speaks in this place of the sinners and enemies which Christ died for,
distinction between sinners and righteous is here expressed in plain terms. "Scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die: but God commended his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." By "righteous men" are doubtless meant the same that are meant by such a phrase, throughout this Apostle's writings, and throughout the New Testament, and throughout the Bible. Will anyone pretend, that by the "righteous man," whom men would scarcely die for, and by the "good man," that perhaps some might even dare to die for, is meant a Jew? Dr. Taylor himself don't explain it so, in his exposition of this epistle; and therefore is not very consistent with himself, in supposing, that in the other part of the distinction the Apostle means Gentiles, as distinguished from the Jews. The Apostle himself had been laboring abundantly, in the preceding part of the epistle, to prove that the Jews were sinners in this sense, namely in opposition to righteous; that all had sinned, that all were under sin, and therefore could not be justified, could not be accepted as righteous, by their own righteousness.
7. Another thing which makes it evident, that the Apostle when he speaks in this place of the sinners and enemies which Christ died for, don't mean only the Gentiles, is that he includes himself among them, saying, "while we were sinners," and "when we were enemies."
Our author from time to time says, the Apostle, though he speaks only of the Gentiles in their heathen state, yet puts himself with them, because he was the Apostle of the Gentiles. But this is very violent and unreasonable. There is no more sense in it, than there would be in a father's ranking himself among his children, when speaking to his children of the benefits they have by being begotten by himself; and saying, "we children," or in a physician's ranking himself with his patients, when talking to them of their diseases and
cure, saying, "we sick folks." Paul's being the Apostle of the Gentiles, to save 'em from their heathenism, is so far from being a reason for him to reckon himself among the heathen, that on the contrary, 'tis a very thing that would render it in a peculiar manner unnatural and absurd for him so to do. Because, as the Apostle of the Gentiles, he appears as their healer and deliverer from heathenism; and therefore in that capacity does in a peculiar manner appear in his distinction from the heathen, and in opposition to the state of heathenism. For 'tis by the most opposite qualities only, that he is fitted to be an apostle of the heathen, and recoverer from heathenism. As the clear light of the sun is the thing which makes it a proper restorative from darkness; and therefore, the sun's being spoken of as such a remedy, none would suppose to be a good reason why it should be ranked with darkness, or among dark things. And besides (which makes this supposition of Dr. Taylor's appear more violent) the Apostle, in this epistle, does expressly rank himself with the Jews, when he speaks of them as distinguished from the Gentiles; as in ch. 3:9. "What then? Are we better than they?" That is, are we Jews better than the Gentiles?
It can't justly be alleged in opposition to this, that the apostle Peter puts himself with the heathen. (1 Pet. 4:3), "For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles; when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, reviling, banquetings, and abominable idolatries." For the apostle Peter (who by the way was not an apostle of the Gentiles) here don't speak of himself as one of the heathen, but as one of the church of Christ in general, made up of those that had been Jews, proselytes and heathen, who now were all one body, of which body he was a member. 'Tis this society therefore, and not the Gentiles, that he refers to in the pronoun "us." He is speaking of the wickedness that the members of this body or society had lived in before their conversion: not that every member
had lived in all those vices here mentioned, but some in one, others in another. Very parallel with that of the apostle Paul to Titus (ch. 3:3), "For we ourselves (i.e. we of the Christian church) sometimes also were foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures (some one lust and pleasure, others another), living in malice, envy, hateful and hating one another," etc. There is nothing in this, but what is very natural. That the Apostle, speaking to the Christian Church and of that church, confessing its former sins, should speak of himself as one of that society, and yet mention some sins that he personally had not been guilty of, and among others, heathenish idolatry, is quite a different thing from what it would have been for the Apostle, expressly distinguishing those of the Christians which had been heathen from those which had been Jews, to have ranked himself with the former, though he was truly of the latter.
If a minister in some congregation in England, speaking in a sermon of the sins of the nation, being himself of the nation, should say, "We have greatly corrupted ourselves, and provoked God by our Deism, our blasphemy, our profane swearing, our lasciviousness, our venality," etc. speaking in the first person plural, though he himself never had been a Deist, and perhaps none of his hearers, and they might also have been generally free from other sins he mentioned; yet there would be nothing unnatural in his thus expressing himself. But it would be quite a different thing, if one part of the British dominions, suppose our king's American dominions, had universally apostacized from Christianity to Deism, and had long been in such a state, and if one that had been born and brought up in England among Christians, the country being universally Christian, should be sent among them to shew them the folly and great evil of Deism, and convert them to Christianity; and this missionary, when making a distinction between English Christians, and these Deists, should rank
himself with the latter, and say, "we American Deists, we foolish blind infidels," etc. This indeed would be very unnatural and absurd.
Another passage of the Apostle, to the like purpose with that which we have been considering in the 5th of Romans, is that in Eph. 2:3, "And were by nature children of wrath, even as others." This remains a plain testimony to the doctrine of original sin, as held by those that used to be called orthodox Christians, after all the pains and art used to torture and pervert it. This doctrine is here not only plainly and fully taught, but abundantly so, if we take the words with the context; where Christians are once and again represented as being, in their first state, dead in sin, and as quickened, and raised up from such a state of death, in a most marvelous display of the free and rich grace and love, and exceeding greatness of the power of God, etc.
With respect to those words ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς "We were by nature children of wrath," Dr. Taylor says (pp. 112, 113, 114), "The apostle means no more by this, than truly or really children of wrath; using a metaphorical expression, borrowed from the word that is used to signify a true and genuine child of a family, in distinction from one that is a child only by adoption: to express this we say, he is by nature a child." In which 'tis owned, that the proper sense of the phrase is being a child by nature, in the same sense as a child by birth or natural generation; but only he supposes, that here the word is used metaphorically. The instance he produces as parallel, to confirm his supposed metaphorical sense of the phrase, as meaning only truly, really or properly children of wrath, viz. the apostle Paul's calling Timothy his own son in the faith, γνήσιον τέκνον, is so far from confirming his sense, that it is rather directly against it. For doubtless the Apostle uses the word γνήσιον in its original signification here, meaning his begotten son; γνήσιος being the adjective from γὸνη, "offspring," or the verb γεννάω, "to beget"; as
much as to say, "Timothy my begotten son in the faith"; only allowing for the two ways of being begotten, spoken of in the New Testament, one natural, and the other spiritual; one being the first generation, the other regeneration; the one a being begotten as to the human nature, the other a being begotten in the faith, begotten in Christ, or as to one's Christianity. The Apostle expressly signifies which of these he means in this place, "Timothy my begotten son in the faith," in the same manner as he says to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:15), "In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." To say, the Apostle uses the word φύσει in Eph. 2:3 only as signifying real, true and proper, is a most arbitrary interpretation, having nothing to warrant it in the whole Bible. The word φύσις is nowhere used in this sense in the New Testament.
Another thing which our author alleges to evade the force of this is, that the word rendered "nature," sometimes signifies habit contracted by custom, or an acquired nature. But this is not the proper meaning of the word. And it is plain, the word in its common use, in the New Testament, signifies what we properly express in English by the word "nature." There is but one place where there can be the least pretext for supposing it to be used otherwise; and that is 1 Cor. 11:14, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" And even here there is, I think, no manner of reason for understanding nature otherwise than in the proper sense. The emphasis used, αὐτή ἡ φύσις, "nature itself," shews that the Apostle don't mean "custom," but "nature" in the proper sense. It is true, it was long custom, that made having the head covered a token of subjection, and a feminine habit or appearance; as 'tis custom that makes any outward action or word a sign or signification of anything: but nature itself, nature in its proper sense, "teaches," that it is a shame for a man to appear with the established signs of the female sex, and with significations of
inferiority, etc. As nature itself shews it to be a shame for a father to bow down or kneel to his own child or servant, or for men to bow to an idol, because bowing down is by custom an established token or sign of subjection and submission: such a sight therefore would be unnatural, shocking to a man's very nature. So nature would teach, that 'tis a shame for a woman to use such and such lascivious words or gestures: though it be custom, that establishes the unclean signification of those gestures and sounds.
'Tis particularly unnatural and unreasonable, to understand the phrase τέκνα φύσει in this place, any otherwise than in the proper sense, on the following accounts. (1) It may be observed, that both the words, τέκνα and φύσις in their original signification, have reference to the birth of generation. So the word φύσις, which comes from φύω, which signifies "to beget" or "bring forth young," or "to put forth," or "bud forth," as a plant, that brings forth young buds and branches. And so the word τέκνον comes from τίκτω, which signifies "to bring forth children." (2) As though the Apostle took care by the word used here, to signify what we are by birth, he changes the word he used before for "children." In the preceding verse he used υἱοί, speaking of the children of disobedience; but here τέκνα, which is a word derived, as now observed, from τὶκτω, "to bring forth a child," and more properly signifies a begotten or born child. (3) 'Tis natural to suppose that the Apostle here speaks in opposition to the pride of some, especially the Jews (for the church in Ephesus was made up partly of Jews, as well as the church in Rome) who exalted themselves in the privileges they had by birth, because they were born the children of Abraham, and were Jews by nature, φύσει Ἰουδαίοι, as the phrase is (Gal. 2:15). In opposition to this proud conceit, he teaches the Jews, that notwithstanding this, they were by nature children of wrath, even as others, i.e. as well as the Gentiles, which the Jews had been taught to look upon as
sinners, and out of favor with God by nature, and born children of wrath. (4) 'Tis more plain, that the Apostle uses the word "nature" in its proper sense here, because he sets what they were by nature, in opposition to what they are by grace. In this verse, the Apostle shews what they are by nature, viz. children of wrath; and in the following verses he shews, how very different their state is by grace; saying (v. 5), "By grace ye are saved"; repeating it again (v. 8), "By grace ye are saved." But if, by being children of wrath by nature, were meant no more than only their being really and truly children of wrath, as Dr. Taylor supposes, there would be no opposition in the signification of these phrases; for in this sense they were by nature in a state of salvation, as much as by nature children of wrath: for they were truly, really and properly in a state of salvation.
If we take these words with the context, the whole abundantly proves, that by nature we are totally corrupt, without any good thing in us. For if we allow the plain scope of the place, without attempting to hide it, by extreme violence used with the Apostle's words and expressions, the design here is strongly to establish this point; that what Christians have that is good in them, or in their state, is in no part of it naturally in themselves, or from themselves, but is wholly from divine grace, all the gift of God, and his workmanship, the effect of his power, and free and wonderful love. None of our good works are primarily from ourselves, but with respect to 'em all, we are God's workmanship, created unto good works, as it were out of nothing: not so much as faith itself, the first principle of good works in Christians, is of themselves, but that is the gift of God. Therefore the Apostle compares the work of God, in forming Christians to true virtue and holiness, not only to a new creation, but a resurrection, or raising from the dead. (v. 1), "You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." (and again v. 5), "Even when we were dead in sins, hath he quickened us together with Christ." In speaking of
Christians being quickened with Christ, the Apostle has reference to what he had said before, in the latter part of the foregoing chapter, of God's manifesting the exceeding greatness of his power towards Christian converts, in their conversion, agreeable to the operation of his mighty power, when he raised Christ from the dead. So that it is plain by everything in this discourse, the Apostle would signify, that by nature we have no goodness; but are as destitute of it as a dead corpse is of life: and that all goodness, all good works, and faith the principle of all, are perfectly the gift of God's grace, and the work of his great, almighty and exceeding excellent power. I think there can be need of nothing but reading the chapter, and minding what is read, to convince all who have common understanding, of this; whatever any of the most subtle critics have done, or even can do, to twist, rack, perplex and pervert the words and phrases here used.
Dr. Taylor here again insists, that the Apostle speaks only of the Gentiles in their heathen state, when he speaks of those that were dead in sin, and by nature children of wrath; and that though he seems to include himself among these, saying, "We were by nature children of wrath, we were dead in sins," yet he only puts himself among them because he was the Apostle of the Gentiles. The gross absurdity of which may appear from what was said before. But besides the things which have been already observed, there are some things which make it peculiarly unreasonable to understand it so here. 'Tis true, the greater part of the church of Ephesus had been heathens, and therefore the Apostle often has reference to their heathen state, in this epistle. But the words in this chapter 2:3 plainly shew, that he means himself and other Jews, in distinction from the Gentiles: for the distinction is fully expressed. After he had told the Ephesians, who had been generally heathen, that they had been dead in sin, and had walked according to the course of this world, etc. (vv. 1 and 2), he makes a distinction, and says, "Among
whom we also had our conversation etc. and were by nature children of wrath, even as others." Here first he changes the person; whereas, before he had spoken in the second person, "ye were dead … ye in time past walked, etc." Now he changes style, and uses the first person, in a most manifest distinction, "Among whom we also," that is, we Jews, as well as ye Gentiles. Not only changing the person, but adding a particle of distinction, "also"; which would be nonsense, if he meant the same without distinction. And besides all this, more fully to express the distinction, the Apostle further adds a pronoun of distinction: "We also, even as others" or, we, as well as others: most evidently having respect to the notions, so generally entertained by the Jews, of their being much better than the Gentiles, in being Jews by nature, children of Abraham, and children of God; when they supposed the Gentiles to be utterly cast off, as born aliens, and by nature children of wrath. In opposition to this, the Apostle says, "We Jews, after all our glorying in our distinction, were by nature children of wrath, as well as the rest of the world." And a yet further evidence, that the Apostle here means to include the Jews, and even himself, is the universal term he uses, "Among whom also we all had our conversation, etc." Though wickedness was supposed by the Jews to be the course of this world, as to the generality of mankind, yet they supposed themselves an exempt people, at least the Pharisees, and the devout observers of the law of Moses, and traditions of the elders; whatever might be thought of Publicans and harlots. But in opposition to this, the Apostle asserts, that they all were no better by nature than others, but were to be reckoned among the children of disobedience, and children of wrath.
And then besides, if the Apostle chooses to put himself among the Gentiles, because he was the Apostle of the Gentiles, I would ask, why he don't do so in the 11th verse of the same chapter, where he speaks of their Gentile state expressly? "Remember that ye being in
time past Gentiles in the flesh." Why does he here make a distinction between the Gentiles and himself? Why did he not say, "Let us remember, that we being in past time Gentiles?" And why does the same Apostle, even universally, make the same distinction, speaking either in the second or third person, and never in the first, where he expressly speaks of the Gentilism of those that he wrote to; or speaks of 'em with reference to their distinction from the Jews? So everywhere in this same epistle; as in ch. 1:12, 13, where the distinction is made just in the same manner as here, by the change of the person, and by the distinguishing particle "also." "That we should be to the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ (the first believers in Christ being of the Jews, before the Gentiles were called) in whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation." And in all the following part of this second chapter; as vv. 11, 17, 19, and 22. In which last verse the same distinguishing particle again is used, "in whom you also are builded together for an habitation of God through the spirit." (See also in the following chapters: ch. 3:6 and 4:17.) And not only in this epistle, but constantly in other epistles: as Rom. 1:12, 13; ch. 11:13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31; ch. 15:15, 16; 1 Cor. 12:2; Gal. 4:8; Col. 1:27; ch. 2:13; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6, 9; ch. 2:13, 14, 15, 16.
Though I am far from thinking our author's exposition of the 7th chapter of Romans to be in any wise agreeable to the true sense of the Apostle, yet it is needless here to stand particularly to examine it; because the doctrine of original sin may be argued not the less strongly, though we should allow the thing wherein he mainly differs from such as he opposes in his interpretation, viz. that the Apostle don't speak in his own name, or to represent the state of a true Christian, but as representing the state of the Jews under the law. For even on this supposition, the drift of the place will prove, that every one who is under the law, and with equal reason every one of
mankind, is carnal, sold under sin, in his first state, and till delivered by Christ. For, 'tis plain, that the Apostle's design is to shew the insufficiency of the law to give life to anyone whatsoever. This appears by what he says when he comes to draw his conclusion, in the continuation of this discourse (ch. 8:3), "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God, sending his own Son," etc. Our author supposes, this here spoken of, viz. "That the law can't give life, because it is weak through the flesh," is true with respect to every one of mankind. And when the Apostle gives this reason "in that it is weak through the flesh," 'tis plain, that by the "flesh," which here he opposes to the "spirit," he means the same thing which in the preceding part of the same discourse, in the foregoing chapter, he had called by the name "flesh" (vv. 5, 14, 18) and the law of the members (v. 23) and the body of death (v. 24). Which is the thing that through this chapter he insists on as the grand hindrance and reason why the law could not give life, just as he does in his conclusion (ch. 8:3). Which in this last place, is given as a reason why the law can't give life to any of mankind. And it being the same reason, of the same thing, spoken of in the same discourse, in the former part of it; as appears, because this last place is the conclusion, of which that former part is the premises: and inasmuch as the reason there given is being in the flesh, and a being carnal, sold under sin. Therefore taking the whole of the Apostle's discourse, this is justly understood to be a reason why the law can't give life to any of mankind; and consequently, that all mankind are in the flesh, and are carnal, sold under sin, and so remain till delivered by Christ: and consequently all mankind in their first or original state are very sinful; which was the thing to be proved.
CHAPTER IV
CONTAINING OBSERVATIONS ON
ROMANS 5:12 TO THE END
SECTION 1. REMARKS ON DR. TAYLOR'S WAY OF EXPLAINING 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 more is meant, than that death which we all die, when this present life is extinguished, and the body returns to the dust; that no more is meant in the 12, 14, 15, and 17th verses (p. 27). He speaks of it as evidently clearly and infallibly so, because the Apostle is still discoursing on the same subject; plainly implying, that it must most infallibly be so, that the Apostle 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. 396, speaking 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 now die; as it stands there opposed to eternal life, which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ, it manifestly signifies eternal death, the second death, or that death which they shall hereafter die, who live after the flesh." But death, in the conclusion of the paragraph we are upon in the 5th chapter, concerning the death that comes by Adam, and the life that comes by Christ, in the last verse of the chapter, is opposed to eternal life, just in the same manner as it is in the last verse of the next chapter: "That as sin has reigned unto death, even so might grace reign, through
righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord." So that by our author's own argument, death in this place also is manifestly widely different from the death we now die, as it stands here opposed to eternal life through Jesus Christ, and signifies eternal death, the second death. And yet this is a part of the same discourse or paragraph with that begun in the 12th 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, here is manifest proof, against infallible evidence! So that 'tis true, the Apostle throughout this whole passage on the same subject, by death, evidently, clearly and infallibly means no more, than that death we now die, when this life is extinguished; and yet by death, in some part of this passage, is meant something widely different from the death we now die, and is manifestly intended eternal death, the second death.
But had our author been more consistent with himself in his laying of it down as so certain and infallible, that because the Apostle has a special respect to temporal death, in the 14th verse, "Death reigned from Adam to Moses," therefore he means no more in the several consequent parts of this passage, yet he is doubtless too confident and positive in this matter. This is no more evident, clear and infallible, than that Christ meant no more by perishing in Luke 13:5, when he says, "I tell you, nay, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish," than such a temporal death, as came on those that died by the fall of the tower of Siloam, spoken of in the preceding words of the same speech: and no more infallible, than that by "life," Christ means no more than this temporal life, in each part of that one sentence. (Matt. 10:39), "He that findeth his life, shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake, shall find it"; because in the first part of each clause he has respect especially to temporal life.
The truth of the case with respect to what the Apostle intends by the word "death" in this place, is this, viz. that the same thing is meant, as is meant by "death" in the foregoing and following parts of this epistle, and other writings of this Apostle, where he speaks of death as the consequence of sin, namely, the whole of that death, which he, and the Scripture everywhere, 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 to one part of this whole, in others to another, as his argument leads him; without any more variation, than is common in the same discourse. That life which the Scripture speaks of as the reward of righteousness, is a whole containing several parts, 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. 'Tis this latter whole, that the Apostle speaks of by the name of death in this discourse, in Rom. 5. Though in some sentences he has a more special respect to one part, in others to another: and this without changing the signification of the word. For an having respect to several things included in the extensive signification of the word, is not the same thing as using the word in several distinct significations. As for instance, the appellative, "man," or the proper name of any particular man, is the name of a whole, including the different parts of soul and body. And if anyone in speaking of James or John, should say, he was a wise man, and a beautiful man; in the former part of the sentence, respect would be had more especially to his soul, in the latter to his body, in the word "man": but yet without any proper change of the signification of the name, to distinct senses. In John 21:7, it is said, "Peter was naked," and in the following part of the same story 'tis 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 "death," in the passage now under consideration, on the supposition that he in the general, means the whole of that death which 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 punishment 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 everybody therefore sees does in fact come on all mankind (as in v. 14), and from thence should infer, that 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 image of the whole, and (unless changed by divine grace) an introduction to the principal, and infinitely the most dreadful part.
II. Dr. Taylor's explanation of this passage makes wholly insignificant those first words, "By one man sin entered into the world," and leaves this proposition without any sense of signification at all. The Apostle had been largely and elaborately representing, how the whole world was full of sin, in all parts of it, both among Jews and Gentiles, and all exposed to death and condemnation. 'Tis plain, that in these words he would tell us, how this came to pass, namely, that this sorrowful event came by one man, even the first man. That the world was full of sin, and full of death, were two great and notorious facts, deeply affecting the interests of mankind; and they seemed very wonderful facts, drawing the attention of the more thinking part of mankind everywhere, who often asked this question, "Whence comes evil, moral and natural evil?" (The latter chiefly visible in death.) 'Tis 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 "He
begun transgression." As if all that the Apostle meant, was to tell us who happened to sin first; not how such a malady came upon the world, or how anyone in the world, besides Adam himself, came by such a distemper. The words of the Apostle, "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin," shew the design to be, to tell us how these evils came, as affecting the state of the world; 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 death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." By "sin's being in the world," the Apostle don't mean being in the world only in that one instance of Adam's first transgression, but being abroad in the world, among the inhabitants of the earth, in a wide extent and continued series of wickedness; as is plain in the first words of the next verse, "For until the law, sin was in the world." And therefore when he gives us an account how it came to be in the world, or which is the same thing, how it entered into the world, he don't mean only coming in in one instance.
If the case were as Dr. Taylor represents, that the sin of Adam, either in its pollution or punishment, reached none but himself, any more than the sin of any other man, it would be no more proper to say, that by one man sin entered into the world, than if it should be inquired, how mankind came into America, and there had anciently been a ship of Phoenicians wrecked at sea, and a single man of the crew was driven ashore on this continent, and here died as soon as he reached the shore, and it should be said, "By that one man mankind came into America."
And besides, it is not true that by one man, or by Adam, sin entered into the world, in Dr. Taylor's sense: for it was not he, but Eve, that begun transgression. By "one man" Dr. Taylor understands Adam, 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. 3:9). 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 no less than seven 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" (v. 12), "If through the offense of one, many be dead" (v. 15), "By one that sinned, judgment was by one to condemnation" (v. 16), "By one man's offense, death reigned by one" (v. 17), "By the offense of one, judgment came upon all etc." (v. 18), "By one man's disobedience" (v. 19). These causal particles, so dwelt upon, and so variously repeated, unless we make mere nonsense of the discourse, signify some connection and dependence, by some 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 connection by any natural influence of that one act to make all mankind mortal. Our author don't pretend to account for this effect in any such manner; but in another most diverse, viz. a gracious act of God, laying mankind under affliction, 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 influence, as deserving such a consequence, or exposing 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 legal dependence on that sin, or any connection by virtue of any antecedent constitution, which God had established with Adam: for he insists, that in that threatening, "In the day thou eatest thou shalt die," there is not a word said of his posterity: and death on mankind, according to him, can't come by virtue of the legal constitution with Adam; because the
sentence by which it came, was after the annulling and abolishing that constitution. And 'tis manifest, that this consequence can't be through any kind of tendency 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 that sin of Adam could neither be the efficient cause, nor the procuring cause, neither the natural, moral, nor legal 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 'tis 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 innocency, 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. 'Tis altogether inconsistent with the Apostle's scope, and the import of what he says, to suppose that the death which he here speaks of as coming on mankind by Adam's sin, comes not as a punishment, but only as a favor. It quite makes void the opposition, in which the Apostle sets the consequences of Adam's sin, and the consequences of the grace and righteousness of Christ. They are set in opposition to each other, as opposite effects, arising from opposite causes, throughout the paragraph: one as the just consequence of an offense, the other a free gift (vv. 15, 16, 17, 18). Whereas, according to this scheme, there is no such opposition in the case; both are benefits, and both are free gifts. A very wholesome medicine, to save from perishing, ordered by a kind father, or a shield to preserve from an enemy, bestowed by a friend, is as much a free gift, as pleasant 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, and
judgment for sin; when the latter is the fruit of divine grace (vv. 15, 17, 20, 21). Whereas, according to our author, both come by grace: death comes on mankind by the free kindness and love of God, much more truly and properly than by Adam's sin. Dr. Taylor speaks of it as coming by occasion of Adam's sin. (But as I have observed, it is an occasion without any influence.) Yet the proper cause 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. 7:13. "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 which is good were the proper cause of death; and signifies, that sin is the proper cause, and that which is good, only the occasion. 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, 'tis plain, that death by Adam, and life and happiness by Christ, are here set in opposition; the latter being spoken of as good, the other as evil; one as the effect of righteousness, the other of an offense; one the fruit of obedience, the other of disobedience; one as the fruit of God's favor, in consequence of what was pleasing and acceptable to him, but the other the fruit of his displeasure, in consequence of what was displeasing and hateful to him: the latter coming by justification, the former by the condemnation of the subject. But according to the scheme of our author, there can be no opposition in any of these respects: the death here spoken of, neither comes as an evil, nor from an evil cause, either an evil efficient cause, or a procuring cause; nor at all as any testimony of God's displeasure to the subject, but as properly the effect of God's favor, no less than that which is spoken of as coming by Christ; yea, and as much as that, appointed by an act of justification of the subject; as he
understands and explains the word "justification": for both are by a grant of favor, and are instances of mercy 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 justification, in the Scripture-sense and use of the word."
And over and above all these things, our 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 death that comes by one, and the life and happiness by the other. For, according to his doctrine, both come by Christ, the second Adam; both by his grace, righteousness and obedience: the death, that God sentenced mankind to in Gen. 3:19 being 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 (pp. 389– 395). He says (p. 389), "This covenant with Adam was disannulled immediately after Adam sinned. Even before God passed sentence upon Adam, grace was introduced." And in p. 395 he says, "The death that mankind are the subjects of now, stands under the covenant of grace," and in p. 396, "In the counsel and appointment of God, it stood in this very light, even before the sentence of death was pronounced upon Adam; and consequently death is no proper and legal punishment of sin." And he often insists, that it comes only as a favor and benefit: and standing, as he says, under the Covenant of Grace, which is by Christ, therefore is truly one of the benefits of the new Covenant, which comes by Christ, the second Adam. For he himself is full in it, to use his own words, "That all the grace of the
gospel is dispensed to us in, by or through the Son of God." "Nothing is clearer," says he, "from the whole current of Scripture, than that all the mercy and love of God, and all the blessings of the gospel, from first to last, are in, by, and through Christ, and particularly by his blood, by the redemption that is in him.… This," says he, "can bear no dispute among Christians." What then becomes of all this discourse of the Apostle's about the great difference and opposition between Adam and Christ; as death is by one, and eternal life and happiness 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 righteousness, the consequences of obedience and disobedience, of the offense and the free gift, judgment and grace, condemnation and justification, they all come to nothing: and this whole discourse of the Apostle's wherein he seems to labor much, as if it were to set forth some very grand and most important distinctions and oppositions in the state of things, as derived from the two great heads of mankind, proves nothing but a multitude of words without meaning, or rather an heap of inconsistencies.
V. Our author's own doctrine entirely makes void what he supposes to be the Apostle's argument in the 13th and 14th 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 reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression."
What he supposes the Apostle would prove here, is that death or the mortality of mankind comes only by Adam's sin, and not by men's personal sins; and that it is here proved by this argument, viz. because there was no law, threatening death to Adam's posterity for personal sins, before the law of Moses; but death or mortality of