Containing Observations on Romans 5:12 to the End

Remarkt on Dr. Taylor’s way ofexfilatning this Text.

THE following things are worthy to be taken notice of, concerning our author’s exposition of this remarkable passage of the Apostle Paul,

I. He greatly insists, that by death in this place no moro is meant, than that death which we all die, when this present life is extinguished, and the body returns to the dust; that DO more is meant in the 12th, 14th, 15th, and 17,th verses. Page 27, he speaks of it as evidently clearly and infallibly «o, because the apostle is still discoursing on the same subject; plainly implying, that it must most infallibly be so, that the aposile means no more by death, throughout this paragraph on the subject. But as infallible as this is, if we believe what Dr. Taylor elsewhere says, it must needs be otherwise. He, in p. 120, -S’, tpeaking of those words in the last verse of the next chapter, “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,** says,,” Death in this place is widely different from the death we novj die; 9?i if stands there vpfioscd to eternal ///<?, which is the gift of

(icd through Jesus Christ, it manifestly signifies eternal deaths the second deaths or then death which they 5hi»ll hereafter die, who live after the flesh.” But death (in the conclu>,ion of the paragraph we are upon in the 5th chapter, concerninj; the death that comes by Adam) and the life that comes by Chi ist, in the last verse of the chapter, is o/i/ioscd to eternal life jusi in the same manner as it is in the last verse of the next chapter: “That as sin has reigned unto deaths even so might race reign, through righteousness, un.o eter?ial life, by Jesus Christ our Lord.” So that by our author’s own argument, death in this place also is manifestly widely dijfcrent from the death we noio die as it stands here ofifiosed to eternal lifCf through Jesus ChrL-it; end s:g7vfies eternal deaths the second death. And yet this is a part of the same discourse or paragraph with that begun in the 12ih verse, as reckoned by Dr. Taylor himself in his division of paragraphs, in his paraphrase and notes on the epistle. So that if we will follow him, and admit his reasonings in the various parts of his book, hero is manifest proof against infallible evidence! So that it is true, the aposile throughout this whole passage on the same subject, by death, evidently clearly and iifalUbhj mean-t no more than that death we now die-, ii;hen this life is extinguished; and yet by death, in some part of this passage, is meant something -svidely different from the death we now die, and is manifestly intended eternal deaths the second death.

5ut had our author been more consistent with hinaselfin his laying of it down as so certain and i fallible that because the apostle has a special respect to temporal death, in the 14th verse, Death reigned from jldarn to Alosesy therefore he means no more in the severi.l consequent puns of this passage, yet he is doubtless too confident and positive in this matter. This is no more evident clear, and infullible ihin that Christ meant no more by /lerish/ng, m Luke xiii. 5, vvlicn he siiys, ‘- I tell you. Nay, but except yc repent, ye shall all Tikcwisc periih;” than sorb a temporal death, as came o.i those ihui died by the full of the lowt-r of Siloam, vpoken of in the preceding words of ‘he same ^ptcch; and no more ini’ullibic, iian that by life j Ci*rist nicais no moi- - ‘’’ifc.

temporal life, in each part of that one sentence, INIatth, x. 5?,” He iliat findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth Ma ///*£? for my sake, shall findzV;’* because in the first part of each claufe, he has respect especially to temporal life.*

The truth of the case, with respect to what the apostle interifls by the word death in this place, is this, viz. That the same ihinpr is meant, that is meant by death in the foregoing and followinc: parts of his epistle, and other writings of this apostle, where he speaks of death as the consequence of sin, viz. the whole of that death, which he, and the scripture every where, speaks of as the proper wages and punishment of sin, including death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal; though in some parts of this discourse he has a more special respect 10 one part of this whole, in others to another, as his argument leads him; without any more variation thai is common in the same discourse. That life, which the scripture speaks of as the reward of righteousness, is a whole, containing several partf, viz. The life of the body, union of soul and body, and the most perfect sensibility, activity, and felicity of both, which is the chief thing. In like manner the death, which the scripture speaks of as the punishment of sin, is a whole, including the death of the body, and the death of the soul, and the eternal, sensible, perfect destruction and misery of both. It is this latter whole, that the apostle speaks of by the name

* There are many places parallel with these, as John xi. 25, 26. “I an the resurrection and the life: He that bdieveth in me, though*he were dead, vet he shall live: And whosoever liveth, and believeih in me. shall never die” Here both the words, life and death, are used with this variation: “I am the resurrection and the life,” meaning spiritual and eternal life: “He that; belicveih in mc, though he were dead,” having rrsptct to lemporal death, *’ yet shall he live,*’ with respect to spiritual life, and ihs restoration of the life of the body. “And whosoever liveth and hclieveth in me, shall never die,’’ meaning a spiritu -1 and eternal death. So in John vi. 49. 50. *’’Your fathers did cat manna in the wilderness, and are dead,” having respect” chiefly to temporal death. “This is the bread which cometrh down from heaven, that a man may cat thereof, and not die,” i c. by the loss of spiritual life, and by eternal dea’h. (See also ver 58) And in the next vase, “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever,” have eternal life. So vor, 54. See ancihcr like instance, John v. 24. ,..29.

of death in this cUscoursc, in ]U)ni. v. ll»oun;h in some sentences he has a more special respect lo one j)art, in others to another: And this, without chantrintj; lUc sijrnificalion of the word. For an havin^ respect lo several ihin-s included in the extensive siiniricauoa of the word, is noi the same thing as using the word in several distinct sijjjnific.-.tioi,s. As lor instance, the appellative, man or the proper name of any particular man, is the name of a whole, including the dificrcr.t parts of soul and hody. And if any one in speakini; of James or John, should say, he was a wise wmw, and a beautiful man i in the former part of the sentence, respect would he had more especially to his soul, in the latter to his body, in the word 7na7i: But yei without any proper change of the signification of the name to distinct senses. In John xxi. 7, it is said, Peter was naked and in the following part of the same story it is said, Peter was grieved. In the former proposition, respect is had especially to his body, in the latter to his soul: But yet here is no proper change of the meaning of the name, Peter. And as to the apostle’s use of the word rfv;//;, in the passage now under consideration, on the supposition that he in general means the whole of that death, v hich is the wages of sin, there is nothing but what is perfectly natural in supposing that he, in order to evince, that death, the proper )uuishment of sin, comes on all mankind, in consequence of Adam’s sin, should take notice of that part of this punishment, which is visible in this world, and which every hotly thciefore sees, does in fact come on all mankind (as in vcr. 14) and from thence should infer, tlr.it all mankind are exposed to the whole of that death which is the proper punishment of sin whereof that temporal death which is visible, is a part, and a visible im.age of the whole, and (unless changed by divine grace) an introduction to tlic principal, and infmitely the mot dreadful part.

II. Dr. Taylor’s explanation of this passage makes wholly insignificant those first words. “Hy one man sin entered into the world,” and leavca this proposition without ar,y sense or signification at all. The apostle had been largely and elaborately representing, how the whole world was full of sin. in all

^U ORIGINAL SlhT.

parts of it. both among Jews and Gentiles, and all exposed to? dtaih and condemnation. It is plain, that in these words he v-oiild tell us how this came to pass, viz. that this sorrowful fcvcnt came by one ?nan, even the first man. That the world -was full of sin, and ftiU of death, were two great and notorious facts, deeply affecting the interests of mankind; and they seemed very wonderful filcts, drawing the attention of the more thinking part of mankind every Where, who often a&ked this question, Whence comes evil, moral and natural evil? (the latter chiefly visible in death.) It is manifest the apostle here means to tell us, how these came into the world, and came to prevail in it as they do. But all that is meant, according to Dr. Taylor’s interpretation, is, “ffe begun trans” gres.sion“* As if all that the apostle meant, was, to tell us who happened to sin first; tiot how such a malady came upon the world, or how any one in the world, be&ides Adam himself, came by such a distemper. The words of the apostle, By one man sjn entered into the nvorld and death by sin,*’ shew the design to be, to tell us how these evils came, as affcciing the state of //if -zyor/rf; and not only as reaching one man in the world. If this were not plain enough in itself, the words immediately following demonstrate it: “And so dea’h passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” By sins being in the nvorld, the apostle does not mean being in the .world only in that one instance of Adam’s first transgression, bU being abroad in the nvorld, among the inhabitants of the earth, in a wide extent, and continued series of wickedness J as is plain in the first words of the next verse, *’ For until the law, sin was in the ivorld.*^ And therefore when he gives us an account how it came to be in the world, or, which is the game thing, how it entered into the world he does not mean only romiiig in-, in one instance.

If the case were as Dr. Taylor represents, that the sin.oi” Adam, either in its pollution or punishment, reached none but himself, any more than the sin of any other man, it would %Q no more proper to say, that by one man .tin entered into thf

Page 56..

OllIGlNAL SIN. 237

world, than if it should be inquired, how mankind came into America, and there had anciently been a ship of the Pheni- «ians wrecked at sea, and a single man of the crew was driven ashore on this continent, and here died as soon an he reached the shore, it should be said, By thut one man mankind came into w erica.

And besides, it is not true, that by one man, or by Adam, sin entered into the world, in Dr. Taylor’s sense; for ii was not he, but Eve, thut begun transgrccsicn. By one man Dr. Taylor understands Adum, as the figure of Christ. And it is plain that it was for his transgression, and not Eve’s, that the sentence of death was pronounced on mankind after the fall. Gen. iii. 19. It appears unreasonable to suppose the apostle means to include Eve, when he speaks of Adam; for he lays great stress on it, that it was by one, repeating it several times.

III. In like manner this author brings to nothing the sense of the causal particles, in such phrases as these, so often repeated; »’ Death by sin,” verse 12. “U through the offence of one, many be dead,” verse 15. “y one that sinned. ...Judgment was by one to condemnation,” verse 16. “ji5i/one man’s offence, death reigned by one,” verse 17. “By the offence of one, judgment came upon all,” 8cc. verse 18. ‘■’’By one man’s disobedience,” verse 19. These causal particits, so dwelt upon, and so variously repeated, unless we make mere nonsense of the discourse, signify some connexion and dependence, by so.me sort of influence of that sin of one man, or some tendency to that effect, which is so often said to come by it. But according to Dr. Taylor, there can be no real dependence or influence in the case of any sort whatsoever. There is no connexion by any natural influence of that one act to make all mankind mortal. Our author does not pretend to account for this effect in any such manner, but in another most diverse, viz. A gracious act of God, laying mankind under aflliction, toil and death, from special favor and kindness. Nor can there be any dependence ,of this effect on that transgression of Adam, by any moral in- ^uence, as deserving such a consequence, or rxpoiing to it on any moral account for he supposes that mankind are not in this way exposed to the least degree of evil. Nor has this effect any /c?^^ dependence on that sin, or any connexion by virtue of anv antecedent constitution, which God had established with Adam; for he insists that in that threatening, In the day thou cutest thou shalt die, there is not a word said of his posterity, page 8. And death on mankind, according to him, cannot come by virtue of that legal constitution with Adam; because the sentence by which it came, was after the annulling and abolishing that constitution, page 113, 5. And it is manifest that this consequence cannot be through any kind of tcndaicij of that sin to such an effect, because the effect comes only as a benefit, and is the fruit of mere favor; but sin has no tendency, either natural or moral, to benefits and divine favors. And thus that sin of Adam could neither be the efficient c. use nor the procuring cause, neither the natural, moral, nor leial cause, nor an exciting and moving cause, any more than Adam’s eating of any other tree of the garden. And the only real relation that the effect can have to that sin, is a relation as to time, viz. that it is after it. And when the matter is closely examined, the whole amounts to no more than this, That God is pleased, of his mere good will and pleasure, to bestow a greater favor upon us, than he did upon Adam in innoccncy, after that sin of his eating the forbidden fruit; which sin we are no more concerned in, than in the sin of the king of Pegu, or emperor of China.

IV. It is altogether inconsistent with the apostje*s scope, and the import of what he says, to suppose thai the death which he here speaks of, as coming on mankind by Adam’sein, comes not as a punishment, but only as a favor. It quite makes void the opposition, in which the apostle sets the r.onsequenccs of Adam’s sin, and the consequences of the frace and righteousness of Christ. They are set in opposition to each other, as opposite effects, arising from opposite causes, lhrolighout the paragraph: One as the juat consequence cf an ojftncc, the other free gift verse 15. ...18. Whereas, according to this scheme, there is no such oppoj- •ion in the case; both ave benefi’.s, and both are free gifts.

A very wholesome medicine to save from perisliinji;, ordered by a kind father, or a shield to preserve from an enemy, bestowed by a friend, is as much a free gift as pU^sant food. The death that comes by Adam, is set in opposition to the life and happiness that comes by Christ, as being the fruit of sin, 2iV^ judgment for sin; when the latter is the fruit of divine grace verses 15, 17, 20, 21. Whereas, according to our author, both came by grace: Death comes on mhnkind by the free kindness and love of God, much more truly and properly than by Adam’s sin. Dr. Taylor speaks ot it as coming by occasion of Adam*s sin. (But as I have observed, it is an occasion without any hiflucnce.) Yet the prope*- cau.^c is God*s grace; so that the true cause is wholly good. Which by the way, is directly repugnant to the apostle’s doctrine in Rom. vii. 13. “Was then that which is good, made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good.” Where the apostle utterly rejects any such suggestion, as though that whit:h is good were the proper cause of death; and signifies that sin is the proper caise and that which is good only the nccaaion. But according to this author, the reverse is true: That which is good in the highest sense, even the love of God, and a divine, gracious constitution, is the proper cause of death, and sin only the occasion.

But to return, it is plain, that death by Adam, and life and hnppincss bij Christy are here set in opposition; the latter being spoken of as good the other as cril; one as the effect oVriihtcousness the other of an offence; one the fruit o{ obedience, the other of disobedience; one as the fruit of God’s favory in consequence of what was pleasing and acceptaft”!e to him, but the other the fruit of his dis/ilrasnre, lu consequence of what was displeasing and hateful to him; the Jailer ctiminv by justif CO :ion the former by the cchdrmvariori of the subject. But according to the scheme of our author, there can be no opposition in any of liiese resptc’s; the ditath here spoken o1”, neither comes as an er//, noi fioni an ^t/7 raiwr, either an evil efficient cause, or procuring cause; not at all as any testimony of Cod’s displeafiure to the bul)ject, ?jut us properly the effect of Goers favor, no less than that which r* spoken of as coming by Christ; yea, and as much as to that appointed by an act of justification of the subject, as he understands and explains the word justijication; for both arc by a grant of favor and are instances of merqy and goodness. And he does abundantly insist upon it, that “any grant of favor, any instance of mercy and goodness, whereby God delivers and exempts from any kind of danger, suffering or calamity, or confers any favor, blessing, or privilege, is called justifcationy in the scripture sense and use of the Word.”*

And over and above all these things, cur author makes void, and destroys the grand and fundamental opposition of all, to illustrate which is the chief scope of this whole passage, viz. That between the first and second Adam, in the deat/j. that comes by one, and the life and happiness by the other. For, according to his doctrine, doth come by Christ, the second Adam; both by his grace, righteousness, and obedience: The death that God sentenced mankind to in Gen. iii. 19, bering a great deal more properly and truly by Christ, than by Adam. For, according to him, that sentence was not pronounced on the foot of the covenant with Adam, because that was abrogated, and entirely set aside, as what was to have no more effect, before it was pronounced; as he largely insists .for many pages together, pages 1 13..,.lli), 5. He says, page 113, S. “Tills covenant with Adam was disannulled immediately after Adam sinned. Even before God passed sentence upon Adam, grace was introduced.” And in p. 119, 5”. he says, “The death that mankind are the subjects of now, stands under the covenant of grace.” And in p. 120, iS” In the counsel and appointment of God, it stood in this very litiht, even before the sentence of death was pronounced upon Adam; and consequently, death is no proper and legal pun-

Key, 374, v’liere it is to be observed, ibat lie liiwisclf puts the ‘word ANY in cp’tal letters. The same thing in subaaiice is often asserted elsewhere. Ard this, indeed, is his main poit.t in what he calls <’ the true goj Del tcheme.”, islimcnt of sin.” And h« often insists, iliai it comes only as a favor and benefit; and siandinp;, as he says, under the covrnant of grace, which is by Christ, thrrelbrc is tiuly one of the benefits of the new covenant, which comes by Chiifit, the second Adam. For he himself is full in it, to ube his own words,* <’ That all the yrace of the yospel ia dispensed to us, 777, Av, or through the Son of (iod.” ‘’ JSothing is clearer (says hef) from the whole current of scripture, than that all the mercy and love of God, and all the blessinvs of the gospel, from first to last, are in, iy and through Christ, and particularly by his blood, by the redempiion that is in him. This (says hcj can bear no dispute among Christians.” What then becomes of all this discourse of the apostle, about the great difference and opposition between Adam and Christ; as death is by one, and eternal life and happinasc by the other? This grand distinction between the two Adams, and all the other instances of opposition and difference here insisted on, as between the effects of sin and riliteousness^Xhe. consequences of o”^f6//ewc<? and disobedience of the offence and .hc free gift, judgment and grace condemrmfion and justification, they all come to nothinp:; and this whole discourse of the apostle, wherein he seems to labor much, as if it were to set forth some very grand and most imfjortant distinctions and ofifiodtions in the state of things, as derived from the two grer.t heads of mankind, proves nothing but st multitude of words without meaning, or rather an heap oi inconsistencies.

V. Our author’s own doctrine entirely t??^^^.? Toft, what he suppose:5 to be the apostle*^ argument in the 13ih and 1 4th verses, in these words: ‘’ For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless death reicjned from Adam to Moses, even over rhem that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.

What he supposes the aposMe would prove here, is, hat death, or the mortaliiy of mankind, comes only by Ad.»lT.’^

K-y, thap viii. Title, p 44. + Key, f, 145.

5 Gain, and not by mtn*s fiersotial sins; and that it is here pro?’- ed by this argument, viz, because there was 7io law threatening; death to Adam*s posterity for fiersonal sinsy before the law of Moses; but death, or the mortality of Adam’s posterity, took place many ages before the law was given; therefore death could not be by any law threatening death for fiersonal sins, and consequently could be by nothing but Adam’s sin *

On this I would observe,

1. That which he supposes the apostle to lake for a

truth in this argument, viz. That there was 720 law of God in

being, by which men were exposed to death iov fiersonal

ehi, during the time from Adam to Moses, is neither true,

Tior agreeable to this apostle’s ovrn doctrine.

First, It is 7ioi true. For the law of nature, written in men’s hearts, was then in being, and was a law by which wen were exposed to death for fiersonal sin. That there was a divine establishment, fixing the death and destruction of the sinner, as the consequence of personal sin, which was well known before the giving of Moses’ law, is plain by many passages in the Book of Job, as fully and clearly implying a connexion between such sin and such a punishment, as any passage in the law of Moses; such as that in Job xxiv, 19. “Drought and heat consume the snow waters: S® doth the grave them that have sinned.” (Compare verse 20 and 24.) Also chap, xxxvi 6. ‘’ He preserveth not the life of the wicked.” Chap. xxi. 29.... 32. “Have ye not asked them that go by the way? And do ye not know their tokens? That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction; they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath.” Ver. 32. “He shall be brought to the grave.”t

Secondly, to suppose that there is no law in being, by which men are exposed to death {qy fiersonal sins, where or when a revealed law of God, before, in, or after Moses* lime is not in being, is contrary to this afiostles own doctrine

* Page 40, 41, 42, 57, and often elsewhere. + See also Job iv. 7, 8, 9. Chap. XV, 17....35« Chap, xviii. 5... .21, xix. 29, and xx. 4. .,8, and tnaoy other places.

in this epistle. Rom. ii. 12, 14, 15. For as many as have sinned without law, (i. e. the revealed law) shall perish with- ut law.” But how they can be exposed to die and perish, who have not the law of Moses, nor any revealed law, the apostle shews us in the 14th and 15th verses, viz. in that they have the law of nature, by which they fall under sentence to this punishment. “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law to themselves; which shew the work of the law written in their hearts; their conscience also bearing witness,” Their conscience not only bore witness to the duty prescribed by this law, but also to the punishment before spoken of, as that which they who sinned without law, were liable to suffer, viz. that they should perish. In which the apostle is yet more express, chap. i. 32, speaking more especially of the Heathen, “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death.” Dr. Taylor often calls the law the rule of right; and this rule of right sentenced those sinners to death, who were not under the law of Moses, according to this auiJior*s own paraphrase of this verse, in these words, “The Heathen were not ignorant of the rule of rights which God has implanted in the human nature; and which shews that they which commit such crimes, are deserving of death.” And he himself supposes Abraham who lived between Adam and Moses, to be U7idtr la-iu by which he, would have been exfiosed to fiunishment without hofie were it not for the promise of grace. ...in his paraphrase on Rom. iv. 15.

So that in our author’s way of explaining the passage before us, the grand argument, which the apostle insists upon here, to prove his main point, viz. that death does not come by men*s fiersoJial sinsj but by Adam’s sin, because it came btfjre the law was given, that threatened death for personal sin: I say, this argument which Dr. Taylor supposes so clear and strong,* is brought to nothing more than a mere shadow without substance; the very foundation of the argument having no truth. To say, there was no such hnv actually c- Page U7. S.

pressed in any standing revelation, would be mere trifling i For it no more appears, that God would not biiiie temporal death for personal sins, without a standinc revealed law threatening it, than that he would not bring eternal death before there was a revealed law threatening that: Which yet wicked men that lived in Noah’s time, were exposed to, as appears by i Pet. iii. 19, 20, and which Dr. Taylor supposes all mankind are exposed to by their personal sins; :^nd he himself says,*” Sin, in its own unalterable nature, leads to death.’* Yea, it might be argued with as much strength ol reason, that God could bring on men no punishment at all for any sin, that %vas committed from Adam to Moses, because there was no standing revealed law then extant, threatening any punishment. It may here be properly observed, that our author supposes the shortening of man’s days, and hastening of death, entered viio the world by the sin of the antediluvians, in the same sense as death and mortality entered into the world by Adam’s sin.f But where was there any standing revealed law for that, though the event was so universal? If God might bring this on all mankind, on occasion ot other men’s sins, for which they deserved nothing, without a revealed law, what could there be to hinder God’s bringing death on men for their personal sins, for which their own consciences tell them they do deserve death without a revealed law?

2. If it had been so, that from Adam to Moses there had been no law in being, of any kind, revealed or natural, by which men could be properly exposed to temporal death for personal sin, yet the mention of Moses’ law would have been wholly impertinent, and of no signification in the argument, according to our author’s understanding of it. He supposes, what the apostle would prove, is, that temporal ^tstxh, or the death we now die, comes by Adam; and not by any law threatening such a punishment foi- personal sin; because this death prevailed before the law of Moses Was in being, which is the D!ily law threatening death for personal sin. And yet he himiBfell supposes, that the law of Moses, nvhcn it was in bein

Page 77, 78. + Page 68.

threatened no such death for personal sin. For he abundantly asserts, that the death which the law of Moses threatened for personal sin, was etertml death, as has been alrcarly noted: And he says in express terms, that eternal d-aih is of a nature ividcly different from the death ive now die ;• as was also observed before.

How impertinently therefore does Dr. Taylor make an inspired writer arue, when, acconling to him, the upoMle would prove, that this kind of death did not come by any law threatening this kind of death, because it came before the existence of a law threatening another kind of death, of a nature ^ndely different? How is it to the apostle’s purpose, to fix on that period, the time of giving Moses* law, as if that had been the period wherein men began to be threatened with this fiun* ishment for their personal sins, when in truth it was no such thing? And therefore it was no more to his purpose, to fix on that period, from Adam to Meses, than from Adam to David, «r any other period whatsoever. Dr. Taylor holds, that even «ow, since the law of Moses has been given, the mortality oi” mankind, or the death we now die, does not come by that law; but that it always comes only by Adam-t And if it never cornea by that law, we may be sure it never was threat’ ened in that law.

3. If we should allow the argument in Dr. Taylor’s sense of it, to prove that death does not come by ficrsonal sin, yet it will be wholly without force to prove the main point, even that it must come by Adam’s sin: For it might come by God’s sovereign and gracious pleasure; as innumerable other divine benefits do. If it be ordered, agreeably to our author’s supposition, not as a punishment, nor as a calamity, but only as 2i favor, what necessity of any settled constitution, or revealed sentence, in order to the bestowing such a favor, more than other favors; and particularly more than that great benefit, which he says entered into the world by the sin of the antediluvians, the shortening men’s lives so much af-

Page 120. 5. He says to the like purpose in his Note on Rom, v. ij i This is plain by what be says, p. 38, 40, 53, 117, S.

ter the flood? Thus the apostle’s arguing, by Dr. Taylor’s explanation of it, is turned into mere trifling, and a vain and impertinent use of words, without any real force or sigriifi cance.

VI. The apostle here speaks of that great benefit which we have by Christ, as the antitype of Adam, under the notion of a fruit of grace, I do not mean only that sufieraboiinding of grace, wherein the benefit we have by Christ goes beyond the damage sustained by Adam; but that benefit, with regard to which Adam nvas the figure of him that was to comcy and which is, as it were, the counterpart of the suffering by Adam, and which repairs the loss we have by him. This is here spoken of as the fruit of the free grace of God; as appears by ver. 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21. This, according to our author, is the restoring of mankind to that life which they lost in Adam: And he himself supposes this restoration of life by Christ to be what grace does for us, and calls it the free gift, of God., and the grace and favor of the lawgiver * And speaking of this restoration, he breaks out in admiration of the unsfieakable riches of this grace.

But it follows from his doctrine, that there is no grace at all in this benefit, and it is no more than a mere act of justice, being only a removing of what mankind suffer, being innocent. Death, as it commonjy comes on mankind, and even on infants (as has been observed) is an extreme positive calamity; to bring which on the perfectly innocent unremedied, and without any thing to countervail it, we arc sufficiently taught, is not consistent with the righteousness of the Judge of all the earth. What grace therefore, worthy of being so celebrated, would there be in affording remedy and relief, after there had been brought on innocent mankind that which is (as Dr. Taylor himself represents)! the dreadful and universal destruction of their nature; being a striking demonstration how infinitely hateful sin is to God! What grace in delivering from

* P^gc 39. 70 148, 27, S. Sec also contents of this paragraph in Ronn. v. .n his notes on the epistle, and his note on ver. 15, 16, 17. + Page 119, S.; Pjgc 69.

such shocking ruin, them that did not deserve the least calamity! Our author says, “Wc could i»ot jundy lose communion with God by Adam’s sin.”* If so, then we could not justly lose our lives, and be annihilated, after a course of extreme pains and agonies of body and mind, wilhout any restoration; which would be an eternal loss of communion with God, and all other good, besides the positive suffc-iing. The apostle, throupjhout this passage, represents the dcaiht which is the consequence of Adam’s transgression, as coming in a way of judgment and co7idcmnation for sin; but deliverance and life through Christ, as by grace and the free gift of God. Whereas, on the contrary, by Dr. Taylor’s scheme, the death that comes by Adam, comes by grace, great grace; it being a great benefit, ordered in fatherly love and kindness, and on the foot of a covenant of grace:. But in the deliverance and restoration by Christ, there is wo grace at all. So things are turned tofmj turxnj, the apostle’s scope and scheme entirely inverted and confounded.

VII. Dr. Taylor explains the words, Judgment, condemnation, justification and righteousness, as used in this place, in a very unreasonable manner.

I will first consider the sense he puts upon the two former, judgment and condemnatio?/. He often calls tlii» condenmation a judicial act, and a sentence ofconde?n7iation. But, according to his scheme, it is a judicial sentence of condemnation passed upon them that are perfectly innocent, and viewed by the Judge, even in his passing the sentence, and condemning them, as having no guilt of sin, or fault at all chargeable upon them; and a judicial firocccding, passing sentence arbitrarily, without any law or rule of right before established: For there was no preceding law or rule threatening death, that he, or any one else, ever pretended to have been established, but only this, “In the day that ihog eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” And concerning tins, he insists, that there is not a word said in it of Adam’s posterity. So that the condemnation spoken of, is a sentence of condemnation to

♦Page 148.

a48 ORIGINAL SINT.

death, for, or in consequence of the sin of Adam, without an law, by which that sin could be imputed to brinsj any such consequence; contrary to the apostle’s plain scope. And not only so, but over and above all this, it is -a judicial sentence oi condemnation to that which is nocalaiYiity, nor is considered as such in the sentence; but it is condemnation to a great favor!

The apostle uses the words judgment and condemnation in other places; they are no strange and unusual terms with him: But never are they used by him in ihis sense, or any like it; nor are they ever used thus any where else in the New Testament. This apostle elsewhere in this epistle to the Romans is often speaking of condemnation using the same, or similar terms and phrases as here, but never in the abovesaid sense. Chap. ii. 1, 2, 3, six times in these verses; alsover. 12 and 27, and chap. iii. 7; chap. viii. 1 and 3; chap. xiv. 3, 4, and ver. 10, 13, 22 and 23. This will be plain to every one that casts his eye on these places: And if we look intd. the former part of this chapter, the apostle’s discourse here makes it evident, that he is here speaking of a condemnation, that is no testimony of favor to the innocent; but of God*3 displeasure towards those that he is not reconciled to, but looks on as offenders, sinners, and enemies, and holds as the objects of his wrath, which we are delivered from by Christ; as may be seen in verses 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

And viewing this discourse itself, in the very paragraph we are upon, if we may judge any thing by language and manner of speaking, there is every thing to lead us to suppose, that the apostle uses these words here, as he does elsewhere, properly, and as implying a supposition of sin, chargeable on the sul)ject, and exposing to punishment. He speaks of condemnation with reference to sin, as what comes by sin, and as a condemnation to death, which seems to be a most terrible evil, and capital punishment, even in what is temporal and visible; and this in the way of judgment and execution of justice, in opposition to grace or favor, and gift or a benefit coming by favor. And sin and offence, transgression avid disobedience, are over and over again spoken of as the ground.

of the condemnation, and of the capital suffering condemned to, for ten verses success vely, that is, in every verse in the whole paiagraph, without missing one.

The words, jiutijication and rightcousTicsay are explained by Dr. Taylor, in a no less unreasonable manner, lie understands ys/jAca/iow, in ver. 18, and rightcouancnH^ in ver. 19, in such a sense, as to suppose them to belonu; to all, and actually to be applied to all mankind, good and bad, believers and unbelievers; to the worst enemies of God, remaining SKch, as well as his peculiar favorites, and many that never had any sin iniputed to them; meaning thereby no more than what is fulfilled in an universal resurrection from the dead, at the last day.* Now this is a most arbitrary forced sense. Though these terms are used every where, all over the New Testament, yet nothing like such an use of them is to be found in any one instance, through all the writings of the apostles and evangelists. The words Justify Juaf(/icafiony and righteousness as from God to men, are never used but to signify a privilege belonging only to some, and that which is peculiar to distinguished favorites. This apostle in particular, above all the other writers of the New Testament, abounds in the use of these terms; so that we have all imaginable opportunity to understand his language, and know the sense in which he uses tl.ese words: But he never elsewhere uses them in the sense supposed here, nor is there any pretence that he does. Above all, does this apostle abound in the use of thrse terms in this epistle. Justifcation is the subject he had been upon throjjgh all the preceding part of the epistle. It was the giand subject of all the foregoing chapters, and the preceding part of this chapter, where these terms are continually repeated. And the y,ovA^ justification, is constantly used to signify something j)eculiar to believers, who had been sinners; implying some reconciliation arnl forgiveness of sin, and special privilege in nearness to God, above the vcA of the world. Yea, the word is constantly used thus, accoidintj to Dr. Taylor’s own explanations, in his paraphrase and i.otcs

So, page 47, 49, bo, 6i, 6e>3Md fv.hcr p’acj 2H on this epistle. And there is not the least reason to suppose but that he is still speaking q( the Sdunc jus ficaciori vlU(] right’ eousnes’i which he had dwelt upon from the beginning to this place. He speaks of justijication and righteousness here, just in the same manner as he had done in the precedmg part of the epistle. He had all along spoken of justification as standing in relation to sin disobedience to God, and offence against God, and so he does here: He had before been speaking of justification through free grace and so he does here: He before had been speaking of justification through righteowi” ness as in Christ Jesusj and so he does here.

And if we look into the former part of this very chapter, there we shall find justijicatioii spoken of just in the same sense as in the rest of the epistle; which is also supposed by our author in his exposition: It is still justijication by faith, justijication of them that had been si7mers, justijication attended with reconciliation, justijication peculiar to them that had the love of God shed abroad in their hearts. The apostle’s foregoing discourse on justification by grace through faith, and what he had sp greatly insisted on as the evidence of the truth of this doctrine, even the universal sinfulness of mankind in their original state, is plainly what introduces this discourse in the latter part of this 5th chapter; where he shews how all mankind came to be sinful and miserable, and so to. need this grace of God, and righteousness of Christ. And therefore we cannot, without the most absurd violence, suppose any other than that he is still speaking of the same yzs//- Jication.

And as to the universal expression used in the 18th verse, “By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to jusiification of life;” it is needless here to go into the controvtvsv between the rev<onstrants and anti rr?7ionstrantSy concerning universal redemption, and their different interpretations of this place. If we take the words even as the Arminians do; yet, in tlicir sense of them, the free gift comes on all men to justification only conditionalij; i. e. provided they believe, repent, See. But in uur autI)or’s sense, it actiiallu comes on all, whether they believe and repent, or not; which certainly cannot be inferred from the universal expression, a* here used. Dr. Taylor himself supposes, the main design of the apostle in this universal phrase, all mni is te sifnify that the hencfils of Christ shall come on Cicntilcs as well as Jews.* And he supposes that the many and the all here signify the same: But it is quite certain, that all the benefits here spoken of, which the apostle says are to the inaing does not actually come upon ail mankind; as particularly the aboundm of graccy spoken of ver. 15. The grace of God, and the tift 6y grace hath ahoKiided unto the many m( t8? ‘wo^tf4.

This aboundinp; of grace our author explains thus: “A rich overplus of grace, in erecting a new dispensation, furnished wiih a glorious fund of light, means and motives,” p. 44. But will any pretend, that all mankind have actually been partakers of this new fund ofliht, &tc. How were the many millions of Indians, on the American side of the globe, partakers of it, before the Europeans came hither? Yea, Dr. Taylor himself supposes, all that is meant is, that it is free for all that are willing to acce/it ofit.i The agreement between Adam, as the type or figure of him that was to come, and Christ as the antitype, appears as full and clear, if we suppose all which are in Christ (to use the common scripture phrase) have the benefit of his obedience, as all that are in Adam have the sorrowful fruit of his disobedience. The scripture speaks of believers as the seed or posterity of Christ. (Gai. iii. 29.) They are in Christ by grace, as Adam’s posterity are in him by nature: The one arc in the first Adam naturally y as the other are in the second Adam sfiirituallu: Exactly agreeable to the representation this apostle makes of the matter, 1 Cor. xv. 45. ...49. The spiritual seed are those which this apostle often represents as Christ’s body: And the CI ‘cjQ>^9t here spoken of as made righteous by Christ’s obedience are doubtless the same with the ol oroXXo* which he speaks of in chap. xii. 5. We, beivci many, an ouc body; or, ive, the many, c -crcWvc* iv cu», ta-yitt. And again, 1 Cor. x. IT, ir aviA»

Page 6o, 6i, See also content<: of this parsgraph, In hv< notes on the castle. + Notes on the epistle, p, 284.

f( noX>.ot triAtw, And the same which the apostle had spoken of in the preceding chapter, Rom. iv. 18, compared with Gen. XV. 5.

Dr. Taylor much insists on that place, I Cor. xv, 21, 22,” For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive;’* to confirm his suppositions, that the apostle here in the 5th of Romans, speaking of the death and condemnation which come by Adam, has respect only to the death ive all dicy when this life ends: And that by the justification and life which come by Christ, he has respect only to the general resurrection at the last day. But it is observable, that his argument is wholly built on these two suppositions, viz. Firsts That the resurrection meant by the apostle, in that place in the 1 Cor. xv. is the resurrection of all mankind, both just and unjust. Secondly, That the opposite consequences of Adam’s sin, and Christ’s obedience, spoken of here in Rom. v. are the very same, neither more nor less, than are spoken of there. But there are no grounds for supposing either of these things to be true.

1. There is no evidence, that the resurrection there spoken of, is the resurrection both of the 7*ws; and unjust; but abundant evidence of the contrary. The resurrection of the wicked is seldom mentioned in the New Testament, and rarely included in the meaning of the word; it being esteemed not worthy to be called a rising to life, being only for a great increase of the misery and darkness of eternal death; And therefore by the resurrection is most commonly meant a rising to life and happiness; as may be observed in Matth. xxii. 30 ....Luke XX. 35, 36.. .John vi. 39, 40, 54....PhiUp. iii. 11, and other places. The saints are called the children of the resurrection. as Ur. Taylor observes in his note on Rom. viii. 11, And it i?i exceeding evident, thai it is the resurrection to life and happiness, the apostle is speaking of in this 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22. It appears by each of the three foregoing verses, ver. 18, Then they which are fallen asleep in Christ (i. e. the saints) are perished.” Ver. 19. “If in this life only we (Christians or apostles) have hope in Christ (and have no resurrection and eternal life to hope for) we are of all men most miserable.” Ver. 20. “But now is Christ rise!i from the dead, and is become Xheji rat fruits of them that slept.” He is the forerunner and first fruits only with respect to them ll»at are his; “Who are to follow him, and partake with him in the glory and happiness of his resurrection: But he is not the first iruiis of them that shall come forth to the resurrection o’i dammition. It also appears by the verse immediately following, ver. 23. But every man in his own order; Christ the first fruits, and .•ifterward ihey that are Christ’s, at his coming.” The same is plain by what is said in verse 29, 30, 51 and “2, and by all that is said from the 35th verse to the end of the chapter, for twentythree verses together: It there expressly appears, that the apostle is spealyng only of a rising to florijy with a tloricus body, as the little’ grain that is sown, being (inickened, rises a beautiful flourishing plant. He there speaks of the different degrees of glory among them that shall rise, and compares it to the different degrees of glory among the celestial luminaries. The resurrection which he treats of, i» expressly a being raised in incorrupfio?i, in glory, in flower nvith a sfiiritual body, having the image of the second man, the spiritual and heavenly Adam; a resurrection wherein //;/> corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal put on ini’ mortality, and death be swalloiued up in victory, and the saints shall gloriously triunnph over that last enemy. Dr. Taylor himself says, that which is in effect owning the resurrection here spoken of is only of the righteous; for it is expressly a resurrection, tt aamaici, and ac&ao-iot, ver. 53 and 42. But Dr. Taylor says, “These are never attributed ts the wicked in scripture.* So that when the apostle says here,” As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive;” it is as much as if he had said, As in yldam we all die, and our bodies are sown in corruption, in dishonor, and in weakness; so in Christ we all (we Christians, whom I have all along been speaking of) shall be raised in power, glory, and incorruplion, spiritual and heavenly, conformed to the second Adam.” For

Mote on Rom, viii. £7.

as we have borne the imagje of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly,’* ver. 49. Which clearly explains* and determines his meaning in verse 21, 22.

2. There is no evidence that the benefit by the second Adam, spoken of in Rom. v. is the very same (containing neither more nor less) as the resurrection spoken of in 1 Cor. XV. It is no evidence of it, that the benefit is opposed to ther death that comes by the first Adam, in like manner in both places. The resurrection to eternal life, though it be not the whole of that salvation and happiness which comes by the second Adam, yet it is that wherein this salvation is principally obtained. The time of the saints* glorious resurrection is often spoken of as the proper time of the saints’ salvation, the day of their redemfition the time of their adofition glory, and recompense. (As in Luke xiv. 14, and xxi. 28, Rom. viii. 23, Eph. iv. 30, Coloss. iii. 4, 2 Thess. i. 7, 2 Tim. iv. 8, 1 Pet. i. 13, and v. 4, 1 John iii. 2, and other places.) All that salvation and happiness which is given before, is only a prelibation and earnest of their great reward. Well therefore may that consummate salvation bestowed on them, be set in opposition to the death and ruin which comes by the first Adam, in like manner as the whole of their salvation is opposed to the same in Rom. v. Dr. Taylor himself observes,* “That the revival and resurrection of the body, is frequently put for our advancement to eternal life.” It being the highest part, it is often put for the whole.

This notion, as if the justification, righteousness, and life spoken of in Rom. v. implied the resurrection to damnation, is not only without ground from scripture, but contrary to reason. For those things are there spoken of as great benefits, by the grace and free gift of God; but this is the contrary, in the highest degree possible, being the most consummate and infinite calamity. To obviate this, our author supposes the resurrection of all to be a great benefit in itself, though turned into a calamity by the sin and folly of obstinate Binners, who abuse God’s goodness. But the far greater part

* Note on Rom. viii. ii.

of mankind, since Adam, have never hud opportunity to abuse this goodness, it havint; never been made K?u)vvm lo them. Men cannot abuse a kindness, which ihcy never had either in possession, promise, offer, or some intimation; but a resurrection is made known only by divine revelation, which few comparatively have enjoyed. So that as to such wicked men as die in lands of darkness, if their resurreciioii conies at all by Christ, it comes from him, and to them, only as a curse, and not as a blessing; for it never comes to them at all by any conveyance grant, promise, or ojffror any thini by which they can claim it, or know any thing Jf it, till it conies as an infinite calamity, past all remedy.

VIII. In a peculiar manner is there an unreasonable violence used in our author’s explanation of the words sinners and sinned, in the paragraph before us. He says, “These words, By one mans disobedience many ivcre made sinners, mean neither more nor less, than that by one man’s disobedience, the many were made subject to death, by the judicial act of God.*’* And he says in the same place,” By death most certainly is meant no other than the death and mortality common to all mankind.’* And those words, verse 12, For that all have tinned, he thtts explains, “All men became sinners as all mankind are biuught into a state of suffer in g.”t

Here I observe,

1. The main thing, by which he justifies such interpretations, is, that sin, in various instances, is used for sujff’ering, in the Old Testament.^ To which I reply, though it be true that the word C^crrcaA, signifies both sin, and a sin offering; and this, and some other Hebrew words, which signify sin, iniquity, and wickedness, are sometimes put for the effect or punishment of iniquity, by a metonymy of the cause for the effect; yet it does not appear, that these words are ever used for enduring suffering, where the suffering is not spoken of under any notion of a punishment of sin, or a fruit of God’s anger for sin, or of any imputation of guilt, or under

Page 30. + Pa-e 54, and c!:cwhcrc. * Pac 34.

any notion of sin*s being at all laid to the charge cf the sufferer, or the suffering’s being at all of the nuture of any recompense, compensation, or satisfaction for sin. And therefore none of the instances he mentions, come up to his purpose. When Lot is commanded to leave Sodom, that he might not be consumed in the im<jnity of, the cily, meaning in that fire, which was the effect and punishment of the iniquity of the city; this is quite another thing, than if that fire came on the city in general, as no punishment at all, nor as any fruit of a charge of iniquity on llq cityp or of God’s displeasure for their sin, but as a token of God’s favor to the inhabitants; which is what is supposed with respect to the death of mankind; it being introduced only as a benefit, on the foot of a covenant of grace. And especially is this quite another thing, than if, in the expression used, the iniquity had been ascribed to Lot; and God, instead of saying, Lest thou be consumed in the iniqidty of the city, had said, Lest thou be consumed in thine iniquity, or, Lest thou sin or be made a sinner. Whereas the expression is such, as does expressly remove the iniquity spoken of from Lot, and fix it on, another subject, viz. the city. The place cited by our author in Jer. li, is exactly parallel. And as to what Abimelech says to Abraham, “What have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me, and on my kingdom, a great sin? It is manifest, Abimelech was afraid that God was angry, for what he had one to Sarah; or, would have been angry with him, if he had done what he was about to do, as imi)uting si7i to him for it ‘. ‘Which is a quite different thing from calling some calamity, sin, under no notion of its being any punishment of sin, nor in the least degree from God’s displeasure. And so with regard to every place our author cites in the margin, it is plain, that what is nieant in each of them, is the jmnishment of sin, and not some suffering which is no punishment at all. And as to the instances he mentions in his Supfilement, p. 8, the two that look most favorable to his design, are those in Gen, xxxi. 39, and 2 Kings vii. 9. With respect to the former, where Jacob says, That which was torn rf bcaats, Anochi-achattenah, Dr. Taylor is pleased *.o translate it, I nvas the sinner; but prop* criy rendered, it is, I expiated it; the verb in Pihcl properly sipjnifyin to fx/ua/c; and the plain meaning is, I bore the blame of it, and was obliged to pay for it, as bciny supposed to be lost through my fault or neglect: Which is a quite different thing from suffering without any supposition of fault. And as to the latter place, where the lepers say,” This day is a day of good tidini:;s, and wo, hold our peace: If we tarry till morning some mischief will befal us :*’ In the Ilcbrevr it is Umctzaami ,^navon ‘“• Iniquity will find us,” that is, some punishment of our fault will come upon us. Elsewhere such phrases are used, as, Yoitr iniquity ivillfind you out, and the like. But certainly this is a different thing from suffering without fault, or supposition of fault. And it does not appear, that the verb in Hiphil, hirsMang, is ever put for condemn, in any other sense than condemning for sin, or guilt, or supposed guilt belonging to the subject condemned. This word is wsed in the participle of Hiphil, to signify condemning, in Prov, xvii. 15. “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even both are an abomination to the Lord.” This Dr. Taylor observes, as if it were to his purpose, when he is endeavoring to shew, that in this place, in t-he 5th of Romans, the apostle speaks of God himself as condemning iht, just, or perfectly innocent, in a parallel signification of terms. Nor is any instance produced, wherein

tho veib, sin, which is used by the apostle when he says, Ml have Hinned, is any where used in our author’s sense, for being brought into a state of suffering, and that not as a punishment for sin, or as any thing arising from God’s displeasure; much less for being the subject of what comes only as the fruit of divine love, and as a benefit of the highest nature,^ Nor can any thing like this sense of the verb be found in the whole Bihl?.

2. If there had been any thing like such an use of the words, sin and sinner, as our author suppoiies, in the 0^ Testament, it is evident that such an use of them is fpiito alien from the language of the New Testament. Where caa-

Page 17, 5.

an instance be produced of any thing like it, in any one place, besides what is pretended in this? And particularly, ’ where else shall we find these words and phrases used in such a sense in any of this apostle’s writings? We have enough of his writings, by which to learn his language and way of speaking about aiuj condemnation, punishment, death, and suffering. He wrote much more of the New Testament than any othet person. He very often has occasion to speak of coiidemnationy but where does he express it by being made sinners? Especially how far is he elsewhere from using such a phrase, to signify a being condemned without guilt, or any imputation or supposition of guilt? Vastly more still is it remote from his language, so to use the verb sin, and to say, man sinneth, or has sinned, though hereby meaning nothing more nor less, than that he, by a judicial act, is condemned, on the foot of a dispensation of grace, to receive a great favor! He abundantly uses the words sin and sinner; his writings are full o£ such terms; but where else does he use them in such a sense? He has much occasion in his epistles to speak of death, temporal and eternal; he has much occasion to speak oi suffering, of all kinds, in this world, and the world to come; but where does he call these things sin, and denominate innocent men sinners or say, they have sinned, meaning that they are brought into a state of suffering? If the apostle, -because he was a Jew, was so addicted to the Hebrew idiom, as thus in one paragraph to repeat this particular Hebraism which, at most, is comparatively rare even m the Old Testament, it is strange that never any thing like it should appear any where else in his writings; and especially that he should never fall into such a way of speakmg in his epistle to the Hebrews, written to Jews only, who were most used to the Hebrew idiom. And why does Christ never use such language in any of his speeches, though he was born and brought up amongst the Jews, and delivered almost all his speeches only to Jews? And why do none of the rest of the writers of the New Testament ever use it, who were all born and educated Jews, (at least all excepiintr LukeJ and some of them wrote especially for the benefit of the Jews I

It is worthy to be observed, what liberty is taken, and boldness used with this apostle; such words as axo^To^-, aagT«»4f, Kftueiy xaraxftfAot StKciiou. chKaiuan;. and words ol the same root and signification, are woub abundantly used by him clae- where in this and other epistles, and also when spcakiny, at he is here, of Christ’s redemption and atonement, and of the general sinfulness of mankind, and of the condemnation of sinners, and of justification by Christ, and of death as the consequence of sin, and of life and rcsioraion to life by Christ, as here; yet no where are any ot these words used, but in a sense very remote from what is supposed here. However in this place, these terms niust have a disti?iuis/i< dy singular sense found out for them, and annexed to them! A new language must be coined for the apostle, which he is evidently quite unused to, and put into his mouth on this occasion, for the sake of evading this clear, precise, and abundant testimony of his, to the doctrine ot Original Sin.

3. The putting such a sense on the word *zpi, in this placci is not only to make the apostle greatly to disagree with uim* self in the language he uses every where else, but also to disagree with himself no less in the language he uses in this very passage. He often here uses the word sm, and other words plainly of the same design and import, such as transgreasion disobedience, offence. Nothing can be more evident, than that these are here used as several names of the same thing; for they arc used interchangeably, and put one for another, as will be manifest only on the cast of an eye on the place. And these words are used no less than, seventeen times in this one paragraph. Perhaps we shall find no place in the whole Bible, in which the word dn, and other words synonymous, are used so often in so little compass; and in all the instances, in the proper sense, as signifying moral evil, and even so understood by Dr. Taylor himself (as appears by his own exposition) but only in these two places; where in the midst of all, to evade a clear endence of the doctrine of Original Sin, another meaning must be found out, and it must be supposed that the apostle uses the g6t) ORIGINAL SIN.

word in a sense entirely different, signifying sonnething that neither imfilies nor su/ifioses any moral evil at all in the subject.

Here it is very remarkable, the gentleman who so greatly insisted upon it, that the word dea^A must needs be understood in the same sense throughout this paragraph; yea, that it is evidently, clearly-, and infallibly so, inasmuch as the apostle is still discoursing on the same subject; yet can, without the least difficulty, suppose the word #m, to be used so differently in the very same passage, wherein the apostle is discoursing on the same thing. Let us take that one instance in veise 12.” Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’* Here by sin, implied in the word sinned, in the end of the sentence, our author understar, ds something perfectly and altogether diverse from what is meant by the word sin, not only in the same discourse ou the same subject, but twice in the former part of the very same sentence, of which this latter part is not only the conclusion, but the explication; and also entirely different from the use of the word twice in the next sentence* wherein the apostle is still most plainly discoursing on the same subject, as is not denied: And in the next sentence to that (verse 14) the apostle uses the very same verb sinned, and as signifying the committing of moral evil, as our author himself understands it. Afterwards (vcse 19) the apostle uses the word sinners, which our author supposes to be in somewhat ol a different sense still. So that here is the utmost violence of the kind that c«n be conceived of, to make out a scheme againrpt the plainest evidence, in changing the meaning of a word backward and forward, in one paragraph, all about one thing, and in different parts of the same sentences, coming over and over in quick repetitions, with a variety of other synonymous words to fix its signification; besides the continued use of the word in the former part of this chapter, flnd in all the preceding part of this epistle, and the continued use of it in the next chapter, and in the next to that,and the 8ih chapter following that, and to the end of the epistle (

i» none of which places it is pretended, but tllat tite word is used in the proper senbe, by our author in his paraphrase and notes on the whole epistle.*

But indeed we need vi;o no finther thun that one, vcr-^e 12. What the apostle mean’, by sin, in the latter part of the vt rsc, is evident with the utmost plainness, by comparing it with the former part; ono part answering to another, and the last clause exeetical of the former. ^’ Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that (or, unto which) all have sinned.” Here sin and death are spoken of in the former part, and sin and death are spoken of in the latter part; the two parts of the sentence so answering one another, tha: the same things are apparently meant by sin and death in both parts.

And besides, to interpret sinning here, of falling under the suffering o death, is yet the more violent and unreasonable, because the apostle m this very place does once and again distinguish between sin and death; plainly speaking of one as the effect, and the other the cause. So in the 21 si verse, “That Qssin hath reigned unto death ;** and in the I2th verse, 6’m entered into the world, and death by sm.” And thia plain distinction holds through all the discourse, as between death aiVid the oence, lev, 15, and ver, 17, and between the offence and condemnation, ver. 18.

4. Though we should omit the consideration of the manner in which the apostle uses the words, «///, sinned, 8cc. in

Agreeably to Ais manner, our author, in explaining the 7th chapter of Jlomans, understands the pronoun /, or mt, us- d by the apostle in that one tontinued discourse, in no less than six different senses. He takes it in ths jst verse to signify the Apostle Paul himself. In the 8th, 9th, toth and 1 tth verses, for the people ,of the Jews, through all ages, both before and after Moses, especially the carnal, unpodly part of them. In the 13th verse tor an objecting Jev^, entering into a dialogue with the apostle. In tlic iih, 16ih, J7th, «oth, and latter part of the 25rh verse, it is understood in two diflcrcnC senses, for two /’s in the same person; one, a man’s reason; and the other, his passions an-i carnal appetites. And in the 7th and former part f)f the last verse, for us Christians in general; or, for all that enjoy the word of God, the law and the gospel: And these different senses, the most of them strange. ly iutermixed and interchanged backwards and forwards.

other places, and in other parts of this discourse, yet Dr. Tay«»

lor’s interpretation of them would be very absurd.

The case stands thus: According to his exposition, we are said to have sinned by an active verb, as though we had actively sinned; yet this is not spoken truly and properly, but it is pui iicvuratively for our becoming ^mlie.T& fiasaively our being made or constituted sinners. Yet ai;ain, not that we do truly become %mvlzr% fiassively, or are really 7nade sinners by any thini that God does; this also is only a figurative or tropical representation; and the meaning is only, we are con demnedj and treated as ifvfe were sinners Not indeed that “we are properly condemned for God never truly connemns the innocent: But this also is only a figurative representation, of the thing. It is but as it were condemning; because it is appointing to death, a terrible evil, as if it were a punishment. But then, in reality, here is no appointment to a terrible evil, or any evil at all; but truly to a benefit a great benefit: And so, in representing death as a punishment or calamity condemned to, another figure or trope is made use of, and an exceeding bold one; for, as we are appointed to it, it is so far from being an evil or punishment, that it is really a favor, and that of the highest nature, appointed by mere grace and lovep though it seems to be a calamity. Thus we have tropes and figures multiplied, one upon the back of another; and all in that one word, simied; according to the manner, as it is supposed, the apostle uses it. We have itfiguratinfe representatiouy not of a reality, but of a fgurative representation. Neither is this a representation of a reality, but of another thing that still is but figurative representation of something else i’ Yea, even this mmcthing else is still but a figure, and one that is very harsh and far fetched. So that here we have a^wr<? to represent a figure, even 3. figure of a figure, representing some very remote figure, which most obscurely represents the thing intended; if the most terrible evil can indeed be said at all to represent the contrary good of the highest kind. And now, what cannot be made of any place of scripture, in such a way of managing it, as this? And is there any hope of eer deciding any controversy by the Bcripture, in the way of usinj* such a licence wiih the scripture, in order to force it to a compliance with our own schemes? If the aposile indeed uses language af er so strange a manner in this place, it is perhaps such an instance, as not only there is not the life of it in all the Bible besides, but perhaps in no writing whatsoever. And this, not in any parabolical, viMonary, or orr.phetic description, in which difficult and obscure represenian ns are wont to be made use of; nor in a dramatic or poeticai representation, in which a great licence is often taken, and bold figures are commonly to be expected: But it is in a familiar letter, wherein the apostle is delivering gospel instruction, as a minister of the New Testament; and wherein, as he professes, he delivers divine truth withput the vail of ancient figures and similitudes, and uses great plainness of speech: And in a discourse that is wholly didactic, narrative, and argumentative; evidently setting himself to explain the doctrine he is upon, in the reason and nature of it, with a great variety of expressions, turning it as it were on every side, to make his meaning plain, and to fix in his readers the exact notion of what he intends. Dr. Taylor himself ob* Serves,* “This apostle takes great cave to guard and explain every part of his subject: And I may venture to say, he has left no part of it unexplained or unguarded. Never was an author more exact and cautious in this than he. Sometimes he writes notes on a sentence liable to exception, and waning explanation.” Now 1 think, this care and

exactness of tl.c apostle no where appears more than in the place we are upon. Nyy, I scarcely know another instance equal to this, of the apostle’s care to be well understood, by being very particulars explicit, and precise, setting the matter forth in every lightf going over and over again with his doctrine, clearly to exhibit, and fully to settle and determine the thing which he aims at.

Preface to Paraph, on Rom. p. i ^6, 48.

SECTION II.

Some Obftenatimis on the Connexion, Scope, and Sense of this remarkable paragraph 17i Rom. v. With some Ref.ections on the Evidence which we here have of the Doctrine o,”Orig-INAL Sin.,

THE connexion of this remarkable paragraph with the foregoing discourse in this epistle, is not obscure and difficwlt, nor to be sought for at a distance. It may be plainlyseen, only by a general glance on things which went before, from the beginning of the epistle: And indeed what is said immediately before in the same chapter, leads directly to it. The apostle in the preceding part of this epistle had largely treated of the sinfulness and misery of all mankind, Jews as well as Gentiles. He had particularly spoken of the depravity and ruin of mankind in their natural state, in the fore going part of this chapter; representing them as being smners. ungodly enemiesy exposed to divine wrtt;’//, auc without strength. No wonder now, this leads him to observe, ho’jt this so great and deplorable an event came to pass; ho’iu this universal sin and ruin came into the world. And with regard to the Jews in particular, who, thoug;h they might allow thtf doctrine of Original Sin in their own profession, yet were strongly prejudiced against what was implied in it, or evidently followed from it, with regard to themselves; in this respect they were prejudiced against the doctrine of universal sinfulness, and exposedness to wrath by nature, looking on themselves as by nature holy, and favorites of God, because they were the children of Abraham; and with them the apostle had labored most in the foregoing part ol the epistle, to convince t)»cm of thtir being by nature as sinful, and as much

;tie childpcn of wralh, as the Gentiles :.... I say, with retard to them, it was cxccediiiy proper, and what the apostle’s design most naturally led him to, to take off their eyes from their father Abraham, who was their father in distinction from other nations, and direct them to their father Adam who was the common father of mankind, and equally of Jews and Gentiles. And when he was entered on this doctrine of the derivation of sin and ruin, or death, to all mankind from Adam, no wonder if he thought it needful to be soniuwhat particular in it, seeing he wrote to Jews and Gentiles the former of which had been brought up under the prejudices of a proud opinion of themselves, as a holy people by nature, and the latter had been educated in total ignorance of all things of this kind.

Again, the apostle had, from the beginning of the epistle, been endeavoring to evince the absolute dependence of ai! mankind on the free c-race of God for salvation, and the greatness of this grace; and particularly in the former part of this chapter. The greatness of this grace he shews especially by two things. (1.) The universal corruption §nd- misery of mankind; as in all the foregoing chapters, and in the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9ih and 10th verses of this chapter. (2.) The greatness of the benefits which believers receive, and the greatness of the glory they have hope of. So especially in verse i, 2, J, 4, 5, and llih of this chapter. And here, in ihis place we are upon, from verse 12 to the end, he is still on the same design of magnifying the grace of God, in the same thing, viz. the favor, life, and happiness which believers in Christ receive; speaking here of the grace of God the gft by grace the ahomiding of grace and the reign of grace. And he still bets forth the freedom and riches of grace by the same two arguments, viz. The universal sinfulness and ruin of mankind, all having sinned, all being naturally exposed to death, judgment and condemnation; and the exceeding greatness of the benefit received, being far greater than the misery which C’>me3 by the first Adam, and abounding beyond it. And it is by no means consistent with the apostle’s scope, to jppo-ie, th.4t tliC benefit which we have by Chrial, an the ttii* 2 K

366 ORICTlNAL SIN.

lilype of Adam, here mainly insisted on, is without any ?:raco at all, being only a restoration to life ol such’ as never deserved death.

Another thin?: observable in the apost]e*s scope from the be£^innin§: of the epistle, is, i,e endeavors to shew the treatness and absoluteness of the dependence of all mankind on the redemption and righteaftsness of Christ* for justification and life, that he misht magnify and exalt the Redeemer; which desis2;n his whole heart was swallowed up in, and may be looked upon as the main desipjn of the whole epistle. And this is what he had been upon in the preceding part of this chapter; inferrinyj it from the same argument, the utter sinfulness and ruin of all men. And he is evidently still on the same thing in this place, from the 12th verse to the end 2 speaking of the same justification and righteousness, which be had dwelt on before, and not another totally diverse. No wonder, when the apostle is treating so fully and largely of our restoration, righteousness, and life by Christ, that he is led by it to consider our fall, sin, death, and ruin by Adam; and to observe wherein these two opposite heads of mankind agree, and wherein they differ, in the manner of conveyance of opposite influences and communications from each.

Thus, if the place be understood, as it used to be understood by orthodox divines, the whole stands in a natural, easy, and clear connexion with the preceding part of the chapter, and all the former part of the epistle; and in a plain agreement with the express design of all that the apostle had been saying; and also in connexion with the words last before spoken, as introduced by the two immediately preceding verses, where he is sptaking of our justificaiion, reconciliation, and salvation by Christ; whicu leads the apostle directly to observe, how, on the contrary, we have sin and death by Adam. Taking this discourse of the apostle in its true and plain sense, there is no need of great extent of learning or depth of criticism, to find out the connexion: But if it be understood in Di Taylor’s sense, the plain scope anil connexion are wholly lost, and there was truly need of a skill in critfcismp and art ol disctnung, beyond or at least diiferent from

that of former divines, and a faculty of sceinir snnicthini? afar off. which other men’s sight could not rcarh, in order to find out the connexion.

What has been already observed, may suffice to !»hcw hic ape-tle’s ^cnernl scope in thii place, lint yet there seem to be some other thinys, which he has his eye to, in several expressions; some particular things in the then present slate, temper and notions of the Jews, which he also had before spoken of, or had reference to, in certain places of the foregoing part of the epistle. As particularly, the Jews had a very superstitious and extravagant notion of their law, delivered by Moses; as if it were the prime, grand, and indeed only rule of God’s proceeding with mankind as their judge, both in men’s justification and condemnation, or from whence all, both sin and ri-^hteousncss, were imputed; and had no consideration of the law of nature, written m the licarts oi the Gentiles, and of all mankind. Herein they ascribed infinitely too much to their particular law, beyond the true design of it. They made their board of the law,’ as if their being distinguished from all other nations by that great privilege, the giving of thelaiv sufficiently made them a holy people, and God’s children. This notion of theirs the apostle evidently refers to, chap.ii. 13, 17, 18. 19, and itideed through that whole chapter. They looked on the law of Moses as intended to be the only rule and means of justification; and as sucIj, trusted in the works of the law, especially circumcision; which appears by the ZCi chapter. But as for the Gentiles, they looked on tlicm as by nature sinners, and children of wrath; because born of uncircumcised parents, and aliens from their law, and who themselves did not know, profess and submit to the law of Moses, become proselytes, and receive circumcision. ‘hat they esteemed the sum of their wickedness and condemnation, was, that they did not turn Jews, and act as Jews.* This notion of theirs the apostle has a plain respect to, and cndcav-

Here arc worthy t’^ be observed the things which Dr. Taylor Jiimscifiays to the same purpose, Key, 302, 303, and Preface to Paraph, on £pUt •oKora. p, 144, 43, ors to convince them of the falseness of, in chapter ii. 12.... 16. And he has a manifest regard ap:ain to the same thing herci in the 1 2th, 13th, and 14th verses of chapter v. Which may lead us the more clearly to see the true sense of those verses; about the sense of which is the main controversy, and the meaning of which being determined, it will settle the meaning of every other controverted expression through the whole discourse.

Dr. Taylor misrepresents the apostle*s argument in these verses. (Which as has been demonstrated, is in his sense altogether vain antl impertinent.) He supposes, the thing which the aposlle mainly intends to prove, is, that death or mortality does not come on mankind by personal sin; and that he would prove it by this medium, that death reigned when there was 7io law in being which threatened personal sin with death. It is acknowledged, that this is implied, even that death came into the vt’orld by Adam’s sin: Yet this is not the main thing the apostle designs to prove. But his main point evidently is, that sin and guilty and just exfiosedness to death and ruin came into the world by Adam’s sin; as righteousness justification and a title to eternal life come by Christ, Which point he confirms by this consideration, that from the very time when Adam sinned, these things, viz. sin, guilt, and desert of ruin, became wwer&o, in the world, long before the law given by Moses to the Jewish nation had any being.^

The apostle’s remark, that sin entered into the world by one many who was the father of the whole human race, was an observation which afforded proper instruction for the Jews, who looked on themselves as an holy people, because they had the law of Moses, and were the children of Abraham, an holy father; while they looked on other nations as by nature unholy and sinners, because they were not Abraham’s childdren. He leads them up to an higher ancestor than this patriarch, even to Adan), who being equally the father of Jews aiul Gentiles, both alike come from a sinful father; from whom guilt and polluiion were derived alike to all mankind. And this llie aposlle proves by an argument, which of all that could possibly be invented, tended the most briefly and direct-ORTGINAL SIN. «6«

ly to convince the Jews; even by this reflect! in, that death had come equally on all mankind from Adam’s lime, and that the posterity of Abraham were cquallv subject to it with the rest of the world. This was apparent in fact, a thin they all knew. And the Jews had always been tautht that dcat/i (which began in the destruction of the body, and of this present lilc) was the proper punishment of sin. This they were taught in Moses* history of Adam, and God’s first threatening; of punishment for sin, and by the constant doctrine ot the luw and the prophets, as has been already observed.

And the apostle’s observation, that fti?i was in the world lon(^ before the law was given, and was as universal in the woild from the times of Adam, as it had been amonpf the Heathen since the law of Moses, this shewed plainly that the Jews were quite mistaken in their notion of their particular law, and that the law which is the original and universal rule of righteousness and judgment for all mankind, was another law, of far more ancient date, even the law of nature, which began as early as the human nature began, and was established with the first father of mankind, and in him with the whole race: The positive precept of abstaining from the forbidden fruit, being given for the trial of his compliance with this law of nature; of which the main rule is supreme regard to God and his will. And the apostle proves that it roust be thus, because, if the law of Moses had been the highest rule of judgment, and if there had not been a superior, prior, divine rule established, mankind in general would Dot have been judged and condemned as sinners, before that was given, (for “sin is not imputed, when there is no law”) as it is apparent in fact they were, because death reigned before that time, even from the limes of Adam.

It may be observed, the apostle in this episile, and that to the Galatians, endeavors to convince the Jews of these two things, in opposition to the notions and prejudices they had entertained concerning their law. 1. That it never was intended to be the covenant, or method by which they should ac’naUy bejuftti/icd. 2. That it was not tljc highest and univenal nile or hw, by which mankind in general, and particu-* larly the Heathen woi’ld, were condeiniied. And he proves both by similar arguments.. He proves that the law of Moses was not the covenant by which any of mankind were to obtain yw.’?’’{/?ra’’/o7z, because that covenant was of older date, being expressly estahlis. cd in the time of Abraham, and Abraham himself was justijied by it. This argument the apostle particularly handles in the 3d chapter of Galatians, especially in verses 17”, 18, 19. And this ari!;ument is also made use of in the apostle’s reasonmgs in the 4th chapter of this epistle to the Romans, especially verses 13, 14, 15. He proves also that the law of Moses was not Xht firime rule of judgment, by tphich mankind in general, and particularly the Heathen world, were cor,demned. And this he proves also the same way, viz. by shewing this to be of older date than that law* and that it was established with Jdam. Now these things tended to lead the Jews to right notions of their law, not as the intended method of justification, nor as the original and universal rule of condemnation, but something sttpcradded to both, both being of older date, superadded to the latter to illustrate and confirm it, that the offence might abound; and superadded to the former, to be as a schoolmaster, to prepare men for the benefits of it, and to magnify divine grace in it, that this might much more abound.

The chief occasion of the obscurity nnd difficulty which seems to attend the scope and connexion of the various clauses in the three first verses of this discourse, particularly the loth and j4ih verses, is, that there are two things (although things closely connected) which the apostle has in his eye at oncef in which he aims to enlighten them he writes to; which will not be thought at all strange by them that have been conversant with, and have attended to this apostle’s writings. He would illustrate the grand point he had been upon from the beginning, tltn justification through Christ’s righteousness alone by shewing how we are originally in a sinful, miserable state, and how we derive this sin and misery from Adam, and how we are delivered and justified by Christ as a second Adam. At the same time he would confute those foolish and corrupt notions of the Jews, about their naiion and lUcir &7i’, that were very inconsistent with these doctrines. And be here endeavors to establish, at once, these two ihinys in opposition to those Jewish notions.

1. That it is our natural relation to Adam, and not to Abraham, which determines our native, moral state; and that therefore the bein natural children of Abraham, will not make us by nature holy in the sitht of Cio 1, since we are the natural seed of sinful Adam; nor does the (icntiics* bein not descended from Abraham, denominate them siymcrs any more than the Jews, seeing both alike arc descended from Adam.

3. That the law of Moses is not the prime and gencil law and rule of judtjjment for mankind, to condemn them, and denominate them sinners; but that the state they are in with re£j:ard to a hiiher, more ancient and universal law, determines mankind in t;encral to be sinners in the sight of Godp and liable to be condemned as such. Which observation is, in many respects, to the apostle’s purpose; particularly ux this respect, that if the Jews were convinced, that the law, which was the prime rule of condemnation, was ghen to ally was common to all mailkind, and that all fell under condemnation lhiouf!;h the violation of that law by the common father of all, both Jews and Gentiles, then they would be led more easily and naturally to believe, that the method of justification which God had established, also epctended equally to aii mankind; and that the Messiah, by whom Ave have this justification, is appointed, as Adam was, for a common head to all, both Jews and Gentiles.

The apostle’s aiming; to confute the Jewish notion, is the principal occasion of those words in the 13tl) verse: Tor until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed, when iheie is no law.”

As to the import of that eNpresrpion, Kven over thcro that had not sinned after the simil’tude of Adam’s transiM’cSsion,’* not only is the thini; sit;niiicd by it, in Dr. Taylor’s sense of it, not tmr; or ii it i»ad been true, would have been imperiinttit; as has been shewn; but his inttrpre?

tation is, otherwise, very much strained and unnatural. According to him, by “sinning after the similitude of Adam’s transgression,** is not meant any similitude of the act of sinning, nor of the command ginned against, nor properly any circumstance of the sin; but only the similitude of a circumstance of the commandy viz. the threatening it is attended with. A far fetched thing, to be called a similitude ofsiiviing t Besides this expression in such a meaning, is only a needless, impertinent, and awkward repeating over again the same thing, which it is supposed the apostle had observed in the foregoing verse, even after he had left it, and had proceeded another step in the series of his discourse, or chain of arguing. As thus, in the foregoing verse the apostle had plainly laid down his argument, (as our author understands it) by which he would prove, death did not come by personal siny viz. that death reigned before any law, threatening death for personal sin, was in being; so that the sin then committed was against no latv, threatening death for personal sin. Having laid this down, the apostle leaves this part of his argument, and proceeds another step, Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses; and then returns, in a strange, unnatural manner, and repeats that argument or assertion again, but only more obscurely than before, in these words. Even over them thai had not sinned after the similitude of Adam* s transgression i. e. over them that had not sinned against a law threatening death for personal sin. Which is just the same thing as if the apostle had said,” They that sinned before the law did not sin against a law threatening death for personal sin; for there was no such law for any to sin against at that time: Nevertheless death reigned at that time, even over such as did 7iot sin against a law threatening death for personal sin.** Which lutter clause adds nothing to the premises, and tends nothing to illustrate what was said before, but rather to obscure and darken it. The par icle k»», eve?iy when prefixed in this man- ,ner used to signify something additional, some advance in the sense or argument; implying that the word* following express somelliing more, or express the same thing more fully, plainly, or forcibly. But to unite two clauses by such a par*

ticle, in such a manner, when there is nolliinj* besides a flat fepelilion, with no superadded sense or forccp but rather a greater uncertainty and obscurity, would be very unusual, and indeed very absurd.

I can see no reason why we should bf dissatisfied MrltH that explanation of this clause, which has more commonly bct-n L:ivenj viz. That by t/irm who have not sinned after the similitude of Adarri’a transresision arc meant irifauta; who, thouc:h they have indeed sinned in Adam, yet never sinned as Adam did, by actually transiiressing in their own persons; unless it be that this interpretation is too old, and too ccnivjon. It was well known by those the apostle wrote to, that vast numbers had died in infancy, whhin that period which the apostle speaks of, particularly in the time of the delup;e; and it would be strange the aposile should not have the case of such infants in his mind; even supposing his scope were what our author supposes, and he had only intended to prove that death did not come on mankind for their personal sin. How directly would it have served the ptirpose of provingthis, to have mentioned so great a part of mankind that are subject to death, who, all know, never committed any sin ii» their otvn ficrsons? How much more plain and easy the proof of the point by that, than to go round about, as Dr. Taylor supposes, and bring in a thing so dark and uncertain as this, That God never would bring death on all mankind for personal sin, (though they had personal sin) without an express, revealed constitution; and then to observe that there was no revealed constitution of this nature fiom Adam to Moses; which also seems a tiling without any plain evidence; and then to infer that if must needs be so. that it could come only on occasion of Adam*s sin, though not fhr his sin, or a«i any pimishment of it; which inference also is very dark and unintelligible.

If the apostle in this place meant t.hne v ho ncvrv si-ined

by their peison:.l act. it is not strange that he should express’

This by their not sinning after the siviilititde of .idan*9 nann-

:rrrs<iion. Ve read of two ways of mtn*s being lik- Adam,

‘IP vvliich a sin)il;tude to him is astribvd to mtn tnc l’^

Si.

Sr4 ORTCTNAI. STM.

a bein becrotten or born in his 17nae or likeness, Gen. v. S^ Another is a transg:ressing God’s covenant or law, like him fios vi 7. “They, like Adam, (so in the Heb. and Vulg. Lat) have transoressed the covenant.” infants have the forrrer similitude, but not the latter. And it was verynatural, when the apostle would infer that infants become sinners by that one act and offence of Adam, to observe that they had not renewed the act of sin themselves, by any second instance of a like sort. And such might be the state of language among Jews and Christians at that day, that the apostle might have no phrase more aptly to express this meaning. The manner in which the epithets, personal and actual are used and applied now in this case, is probably of later date and more modern use.

And then this supposition of the apostle’s having the case of infants in view, in this expression, makes it more to his purpose, to mention death reigning before the law of Moses was given. For the Jews looked on all nations, besides themselves, as sinners, by virtue of their law; being made so especially by the law of circumcision given first to Abraham, and completed by Moses, making the want of circumcision a legal /2o//wrzo?z, utterly disqualifying for the privileges of the sanctuary. This law, the Jews supposed, made the very infants of the Gentiles sinners, polluted and hateful to Cod; they being uncircumcised, and born of uncircumcised parents. But the apostle proves against these notions of the Jews, that the nations of the world do not become sinners by nature, and sinners from infancy, by virtue of their laiU’, in this manner, but by Adam’s sin; inasmuch as infants were treated as sinners long before the law of circumcision was given, as well as before they had commiaed actual iin.

What has been said, may, as I humbly conceive, lead us to that which is the true scope and sense of the apostle in these tjrec verses; uhuh I will endeavor more briefly to represent in the foilowintr paraphrase.

“The things which I have 12. Wherefore, as by one largely insisted on, viz. the niov sin filtered into the luorldf evil that is in the world, tiui ana death by sin; and so death general wickedness, j;uilt and fiaaaed u/ion alt men for thmt turn of mankind, and the op- all have sinned. posite good, even justification and life, as only by Christ, lead me to observe the likeness of the manner in which ihejr are each of them introduced. For it was by one man, that the general corrupiion and guilt which I have spoken of, came into the world, and condemnation and death by sin: And this dreadful punishment hnd ruin came on all mankind by the great law o/iuorksj originally established with mankind in their first father, and by his one offence or breach of that law; all thereby becoming sinners in God*s sight, and exposed to final destruction.

<’ It is manifest that it was 13. For until the la70,sin tvai in this way the world became in the world; hut sin is not sinful and guilty; and not in imfiutedy vihen there is no laH. that way which the Jews suppose, viz. That their law, given by Moses, is the grand, universal rule of righteousness and judgment for mankind, and.tliat it is by being Geniiles, uncircumcised, and aliens from that law, that the nations ot the world are constituted 8innersy’AVA unclean. For before the law of Moses was iMveii, mankind were all looked upon by the grcatJudge as sinners, by corruption and guilt derived from Adam’s violation of the oriiinal law of works; which shews that

the original, universal rule of ’

righteousness is not the law
of Moses; for if so, there
would have been no sin imputed before that was given, because sin is not imputed when
there is no law.

“But that at that time sin 14, JVevertheless death was imfiuted, and men were reigned from Adam to Moses by their Judge reckoned as even over them that had not sin sinners, through guilt and ned after the similitude of A<S>’ corruption derived from Ad- amU transgression. am, and condemned for sin to dmth the proper punishment of sin, we have a plain proof; in that it appears in fact, all mankind, during that whole time which preceded the law of Moses, were subjected tft that temporal death, which is the visible introduction and image of that utter destruction which sin deserves, not crcppiing ieven infants who couid be sinners no other way than by virtue of Adam*s transgression, h wing never in

their own persons actually sin- I

ned as Adam did; nor could
at lhat time be made polluted
by the law of Moses, as being
uncircu’ncised, or born of un
circumuised parents**

ORKilNAL SIN. 27r

Now, by way of rellcction on the whole, I would observe* -hat though there are two or three expressions in this paragraph, Rom. V. 12, Sec. the design of which is attended with some difficuhy and obscurity, as particularly in the l.Tth and 14th verses, yet the scope and sense of the discourse in gen* eral is not obscure, but on the contrary very clear and manifest; and so is the particular doctrine mainly tauilkt in it. The apostle sets himself with great care and pains to make it plain, and precisely to fix and settle the point he ii upon. And the discourse is so framed, that one pan of it does greatly clear and fix the meaning of other parts; and the whole is determined by the clear connexion it stands’ in with other parts of the epistle, and by the manifest drift of all the preceding part of it.

The doctrine of Original Sin is not only here taught, but most plainly, explicitly, and abundantly taught. This doctrine is asserted, expressly or implicitly, in almost every verse, and in some of the verses several times. It is fully implied in that first expression in the 12th verse, “By one roan sin entered into the world.” The passage implies, that Sin became universal in the world; as the apostle had before largely shewn it was; and not merely (which would be a trifling, insignificant observation) that one man, who was made first, sinned first, before other men sinned; or, that it did not 50 happen that many men began to sin just together at the same moment. The latter part of the verse, “And death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that (or, if you will) unio which) all have sinned,” shews, that in the eye of the Judg« of the world, in Adam’s first sin, all sinned; not only in some sort, but all sinned so as to be exposed to that death, and final destruction, which is the proper ivagcs of sin. Tht Same doctrine is taught again twice over in the 14th verse. It is there observed, as a proof of this doctrine, that ‘• Death reigned over them which had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression;” i. e. by their personal act; and therefore could be exposed to death, only by deriving guilt and pollution from Adam, in consequence of his sin. And it U taught ag<lin in those ‘words, ‘• Who is tlif* figure of him

that was to come.’* The resemblance lies very much in tins circiimstunce, viz. bur deriving sin, guilt, and punishment by Adam’s sin, as we do righteousness, justification, and the reward of life by Christ’s obedience; for so the apostle explains himself. The same doctrine is expressly taught again, verse 15. “Through the offence of one, many be dead.” And again twice in the :6th verse. “It was by one that sinned;’* i. e. it -Was by Adam, that guilt and punishment (before spoken of) came on mankind: And in these words, ‘* Judgment was by one to condemnation.” It is again plainly and fully laid down in the 17th verse, ‘’ By one man’s offence, death reignfed by one.” So again in the 18th verse, “By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” Again yeryj>Iainly in the 19th verse, “By one man’s disobedience, tttv.y were made sinners”

And here is every thing to determine and fix the meayiin of all important terms, that the apostle makes use of: As, the abundant use of them in all parts of the New Testament; and especially in this apostle’s writings, which iriake up a very great part of the New Testament: And his repealed lise of them in this epistle in particular, especially in the preceding part of the epistle, which leads to and introduces this discourse, and in the former part of this very chapter j and also the light, that one sentence in this paragraph casts ’ on another, which fully settles their meaning: As, with respect to the woY^s justi/caiwn, righteousness and Condemnation; and above all, in regard of the word sin, which is the most important of all, with relation to the doctrine and controversy ve are upon. Besides the constant use of this term every where else through the New Testament, through the epistles of this apostle, this epistle in particular, and even the former part of this chapter, it is often repeated in this very paragraph, and evidently used in the very sense that is denied to btlong to it in the end of verse 12, and verse 19, though owned every where else: And its meaning is fully determined by the apostle’s varying the term; using together with it, to signify the same thing, such a variety of other synonymous words, such as offence, transircssion disobedience. And fur-* ther, to put the matter out of all controversy, it is parilcul alf and expressly and ic-pLatedly disiin;;uishcd from that which our opposers would ex/Uain it by, viz. ccndemnali(,n ai.d d.affu And what is neunt by «n*« eutt’ving into the lonrld, in vtr«« 12, is determined by a like phrase of «/>/*« brint; in thr world, in the next verse. And that by the ofmcc of our so often Spoken of here, as brinpjinr: dealh and condemnation on all, the apostle means the sin of one, derived in its jriiilf and pollulion to mankind in j>;eneral, is a t’iln; which (over and alwvc all that has been already oh<served) is settled and determined by those words in the conclusion of this discourse, vtrse 20. “Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might ah’nin.l: But where sin a’.omukd, yrace did mu(5h more abound.” These words plainly shew, that the ofence spoken of so often, and evidently spoken of siill in these words, which was the ofTenc o one man, became the sin of da I’or when lie says, “The law entered, that the offence mitht abound,” his mean* inp: cannot be, that the offence of Adam, niertiv as hit prrsonally, should rti.’wr?^; but, as it exists in its err/rrr g;, jilt, corrupt influence, and evil fruits, in the sin of mankind in generid, even as a tree in its root and branches.*

It is a thinp; that confirms the certainty of the/jroo,”of tho doctrine of Oiiiinal Sin, which this place affords, that the utmost art cannot pervert it to another sense. What a vari.ijr of the most artful methods have been used by the rnemies of this doctrine, to wrest and darkm this paragraph of holy writ, Vi’hich sta!ulp so tnuch in their way. as it were to force the Bible to speak a laniuage that is afrreeable to their mind! How have expressions been strained, words and phrasps rack-

* The offence, according to Dr Taylor’s cxpianalion, <3o« not ahoiiiWi by the law at ill really and traly, in any sense; neither the «in, !«or the punishment. For 2 savs, “The meaning ‘ls not, that men shouJd br maoe move wicked; but, that men should br liable to death for cvi-ry iransj{re*»i«>o.” But after all, they arc liable to no more deaths, nor to any worse death*, if they are not more sinful: For they were to hsve puni$hm’-nt» arcoid.njj to their desert, before. Such as died, and went into another world, before th% hw of Moses was given, were punuhed according to fhcir c!’-«eru; and t Aw, when t came, tUrcdU-ned no mo — ‘..

cd! AVhat strange figures of speech have been invented, ahcf with violent hands thrust into the apostle’s mouth; and theijf with a bold countenance and magisterial airs obtruded on the world, as from him l....But, blessed be God, we have his words as he delivered them and the rest of the same epistle, and his other writings to compare with them; by which his meaningstands in TOO strong and glaring a light to be hid by any of the artificial mists which they labor to throw upon it.

It is really no less than abusing the scripture and its read* ers, to represent this paragraph as the most cbacure {j{ ?i the places of scripture, that speak of the consequences of Adam’s sin; and to treat it as if there was need first to consider other places as more/?/om. Whereas, it is most manifestly a placa in which these things are declared, beyond all, the most plainly, particularly, precisely, and of set purpose, by that great apostle, who has most fully explained to us those doctrines’ in general, which relate to the redemption by Christ, and the sin and misery we are redeemed from. And it must be now left to the reader’s judgment, whether the Christain church has not proceeded reasonably, in looking on this as a place of scripture most clearly and fully treating of these things, and in using its determinate sense as an help to settle the meaning of many other passages of sacred writ.

As this place in general is very full and plain, so the doctrine of the corruption of nature, as derived from Adam, and also the imputation of his first sin, are both clearly taught in it. The imputation of Adam’s one transgression, is indeed most directly and frequently asserted. We are here assured thai by out 7nans sin dtath passed on all; all being adjudged to this punishment, as having smwerf (so it is implied) in that one man’s sin. And it is repeated over and over, that all are condevmcd, many are dead many made sinntrs kc. by one man’s offmce by the disobedience of one and by 07ie offence. And the doctrine of original depravity is ahio here taught, when the apostle says, By one 7j:an sin entered into the world; having a plain respect (us hath been shevn; to that v.iiivetsal coriuplion and wickedness, as well as guilt, which he had before. larRclv treated cf-