selves, in their own persons, had done what Adam did. Unless we suppose this to be Paul's doctrine, his words are nothing but mere empty sound. XXXII. The last words of this verse, EPH HO PANTES HEMARTON, are differently explained by divines, because the Greek phraseology admits of various significations. The principal explanations are three. 1. Some render them, in so far, or, because all have sinned. For it is allowed, that EPH Hо fre. quently admits this sense; and thus it seems to be taken,* EPH HO OU THELOMEN EKDUSASTHAI, not for that we would be unclothed; as if written as Frobenius prints it, EPEIDE, though Beza here greatly differs. 2. Others observe, it may be explained, with whom, i. e. who sinning, all have sinned. For EPI in a similar construction denotes a time in which something was done. Thus we say in Greek, EP EMOI MEIRAKIO TOUTO GEGONE, when I was a boy, this happened; and EPI KUNI, in the dog-days; and the apostle, EPI TE PROTE DIATHEKE, under the first testament. And then the meaning would be, that, upon Adam's sinning, all are judged to have sinned. 3. Augustine, and most of the orthodox have explained it, in whom. Which Erasmus in vain opposes, saying, that EPI when signifying upon, or, in, is joined to the peДative case; as EP OIKOU, KAI EPI TES CHORAS; also when denoting time, as EPI KAISAROS; OCTABIOU. In all this he is strangely mistaken. For, not to say any thing now of time, it is certain, that EPI when joined to the dative, denotes in: as Matth. xiv. 8. EPI PINAKI, in a charger; and in this very context of Paul, ver. 14. EPI TO HOMOIOMATI, in the similitude. And which is more, TO EPH HO, cannot sometimes be otherwise explained, than by, in which, or in whom; as Matth. ii. 4. EPH HO HO PARALUTIKOS KATEKEITO, wherein the sick of the palsy lay; and Luke v. 25. ARAS EPH HO KATEKEITO, took up that whereon he lay. Nor is it taken

* 2 Cor. v. 4. ↑ Heb. ix. 15.

in this light, in the sacred writings only, but he might learn from Budæus,* that Aristotle used this phraseology in the same sense, EPH HO MEN HE THELEIA, EPI THATERO DE HO ARREN EPOAZEI, On the one the female, on the other the male broods. However, we reckon none of those explanations to be impertinent, as they are all almost to the same purpose : yet we give the preference to the last, because most emphatical, and very applicable to the apostle's scope. It is a bad way of interpreting scripture, to represent it as declaring what is the least thing intending. For the words are to be taken in their full import, where there is nothing in the context to hinder it.

XXXIII. Grotius really prevaricates, when he thus comments on the passage before us. It is a common metonymy in the Hebrew, to use the word sin, instead of punishment; and to sin, instead of to undergo punishment; whence extending this figure, they are said by a metalepsis, CHATA to sin, who suffer any evil, even though they are innocent, as Gen. xxxi. 36. and Job vi. 24; where CHATA is rendered by DUSPRAGEIN, to be unhappy. EPH Hо, here denotes through whom, as EPI with the dative is taken, Luke v. 5. Acts iii. 46. 1. Cor. viii. 11. Heb. ix. 17. Chrysostom on this place says, "On his fall, they who did not eat of the tree, are from him all become mortal." Thus far Grotius.

XXXIV. This illustrious person seems to have wrote without attention, as the whole is very impertinent. 1. Though we allow, that sin does sometimes. metonymically denote the punishment of sin; yet we deny it to be usual in scripture, that he who undergoes punishment even while innocent, may be said to sin. Grotius says, it is frequent: but he neither does nor can prove it by any one example; which is certainly bold and rash. Crellius, confuting his book on the satisfaction of Christ, brings in the saying of Bathsheba to David.t I and my son Solomon shall be counted In cem. ling. Græc. p. 506. 1 Kings i. 21. VOL. I. Ꮓ

*

offenders; that is, says he, we shall be treated as offenders, or be ruined. But a sinner, or even sin, and to sin, are different things. The former is said of Christ, but not the latter, on any account. Moreover, to be a sinner does not signify, in the passage alledged, to undergo punishment, without any regard to a fault or demerit, but to be guilty of aiming at the kingdom, and of high treason, and as such to be punished. The testimonies advanced by Grotius are so foreign, that they seem not to have been examined by that great man. For neither in the Hebrew do we find CHATA, to sin, nor in the Greek version, DUSPRAGEIN; nor do the circumstances admit, that what is there said of sin, or mistake, can be explained of punishment. It is necessary therefore to suppose, that either Grotius had something else in his view, or that here is a typographical error. 2. Though we should grant, which yet we do not in the least, that to sin sometimes denotes to undergo punishment; yet it cannot signify this here; because the apostle in this place immediatly distinguishes between death as the punishment, and sin as the meritorious cause, death by sin. And by this interpretation of Grotius, the apostle's discourse, which we have already shewn is solid, would be an insipid tautology. For where is the sense to say, So death passed upon all, through rohom all die? 3. Grotius discovers but little judgment in his attempt to prove, that EPH Hо signify through whom: certainly, Luke v. 5. EPI TO REMATI SOU, does not signify through thy word, but at thy word, or, as Beza translates, at thy command. And Heb. ix. 17. EPI NEKROIS does not signify through the dead, but when dead, and rather denotes a circumstance of time. Acts iii. 16. is alledged with a little more judgment; and 1 Cor. viii. 11. not improperly. But it might be insisted, that EP EMOI ESTI signfies, it is owing to me, so that the meaning shall be, to whom it was owing that all sinned. Which

2 Cor. v. 21.

1

interpretation, is not altogether to be rejected. Thus the scholiast, EOH HO ADAM, DI HON. And if there was nothing else couched under this, I would easily grant Grotius this explanation of that phraseology. 4. It cannot be explained consistently with divine. justice, how without a crime death should have passed upon Adam's posterity. Prosper reasoned solidly and elegantly against Collator.* Unless perhaps it can be said, that the punishment, and not the guilt passed on the posterity of Adam; but to say this, is in every respect false. For it is too impious to judge so of the justice of God; as if he would, contrary to his own law, condemn the innocent with the guilty. The guilt therefore is evident, where the punishment is so; and a partaking in punishment shews a partaking in guilt; that human misery is not the appointment of the Creator, but the retribution of the judge." If therefore through Adam all are obnoxious to punishment, all too must have sinned in Adam. 5. Chrysostom also is here improperly brought in, as if from Adam he derived only the punishment of death, without partaking in the guilt. For the homily, from which the words are quoted, begins thus: "When the Jew shall say, how is the world saved by the obedience of one, namely Christ? you may reply, how was the world condemned by one disobedient Adam?" Where it is to be observed, (1.) That he supposes the_miseries of mankind to proceed from God, as a Judge, who cannot justly condemn, but for sin. (2.) That he compares the condemnation of the world by Adam's disobedience, with its salvation by Christ's obedience. But this last is imputed to believers, and deemed to be theirs. And therefore Adam's sin is in like manner imputed to all. As also Gregory of Nazianzen, quoted by Vossius,† said that Adam's guilt was his. "Alas! my weakness!" says he, "for I derive my weakness from the first parent."

* Cor. v. 20. ↑ Hift. Pelag. lib. ii. part. 2. p.`263.

XXXV. But we only understand this of Adam's first sin. We nowise agree with those, who absurdly tell us, that Adam's other sins were also imputed to us: for Paul, when treating on this subject, Rom. v. every where mentions transgression, in the singular number; nay expressly, ver. 18. one transgression, by which guilt passed upon all. And the reason is manifest. For Adam ceased to be a Federal head, when the covenant was once broken; and whatever sin he was afterwards guilty of, was his own personal sin, and not chargeable on his posterity; unless in so far as God is sometimes pleased to visit the sins of the fathers on the children. In which Adam has now nothing peculiar above other men. So much for the vi- / olation of the covenant by man.

C'HA P. IX.

Of the Abrogation of the Covenant of Works on the part

HAVING

of God.

AVING discoursed a sufficient length concerning the violation of the covenant of works by sin; let us now consider whether, and how far, it is made void, or abrogated by God himself.

II. And in the first place, we are very certain, that there are many things in this covenant of immutable and eternal truth; which we reckon upon in this order. 1. The precepts of the covenant, excepting that probatory one, oblige all and every one to a perfect performance of duty, in what state soever they are. 2. Eternal life, promised by the covenant, can be obtained upon no other condition, than that of perfect, and in every respect complete obedience. 3. No act of disobedience escapes the vengeance of God and death is always the punishment of sin. But these