, Irenæus means the same which the Scripture calls || the plague of a man's heart, no injury is done him by my translation.

2. The first passage out of Tertullian is owned by Dr. Whitby¶ to be more to the purpose than some he had been considering; nor has he anything to object to the former part of it, for which it is chiefly cited; in which Tertullian** says, "Every soul is reckoned in Adam, until it is reckoned anew, or registered in Christ; so long unclean, until it is thus registered." Nor does our author object to the pertinence of this testimony, which clearly expresses that the souls of men, whilst unregenerate, are not only reckoned in Adam, as belonging to him, and under him as their head; but are also reckoned unclean in him, being partakers of the sinful pollution, which he, by his transgression, brought upon all mankind. Pamelius makes this to be the argument and summary of the chapter wherein this testimony stands; Tamdiu enim animam ex carnis societate, in Adam immundam censeri, et peccatricem, tam animam, quam carnem dici; "So long as the soul, through society with the flesh, is reckoned unclean in Adam, both soul and body are said to be sinful;" which shows that he thought that Tertullian's sense was, that not only the soul is reckoned unclean in Adam, but that both body and soul are sinful, being defiled in him; though Dr. Whitby says, his commentator makes a doubt of it, whether, when he adds, " sinful because unclean, receiving its disgrace from society with the flesh," he attributes this disgrace of the soul from its society with the flesh, in respect of its mere original, or because it made use of it as an instrument of sinning.

66

3. The other passage in Tertullian ‡‡ is, "Man being at the beginning circumvented by Satan, so as to transgress the commandment of God, and he being therefore given up to death, has defiled all mankind which spring from him, and has also made them partakers of his damnation. This man finds fault with me for translating in my book, totum genus, "his whole kind," instead of "his whole race or offspring;" but is not Adam's whole kind the same with all mankind? and are not all mankind his offspring? or, are any his offspring but mankind? He calls this an egregious blunder in me; but everybody will see that this is egregious trifling in him. A greater oversight is committed by neglecting to translate infectum, which expresses the pollution of nature all mankind are tainted with by Adam, and which exposes them to the same condemnation with him. But, since I have rendered damna_

tio in this passage damnation, the principal controversy about it is, though this writer says it will not bear any dispute, whether this relates to a bodily death and condemnation only, which he suggests is Tertullian's sense in this and in all other places; or also to the sense of condemnation and death which passed on Adam, body and soul, for his disobedience, and on all mankind in him, on account of the same. That Adam, according to Tertullian, was assigned to a corporal death, and such a sentence of condemnation passed on him, is out of question. The passages cited by this author, to which more might be added, will be allowed to be proofs of this. But then, this was not all that came upon him, nor the whole of the sentence which was pronounced on him; for, according to this ancient writer, he was not only subject to a corporal death, but also the image of God in him was destroyed; which lay not, as this man suggests is the sense of other ancient writers, in the immortality of the body, but in the soul, its powers and faculties, and especially in the power and freedom of the will, as appears from these following words of hist: "I find that man was created by God, free, and possessed of his own free will and power,' observing in him no image and likeness of God more than the same form of state; for not in the face and lineaments of the body, so different in mankind is he made after God, who is of one form or essence, but in that substance which he has derived from God, that is, of the soul, answering to the form of God, and is sealed with the liberty and power of his free will." And a little lower he says, "The image and likeness of God ought to be of his own free will and power, in which this itself, the image and likeness of God, may be thought to be, namely, the liberty and power of free will." He not only affirms that the image of God in man is defaced; but that also, by his sin, he has lost communion with God: "By not having faith," he says, "even that which he seemed to have is taken from him, the favour of paradise, and familiarity with God, whereby he would have known all the things of God, had he been obedient." Now, the deprivation of the image of God, and of communion with him, through the fall, are what we call a moral or spiritual death. Moreover, in the very passage in dispute, Adam is said " to render all mankind polluted," and so they become partakers of his condemnation, soul and body; hereby they become loathsome and abominable to God, and consequently liable to, and deserving of, his everlasting wrath and displeasure; which is no other than the second death; and that such a sentence of death passed on Adam for his offence, according to Tertullian, is

Vide Tertullian. de Resurrect. c. 6, p. 383; c. 18, p. 391; c. 26, p. 397; c. 52, p. 421. + Liberum et sui arbitrii, et suæ potestatis invenio homineni a Deo institutum, nullam magis imaginem et similitudinem Dei in illo animadvertens, quam ejusmodi status formam; neque enim facie et corporalibus lineis tam variis in genere humano, ad uniformem Deum expressus est; sed in ea substantia, quam ab ipso Deo traxit, id est, animæ ad formam Dei respondentis et arbitrii su libertate et potestate signatus est.-Tertullian. adv. Marcion. lib. 2, c. 5, p. 457. Oportebat igitu imaginem et similitudinem Dei, liberi arbitrii, et suæ potestatis institui, in qua et hoc ipsum, imag et similitudo Dei deputaretur, arbitrii, scilicet libertas et potestas.-Ib. c. 6.

Ideoque non habendo fidem, etiam quod videbatur habere ademptum est illi, paradisi gratia › familiaritas Dei, per quam omnia Dei cognovisset si obedisset.-lb. c. 2, p. 454.

clear from the following passages*: "For though, because of the condition of the law, Adam is given up to death, yet there is good hope for him, since the Lord says, Adam is become as one of us; namely, concerning the future assumption of the man into union with the Deity." Now, of his being delivered from a bodily death there was no hope, for the sentence of that not only passed, but was executed on him; but of his being delivered from the second death there is hope, through the sacrifice and satisfaction of the Second Adam; hence he elsewhere + condemns Tatian as a heretic, for asserting that "Adam could not obtain salvation; as if," says he, "the branches could be saved, and not the root." And in another place he has these words: "God, after so many and such great offences of human indiscretion deliberately committed by Adam, the father of mankind, after man was condemned, with the dowry (the sin) of the world, after he was cast out of paradise, and subject to death, seasonably received him to his mercy, and immediately renewed repentance within himself; that is, as Rigaltius § explains it, as God repented that he had made man, he also repented that he had condemned him; wherefore, having rescinded the sentence of former wrath, or the former sentence of wrath and vengeance, he agreed to forgive his workmanship and image." Now, pray what was sententia irarum pristinarum, "the former sentence of wrath," said to be rescinded? Could it be the sentence of bodily death? Was that rescinded? Did not Adam die that death, as do all his posterity? Could it be any other than the sentence of eternal death and damnation, which, though it passed, was not executed on him, through the grace and forgiveness of God? Since then, according to Tertullian, this was the sentence pronounced on Adam, and he has made all his posterity partakers of it, I have done him no injury by my translation; besides, in the place before us, Tertullian is speaking to and of the soul, and not the body; for he immediately adds, "Thou art sensible of thy destroyer." And a little after, "We affirm that thou wilt remain after this life is ended, and wait for the day of judgment; and, according to thy deserts, shall be assigned either to torment or rest, both which will be for ever." Upon the whole, we see that this writer had no reason to say, that Tertullian everywhere declares the sentence of a bodily death alone to be what was pronounced on Adam in the beginning; or that he ever supposes the divine sentence of condemnation pronounced against man in the beginning, to concern the body and bodily death only, and never supposes it to respect the eternal death of body and soul hereafter.

• Nam etsi Adam propter statum legis deditus morti est, sed spes ei salva est, dicente Dominoque, ecce Adam factus est tam quam unus ex nobis, de futura scilicet ad lectione hominis in divinitatem. -lb. c. 25, p. 473. De Præscript. Hæret. c. 52, p. 254.

Nam Deus post tot, et ac tanta delicta humanæ temeritatis a principe generis Adam auspicata, post condemnatum hominem, cum seculi dote, post ejectum Paradiso mortique subjectum, quum rursus ad suam misericordiam maturavisset, jam inde in semetipso pœnitentiam dedicavit, rescissa sententia irarum pristinarum, ignoscere pactus operi et imagini suæ.-Ib. de Pœnitentia, c. 2, p. 139, 140. § Observ. in loc. p. 38.

Sentis igitur perditorem tuum, affirmamus te manere post vitæ dispunctionem et expectare diem judicii, proque meritis aut cruciatui destinari aut refrigerio, utroque sempiterno.—Ib. de Testimon. Animæ, c. 3, p. 82.

This writer, unwilling to let slip an opportunity, or seeming one, of reproaching me, says, that I have ventured to translate a passage of Dr. Whitby's, but not without a mistake; whereas I have not pretended to give an exact translation of the passage, but only the sense of it, and in that, it seems, I am mistaken: How so? I say, "the learned Doctor was of opinion, that what he has wrote in the treatise was almost above the capacities of the common people." This man says his words are these: "Seeing these things which I shall say of original sin, for the most part, exceed the capacity of the vulgar." Well, if they, for the most part, exceed, then surely they must be almost above the capacity of the vulgar. Should a person meet with this passage in Terence, fere ruri se continet, which this author mentions, and should render it, he keeps almost always in the country," would it not be all one as if it was rendered, "he keeps for the most part, or usually, in the country?" And so, if he should on this scrap of Latin, ut fere fit, and translate it, "as it almost always falls out" would it not be the same as if it was translated," as it usually, or for the most part, falls out?" A man that can be grave in such observations as these, whatever opinion he may have of himself as a very learned critic, must be set down for a solemn trifler.

I pass on (having nothing to do with his reasons for translating Dr. Whitby's book, nor with the translation itself) to,

II. The next charge exhibited against me, which is impertinence, pretending I have alleged testimonies from the ancients beside my purpose, and particularly from Clemens, Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin, and Lactantius, which shall be re-examined.

And,

1. Clemens addressed the Corinthians, to whom he writes, as persons "called and sanctified by the will of God;" which translation of his words is censured as inaccurate, though perfectly agreeable to the version of Patricius Junius, a man of great erudition, revised by that very learned hand, Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford, who renders them, as I have done, vocatis et sanctificatis voluntate divina; yet this poor creature has the assurance and vanity to suggest, that his own translation is most exact, and this very loose, obscure, and inaccurate; but it is plain what makes him uneasy with this version, because he observes, it "makes it look as if both the calling and sanctification were ascribed here to the will of God;" and truly so it does, and that very rightly and why should the man boggle at this, since Clemens, in the passage next cited by me, expressly says of the Corinthians, that they were "called by the will of God in Christ Jesus?" whence it is clear, that not only sanctification, but vocation, is ascribed by him to the will of God. But then, it seems, this vocation is to be understood, not of internal, effectual calling, but of the outward call of the gospel. To which may be replied, that persons may be called externally, by the preaching of the gospel, who are never sanctified; but then those who are sanctified, are internally called, are called with a holy calling, or are sanctified in and by their effectual vocation; and since these Corinthians were sanctified as well as called, their vocation cannot be understood of a mere outward call, by the ministry of the word; but