prove that death don't come by personal sin, yet it will be wholly
himself supposes, that the law of Moses, when it was in being, threatened no such death for personal sin. For he abundantly asserts, that the death which the law of Moses threatened for personal sin, was eternal death, as has been already noted: and he says in express terms, that eternal death is of a nature widely different from the death we now die; as was also observed before.
How impertinently therefore does Dr. Taylor make an inspired writer argue, when according to him the Apostle 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 widely 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 punishment, 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 Moses, than from Adam to David, or any other period whatsoever. Dr. Taylor holds, that even now, since the law of Moses has been given, the mortality of mankind, or the death we now die, don't come by that law; but that it always comes only by Adam. And if it never comes by that law, we may be sure it never was threatened in that law.
3. If we should allow the argument in Dr. Taylor's sense of it, to prove that death don't come by personal 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, agreeable to our author's supposition, not as a punishment, nor as a calamity, but only a 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 after 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 significance.
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 don't mean only that super-abounding of grace, wherein the benefit we have by Christ goes beyond the damage sustained by Adam; but that benefit, with regard to which Adam was the figure of him that was to come, 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 vv. 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 unspeakable riches of this grace.7
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 commonly 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 anything to countervail it, we are 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 odious sin is to God! What grace in delivering, from such shocking ruin, them that did not deserve the least calamity! Our author says, "We could not justly 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, without any restoration; which would be an eternal loss of communion with God,1 and all other good, besides the positive suffering. The Apostle, throughout this passage, represents the death, which is the consequence of Adam's transgression, as coming in a way of judgment and condemnation 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 no grace at all. So things are turned topsy-turvy, 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 "condemnation." He often calls this condemnation a judicial act, and a sentence of condemnation. But, according to his scheme, 'tis 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 proceeding, 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 anyone else, ever pretended to have been
established, but only this, "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." And concerning this, 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 death, for, or in consequence of the sin of Adam, without any law, by which that sin could be imputed, to bring any such consequence; contrary to the Apostle's plain scope. And not only so, but over and above all this, 'tis a judicial sentence of condemnation to that which is no calamity, nor is considered as such in the sentence: but 'tis 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 this sense, or any like it; nor are they ever used thus anywhere 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 (ch. 2:1, 2, 3, six times in these verses; also vv. 12 and 27, and ch. 3:7; ch. 8:1 and 3; ch. 14:3, 4, and vv. 10, 13, 22 and 23). This will be plain to everyone that casts his eye on these places. And if we look into 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's 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 anything by language and manner of speaking, there is everything 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 subject, 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 offense, transgression and disobedience are, over and over again, spoken of as the ground of the condemnation and of the capital suffering condemned to, for ten verses successively, that is, in every verse in the whole paragraph, without missing one.
The words "justification" and "righteousness" are explained by Dr. Taylor in a no less unreasonable manner. He understands "justification" in v. 18 and "righteousness" in v. 19 in such a sense, as to suppose 'em to belong to all, and actually to be applied to all mankind, good and bad, believers and unbelievers; to the worst enemies of God, remaining such, as well as his peculiar favorites, and many that never had any sin imputed to 'em; meaning thereby no more than what is fulfilled in an universal resurrection from the dead, at the last day.3 Now this is a most arbitrary, forced sense. Though these terms are used everywhere, all over the New Testament, yet nothing like such an use of 'em is to be found, in any one instance, through all the writings of the apostles and evangelists. The words "justify," "justification," 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 these words: but he never elsewhere uses 'em in the sense supposed here, nor is there any pretense that he does. Above all, does this Apostle abound in the use of these terms in this
epistle. Justification is the subject he had been upon through all the preceding part of the epistle. It was the grand subject of all the foregoing chapters, and the preceding part of this chapter; where these terms are continually repeated. And the word "justification" is constantly used to signify something peculiar to believers, who had been sinners; implying some reconciliation and forgiveness of sin, and special privilege in nearness to God, above the rest of the world. Yea, the word is constantly used thus, according to Dr. Taylor's own explanations, in his Paraphrase and Notes on this epistle. And there is not the least reason to suppose but that he is still speaking of the same justification and righteousness, which he had dwelt upon from the beginning, to this place. He speaks of justification and righteousness here, just in the same manner, as he had done in the preceding part of the epistle. He had all along spoken of justification as standing in relation to sin, disobedience to God, and offense 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 righteousness, as in Christ Jesus, and so he does here.
And if we look into the former part of this very chapter, there we shall find justification spoken of just in the same sense as in the rest of the epistle; which is also supposed by our author in his exposition: 'Tis still justification by faith, justification of them that had been sinners, justification attended with reconciliation, justification 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 so 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 can't without the most absurd violence, suppose any other than that he is still speaking of the same justification.
And as to the universal expression used in the 18th verse, "By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life," 'tis needless here to go into the controversy between the Remonstrants and anti-Remonstrants, concerning universal redemption, and their different interpretations of this place. If we take the words even as the Arminians do; yet, in their sense of them, the free gift comes on all men to justification only conditionally, i.e. provided they believe, repent, etc. But in our author's sense, it actually comes on all, whether they believe and repent, or not; which certainly can't be inferred from the universal expression, as here used.5 Dr. Taylor himself supposes, the main design of the Apostle in this universal phrase, "all men," is to signify that the benefits of Christ shall come on Gentiles, as well as Jews. And he supposes, that the many, and the all, here signify the same: but 'tis quite certain, that all the benefits here spoken of, which the Apostle says are to the many, don't actually come upon all mankind; as particularly the abounding of grace, spoken of in v. 15. "The grace of God, and the gift by grace, hath abounded unto the many εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς."
This abounding of grace our author explains thus: "The rich overplus of grace, in erecting a new dispensation, furnished with a glorious fund of light, means and motives." But will any pretend, that all mankind have actually been partakers of this new fund of light, etc.? 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 accept of it. The agreement between Adam as the type of 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 (Gal. 3:29). They are in Christ by grace, as Adam's posterity are in him by nature: the one are in the first Adam naturally, as the other are in the second Adam spiritually: exactly agreeable to the representation this Apostle makes of the matter (1 Cor. 15:45–49). The spiritual seed are those which this Apostle often represents as Christ's body: and the οἱ πολλοὶ here spoken of as made righteous by Christ's obedience, are doubtless the same with the οἱ πολλοὶ which he speaks of in ch. 12:5. "We being many, are one body"; or we, the many όἱ πολλοὶ ἔν σῶμά ἐσμεν. And again (1 Cor. 10:17) ἕυ σῶμα οἱ πολλοὶ ἐσμεν. And the same which the Apostle had spoken of in the preceding chapter, Rom. 4:18, compared with Gen. 15:5.
Dr. Taylor much insists on that place (1 Cor. 15:21, 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 we all die, 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. first, that the resurrection meant by the Apostle, in that place in the 1 Cor. 15 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 the Rom. 5th, are the very same, neither more nor less, as are spoken of there. But there are no grounds for supposing either of these things to be true.