the Apostle uses the words "sin," "sinned," etc. in other places, and in
But indeed we need go no further than that one v. 12. What the Apostle means by sin, in the latter part of the verse, is evident with the utmost plainness, by comparing it with the former part; one part answering to another, and the last clause exegetical 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, that the same things are apparently meant by sin and death in both parts.
And besides to interpret sinning, here, of falling under the suffering of death, is yet the more violent and unreasonable, because the Apostle in 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 21st verse "That as sin hath reigned unto death" and in the 12th verse "Sin entered into the world, and death by sin." And this plain distinction holds through all the discourse, as between death and the offense (vv. 15 and 17) and between the offense and condemnation (v. 18).
4. Though we should omit the consideration of the manner in which the Apostle uses the words "sin," "sinned," etc. in other places, and in other parts of this discourse, yet Dr. Taylor's interpretation of 'em 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 put figuratively for our becoming sinners passively, our being made or constituted sinners. Yet again, not that we do truly become sinners passively, or are really made sinners, by anything that God does; this also is only a
figurative or tropical representation; and the meaning is only "we are condemned," and treated as if we were sinners. Not indeed that we are properly condemned; for God never truly condemns 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 love; 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, "sinned"; according to the manner, as it is supposed, the Apostle uses it. We have a figurative representation, not of a reality, but of a figurative representation. Neither is this a representation of a reality, but of another thing that still is but a figurative representation of something else: yea, even this something else is still but a figure, and one that is very harsh and farfetched. So that here we have a figure to represent a figure, even a 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 ever deciding any controversy by the Scripture, in the way of using such a license with the Scripture, in order to force it to a compliance with our own schemes? If the Apostle indeed uses language after so strange a manner in this place 'tis perhaps such an instance, as not only there is not the like of it in all the Bible besides, but perhaps in no writing whatsoever. And this, not in any parabolical, visionary, or prophetic description, in which difficult
and obscure representations are wont to be made use of; nor in a dramatic or poetical representation, in which a great license is often taken, and bold figures are commonly to be expected: but 'tis 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 without the veil 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 observes, "This apostle takes great care 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 wanting explanation." Now I think, this care and exactness of the Apostle nowhere appears more than in the place we are upon. Nay, I scarcely know another instance equal to this, of the Apostle's care to be well understood, by being very particular, explicit and precise, setting the matter forth in every light, going over and over again with his doctrine, clearly to exhibit, and fully to settle and determine the thing which he aims at.
SECTION 2. SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONNECTION, SCOPE AND SENSE OF THIS REMARKABLE PARAGRAPH IN ROMANS 5—WITH SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE EVIDENCE, WHICH WE HERE HAVE OF THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN
THE connection of this remarkable paragraph with the foregoing discourse in this epistle, is not obscure and difficult; nor to be sought for at a distance. It may be plainly seen, 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 foregoing part of this chapter; representing them as being sinners, ungodly, enemies, exposed to divine wrath, and without strength. No wonder now, this leads him to observe, how this so great and deplorable an event came to pass; how this universal sin and ruin came into the world. And with regard to the Jews in particular, who, though they might allow the doctrine of original sin in their own profession, yet were strongly prejudiced against what was implied in it, or evidently following 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 of the epistle, to convince them of their being by nature as sinful, and as much the children of wrath, as the Gentiles: I say, with regard to them, it was exceeding 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 somewhat 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 all mankind on the free grace 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 and misery of mankind; as in all the foregoing chapters, and in the 6, 7, 8, 9, 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 verses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 11th of this chapter. And here, in this place we are upon, from v. 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 gift by grace, the abounding of grace, and the reign of grace. And he still sets forth the freedom and riches of grace by the same two arguments, viz. the universal sinfulness and ruin of mankind, all having sinned, all naturally exposed to death, judgment, and condemnation; and the exceeding greatness of the benefit received, being far greater than the misery which comes by the first Adam, and abounding beyond it. And 'tis by no means consistent with the Apostle's scope, to suppose, that the benefit which we have by Christ as the antitype of Adam, here mainly insisted on, is without any grace at all, being only a restoration to life, of such as never deserved death.
Another thing observable in the Apostle's scope from the beginning of the epistle, is, he endeavors to shew the greatness and absoluteness of the dependence of all mankind on the redemption and righteousness of Christ, for justification and life, that he might magnify and exalt the Redeemer: which design his whole heart was swallowed up in, and may be looked upon as the main design of the whole epistle. And this is what he had been upon in the preceding part of this chapter; inferring 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; speaking of the same justification and righteousness, which he 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 this place be understood, as it used to be understood by orthodox divines, the whole stands in a natural, easy, and clear connection 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 connection with the words last before spoken, as introduced by the two immediately preceding verses, where he is speaking of our justification, reconciliation and salvation by Christ; which 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 connection: but if it be understood in Dr. Taylor's sense, the plain scope and connection are wholly lost, and there was truly need of a skill in criticism, and art of discerning, beyond, or at least different from that of former divines, and a faculty of seeing something afar off, which other men's sight could not reach, in order to find out the connection.
What has been already observed, may suffice to shew the Apostle's general scope in this place. But yet there seem to be some other things, which he has his eye to, in several expressions; some particular things in the then present state, 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 righteousness, was imputed; and had no consideration of the law of nature, written in the hearts of 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 boast of the law; as if their being distinguished from all other nations by that great privilege, the giving of the law, sufficiently made 'em a holy people, and God's children. This notion of theirs the Apostle evidently refers to (ch. 2:13, 17–19) and indeed throughout that whole chapter. They looked on the law of Moses as intended to be the only rule and means of justification; and as such, trusted in the works of the law, especially circumcision: which appears by the 3d chapter. But as for the Gentiles, they looked on them 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. What 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 endeavors to convince them of the falseness of, in ch. 2:12–16. And he has a manifest regard again to the same thing here, in the 12, 13, and 14th verses of ch. 5th. 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 and impertinent). He supposes, the thing which the Apostle mainly intends to prove, is that death or mortality don't come on mankind by personal sin; and that he would prove it by this medium, that death reigned when there was no law in being, which threatened personal sin with death. 'Tis acknowledged, that this is implied, even that death came into the world 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 guilt and just exposedness 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, namely, sin, guilt, and desert of ruin, became universal 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 man, who was the father of the whole human race, was an observation which afforded proper instruction for the Jews, who looked on themselves an holy people, because they had the law of Moses, and were the children of Abraham, and holy father; while they looked on other nations as by nature unholy and sinners, because they were not Abraham's children. He leads 'em up to an higher ancestor than this patriarch, even to Adam, who being equally the father of Jews and Gentiles, both alike come from a sinful father; from whom guilt and pollution were derived alike to all mankind. And this the Apostle proves by an argument, which of all that could possibly be invented, tended the most briefly and directly to convince the Jews: even by this reflection, that death had come equally on all mankind from Adam's time, and that the posterity of Abraham were equally subject to it with the rest of the world. This was apparent in fact; a thing they
all knew. And the Jews had always been taught, that death (which began in the destruction of the body, and of this present life) 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 of the law and the prophets; as has been already observed.
And the Apostle's observation, that sin was in the world long before the law was given, and was as universal in the world from the times of Adam, as it had been among 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 must 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 not 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 times of Adam.
It may be observed, the Apostle in this epistle, 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 would actually be justified. (2)
That it was not the highest and universal rule or law, by which mankind in general, and particularly the heathen world, were condemned. 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 justification, because that Covenant was of older date, being expressly established in the time of Abraham, and Abraham himself was justified by it. This argument the Apostle particularly handles in the third chapter of Galatians, especially in vv. 17, 18, 19. And this argument is also made use of in the Apostle's reasonings in the fourth chapter of this epistle to the Romans, especially vv. 13, 14, 15. He proves also, that the law of Moses was not the prime rule of judgment, by which mankind in general, and particularly the heathen world, were condemned. 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 Adam. 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 superadded to both: both being of older date. Superadded to the latter, to illustrate and confirm it, that the offense 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 and difficulty, which seems to attend the scope and connection of the various clauses in the three first verses of this discourse, particularly the 13th and 14th verses, is, that there are two things (although things closely connected), which the Apostle has in his eye at once, 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, even 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 nation and their law, that were very inconsistent with these doctrines. And he here endeavors to establish, at once, these two things in opposition to those Jewish notions:
(1) That 'tis our natural relation to Adam, and not to Abraham, which determines our native moral state; and that therefore the being natural children of Abraham, will not make us by nature holy in the sight of God, since we are the natural seed of sinful Adam; nor does the Gentiles being not descended from Abraham, denominate them sinners, any more than the Jews, seeing both alike are descended from Adam.
(2) That the law of Moses is not the prime and general law and rule of judgment for mankind, to condemn them, and denominate them sinners; but that the state they are in with regard to a higher, more ancient and universal law, determines mankind in general to be sinners in the sight of God, and liable to be condemned as such. Which observation is, in many respects, to the Apostle's purpose; particularly in this respect, that if the Jews were convinced, that the law which was the prime rule of condemnation, was given to all, was common to all mankind, and that all fell under condemnation through 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 extended equally to all mankind: and that the Messiah, by whom we 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 13th verse, "For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed, when there is no law."
As to the import of that expression, "Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trangression," not only is the thing signified by it, in Dr. Taylor's sense of it, not true; or if it had been true, would have been impertinent, as has been shewn: but his interpretation 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 sinned against, nor properly any circumstance of the sin; but only the similitude of a circumstance of the command, viz. the threatening it is attended with. A farfetched thing, to be called a similitude of sinning! 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 sin, viz. that death reigned before any law, threatening death for personal sin, was in being; so that the sin then committed was against no law, 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 that 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 not sin against a law threatening death for personal sin." Which latter clause adds nothing to the premises, and tends nothing to illustrate what was said before, but rather to obscure and darken it. The particle (καὶ) "even," when prefixed in this manner, used to signify something additional, some advance in the sense or argument; implying, that the words following express something more, or express the same thing more fully, plainly, or forcibly. But to unite two clauses by such a particle, in such a manner, when there is nothing besides a flat repetition, with no superadded sense or force, but rather a greater uncertainty and obscurity, would be very unusual, and indeed very absurd.4
I can see no reason, why we should be dissatisfied with that explanation of this clause, which has more commonly been given, viz. that by "them who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression," are meant infants; who, though they have indeed sinned in Adam, yet never sinned as Adam did, by actually transgressing in their own persons; unless it be, that this interpretation is too old, and too common. It was well known by those the Apostle wrote to, that vast numbers had died in infancy, within that period which the Apostle speaks of, particularly in the time of the deluge: and it would be strange, the Apostle 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 purpose of proving this, to have mentioned so great a part of mankind, that are subject to death, who, all know, never committed any sin in their own persons? 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 from Adam to Moses; which also seems a thing without any plain evidence; and then to infer, that it must needs be so, that it could come only on occasion of Adam's sin, though not for his sin, or as any punishment of it; which inference also is very dark and unintelligible.
If the Apostle in this place meant those who never sinned by their personal act, it is not strange that he should express this by their "not sinning after the similitude of Adam's transgression." We read of two ways of men's being like Adam, or in which a similitude to him is ascribed to men. One is a being begotten or born in his image or likeness (Gen. 5:3). Another is a transgressing God's covenant or law, like him (Hos. 6:7). "They, like Adam (so, in the Heb[rew] and vulg[ate] Lat[in]) have transgressed the Covenant." Infants have the former similitude; but not the latter. And it was very natural, when the Apostle would infer, that infants become sinners by that one act and offense 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 pollution, 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 God; they being uncircumcised, and born of uncircumcised parents. But the Apostle proves, against these notions of the Jews, that the nations of the world don't become sinners by nature, and sinners from infancy, by virtue of their law, 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 committed actual sin.
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 three verses; which I will endeavor more briefly to represent in the following paraphrase.
The things which I have largely insisted on, viz. the evil that is in the world, the general wickedness, guilt and ruin of mankind, and the opposite good, even justification and life, as only by Christ, lead me to observe the likeness of the manner, in which they are each of them introduced. For it was by one man, that the general corruption and guilt which I have spoken of, came into the world, and condemnation and death by sin: and this dreadful punishment and ruin came on all mankind, by the great law of works, originally established with mankind in their first father, and by his one offense, or breach of that law; all thereby becoming sinners in God's sight, and exposed to final destruction.
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."
It is manifest, that it was in this way the world became sinful and guilty: and not in 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 that it is by being Gentiles, uncircumcised and aliens from that law, that the nations of the world are constituted sinners and unclean. For before the law of Moses was given, mankind were all looked upon by the great Judge as sinners, by corruption and guilt derived from Adam's violation of the original 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.
13. "For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed, when there is no law."
But, that at that time sin was imputed, and men were by their Judge reckoned as sinners, through guilt and corruption derived from Adam, and condemned for sin to death, 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 to that temporal death, which is the visible introduction and image of that utter destruction which sin deserves; not excepting even infants, who could be sinners no other way than by virtue of Adam's transgression, having never in their own persons actually sinned as Adam did; nor could at that time be made polluted by the law of Moses, as being uncircumcised, or born of uncircumcised parents.
14. "Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression."
Now, by way of reflection on the whole, I would observe, that though there are two or three expressions in this paragraph (Rom. 5:12,
etc.), the design of which is attended with some difficulty and obscurity, as particularly in the 13th and 14th verses; yet the scope and sense of the discourse in general is not obscure, but on the contrary very clear and manifest; and so is the particular doctrine mainly taught in it. The Apostle sets himself with great care and pains to make it plain, and precisely to fix and settle the point he is upon. And the discourse is so framed, that one part of it does greatly clear and fix the meaning of other parts; and the whole is determined by the clear connection 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. 'Tis fully implied in that first expression in the 12th verse, "By one man sin entered into the world." Which 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 so 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, unto which) "all have sinned," shews, that in the eye of the Judge 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 wages of sin. The 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 'tis taught again, in those words, "Who is the figure of him that
was to come." The resemblance lies very much in this circumstance, viz. our 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, v. 15th, "Through the offense of one many be dead." And again twice in the 16th 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 offense, death reigned by one." So again in the 18th verse, "By the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation." Again, very plainly in the 19th verse, "By one man's disobedience, many were made sinners."
And here is everything to determine and fix the meaning of all important terms, that the Apostle makes use of: as the abundant use of 'em in all parts of the New Testament; and especially in this Apostle's writings, which make up a very great part of the New Testament: and his repeated use of 'em 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; and also, the light, that one sentence in this paragraph casts on another; which fully settles their meaning: as, with respect to the words, "justification," "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 we are upon. Besides the constant use of this term everywhere else through the New Testament through the epistles of this Apostle, this epistle in particular, and even the former part of this chapter, 'tis often repeated in this very paragraph, and evidently used in the very sense, that is denied to belong to it in the end of v. 12th and v. 19th, though owned everywhere 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 "offense," "transgression," "disobedience." And further, to put the matter out of all controversy, 'tis particularly and expressly, and repeatedly distinguished from that which our opposers would explain it by, viz. "condemnation" and "death." And what is meant by "sin's entering into the world" in v. 12th, is determined by a like phrase of "sin's being in the world," in the next verse. And that by "the offense of one," so often spoken of here, as bringing death and condemnation on all, the Apostle means the sin of one, derived in its guilt and pollution to mankind in general, is a thing which (over and above all that has been already observed) is settled and determined by those words in the conclusion of this discourse (v. 20), "Moreover, the law entered, that the offense might abound: But sin abounded, grace did much more abound." These words plainly shew, that the offense, spoken of so often and evidently spoken of still in these words, which was the offense of one man, became the sin of all. For when he says, "The law entered, that the offense might abound," his meaning can't be, that the offense of Adam, merely as his personally, should abound; but, as it exists in its derived guilt, corrupt influence, and evil fruits, in the sin of mankind in general, even as a tree in its root and branches.
'Tis a thing that confirms the certainty of the proof of the doctrine of original sin, which this place affords, that the utmost art cannot pervert it to another sense. What a variety of the most artful methods have been used by the enemies of this doctrine, to wrest and darken this paragraph of Holy Writ, which stands so much in their way, as it were to force the Bible to speak a language that is agreeable to their mind! How have expressions been strained, words and phrases racked! What strange figures of speech have been invented and with violent hands thrust into the Apostle's mouth; and then with a bold
countenance and magisterial airs obtruded on the world, as from him! But, blessed by 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 meaning stands in too strong and glaring a light to be hid by any of the artificial mists, which they labor to throw upon it.
'Tis really no less than abusing the Scripture and its readers, to represent this paragraph as the most obscure of all 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 plain. Whereas, 'tis most manifestly a place 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 Christian 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 plain and full, 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, that "by one man's sin, death passed on all"; all being adjudged to this punishment, as having sinned (so it is implied) in that one man's sin. And 'tis repeated over and over, that "all are condemned," "many are dead," "many made sinners," etc. "by one man's offense," "by the disobedience of one," and "by one offense." And the doctrine of original depravity is also here taught,
when the Apostle says, "By one man sin entered into the world"; having a plain respect (as hath been shewn) to that universal corruption and wickedness, as well as guilt, which he had before largely treated of.
PART THREE
Observing the Evidence Given Us, Relative to the Doctrine of Original Sin, in
what the Scriptures Reveal Concerning
the Redemption by Christ
CHAPTER I
THE EVIDENCE OF ORIGINAL SIN FROM THE NATURE OF REDEMPTION,
IN THE PROCUREMENT OF IT
ACCORDING to Dr. Taylor's scheme, a very great part of mankind are the subjects of Christ's redemption, who live and die perfectly innocent; who never have had, and never will have any sin charged to their account, and never are either the subjects of, or exposed to any punishment whatsoever, viz. all that die in infancy. They are the subjects of Christ's redemption, as he redeems 'em from death, or as they by his righteousness have justification, and by his obedience are made righteous, in the resurrection of the body, in the sense of Rom. 5:18, 19. And all mankind are thus the subjects of Christ's redemption, while they are perfectly guiltless, and exposed to no punishment, as by Christ they are entitled to a resurrection. Though with respect to such persons as have sinned, he allows it is in some sort by Christ and his death, that they are saved from sin and the punishment of it. Now let us see whether such a scheme well consists with the Scripture account of the redemption by Jesus Christ.
I. The representations of the redemption by Christ, everywhere in Scripture, lead us to suppose, that all whom he came to redeem, are sinners; that his salvation, as to the term from which (or the evil to be redeemed from) in all is sin, and the deserved punishment of sin. 'Tis natural to suppose, that when he had his name Jesus, or Saviour, given him by God's special and immediate appointment, the salvation meant by that name should be his salvation in general; and not only a part of his salvation, and with regard only to some of them
that he came to save. But this name was given him to signify his saving his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). And the great doctrine of Christ's salvation is, that "he came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15), and that "Christ hath once suffered, the just for the unjust" (1 Pet. 3:18). "In this was manifested the love of God towards us" (towards such in general as have the benefit of God's love in giving Christ) "that God sent his only begotten son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love … that he sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:9, 10). Many other texts might be mentioned, which seem evidently to suppose, that all who are redeemed by Christ, are saved from sin. We are led by what Christ himself said, to suppose, that if any are not sinners, they have no need of him as a Redeemer, any more than a well man of a physician (Mark 2:17). And that men, in order to being the proper subjects of the mercy of God through Christ, must first be in a state of sin, is implied in Gal. 3:22. "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." To the same effect is Rom. 11:32.
These things are greatly confirmed by the Scripture doctrine of sacrifices. 'Tis abundantly plain, by both Old and New Testaments, that they were types of Christ's death, and were for sin, and supposed sin in those for whom they were offered. The Apostle supposes, that in order to any having the benefit of the eternal inheritance by Christ, there must of necessity be the death of the testator; and gives that reason for it, that without shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. 9:15 etc.). And Christ himself, in representing the benefit of his blood, in the institution of the Lord's Supper, under the notion of the blood of a testament, calls it "the blood of the New Testament, shed for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28). But according to the scheme of our author, many have the eternal
inheritance by the death of the testator, who never had any need of remission.
II. The Scripture represents the redemption by Christ as a redemption from deserved destruction; and that, not merely as it respects some particulars, but as the fruit of God's love to mankind. (John 3:16), "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." Implying, that otherwise they must perish, or be destroyed. But what necessity of this, if they did not deserve to be destroyed? Now, that the destruction here spoken of, is deserved destruction, is manifest, because it is there compared to the perishing of such of the children of Israel as died by the bite of the fiery serpents, which God in his wrath, for their rebellion, sent amongst them. And the same thing clearly appears by the last verse of the same chapter, "He that believeth on the son, hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him," or, is left remaining on him: implying, that all in general are found under the wrath of God, and that they only of all mankind, who are interested in Christ, have this wrath removed, and eternal life bestowed; the rest are left, with the wrath of God still remaining on them. The same is clearly illustrated and confirmed by John 5:24. "He that believeth … hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death to life." In being passed from death to life is implied, that before they were all in a state of death; and they are spoken of as being so by a sentence of condemnation; and if it be a just condemnation 'tis a deserved condemnation.
III. It will follow on Dr. Taylor's scheme, that Christ's redemption, with regard to a great part of them who are the subjects of it, is not only a redemption from no sin, but from no calamity, and so from no
evil of any kind. For as to death, which infants are redeemed from, they never were subjected to it as a calamity, but purely as a benefit. It came by no threatening, or curse, denounced upon or through Adam; the Covenant with him being utterly abolished, as to all its force and power on mankind (according to our author) before the pronouncing the sentence of mortality. Therefore trouble and death could be appointed to innocent mankind, no other way than on the foot of another Covenant, the Covenant of Grace; and in this channel they come only as favors, not as evils. Therefore they could need no medicine or remedy; for they had no disease. Even death itself, which it is supposed Christ saves 'em from, is only a medicine; 'tis preventing physic, and one of the greatest of benefits. It's ridiculous, to talk of persons needing a medicine, or a physician, to save 'em from an excellent medicine; or of a remedy from a happy remedy! If it be said, though death be a benefit, yet 'tis so because Christ changes it, and turns it into a benefit, by procuring a resurrection: I would here ask, what can be meant by turning or changing it into a benefit, when it never was otherwise, nor could ever justly be otherwise? Infants could not at all be brought under death as a calamity: for they never deserved it. And it would be only an abuse (be it far from us, to ascribe such a thing to God) in any being, to make the offer, to any poor sufferers, of a redeemer from some calamity, which he had brought upon them without the least desert of it on their part.
But it is plain, that death or mortality was not at first brought on mankind as a blessing, on the foot of the Covenant of Grace through Christ; and that Christ and grace don't bring mankind under death, but find 'em under it (2 Cor. 5:14), "We thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead." (Luke 19:10), "The son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." The grace, which appears in providing a deliverer from any state, supposes the subject to be in
that state prior to that grace and deliverance; and not that such a state is first introduced by that grace. In our author's scheme, there never could be any sentence of death, or condemnation, that requires a saviour from it; because the very sentence itself, according to the true meaning of it, implies and makes sure all that good, which is requisite to abolish and make void the seeming evil to the innocent subject. So that the sentence itself is in effect the deliverer; and there is no need of another deliverer, to deliver from that sentence. Dr. Taylor insists upon it, that "Nothing comes upon us in consequence of Adam's sin, in any sense, kind, or degree, inconsistent with the original blessing pronounced on Adam, at his creation; and nothing but what is perfectly consistent with God's blessing, love, and goodness, declared to Adam, as soon as he came out of his maker's hands." If the case be so, it is certain there is no evil or calamity at all, for Christ to redeem us from; unless things agreeable to the divine goodness, love and blessing, are things which we need redemption from.
IV. It will follow on our author's principles, not only with respect to infants, but even adult persons, that redemption is needless, and Christ is dead in vain. Not only is there no need of Christ's redemption in order to deliverance from any consequences of Adam's sin, but also in order to perfect freedom from personal sin, and all its evil consequences. For God has made other sufficient provision for that, viz. a sufficient power and ability, in all mankind, to do all their duty, and wholly to avoid sin. Yea, this author insists upon it, that "when men have not sufficient power to do their duty, they have no duty to do." We may safely and assuredly conclude, says he, that mankind in all parts of the world have sufficient power to do the duty, which God requires of them; and that he requires of 'em no more than they have sufficient power to do. And in another place, "God has given powers equal to the duty, which he expects." And he
expresses a great dislike at R.R.'s supposing,5 "That our propensities to evil, and temptations, are too strong to be effectually and constantly resisted … or that we are unavoidably sinful in a degree, that our appetites and passions will be breaking out, notwithstanding our everlasting watchfulness." These things fully imply, that men have in their own natural ability sufficient means to avoid sin, and to be perfectly free from it; and so, from all the bad consequences of it. And if the means are sufficient, then there is no need of more. And therefore there is no need of Christ's dying in order to it. What Dr. Taylor says in p. 348 fully implies, that it would be unjust in God, to give mankind being in such circumstances, as that they would be more likely to sin, so as to be exposed to final misery, than otherwise. Hence then, without Christ and his redemption, and without any grace at all, mere justice makes sufficient provision for our being free from sin and misery, by our own power.
If all mankind, in all parts of the world, have such sufficient power to do their whole duty, without being sinful in any degree, then they have sufficient power to obtain righteousness by the law: and then, according to the apostle Paul, "Christ is dead in vain" (Gal. 2:21). "If righteousness comes by the law, Christ is dead in vain"; διὰ νόμου without the article, "by law," or the rule of right action, as our author explains the phrase. And according to the sense in which he explains this very place, "It would have frustrated, or rendered useless, the grace of God, if Christ died to accomplish what was or might have been effected by law itself, without his death." So that it most clearly follows from his own doctrine, that Christ is dead in vain, and the grace of God is useless. The same Apostle says, "If there had been a law which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law" (Gal. 3:21), i.e. (still according to Dr. Taylor's own sense) if there was a law, that man, in his present state, had sufficient power perfectly to fulfill. For Dr. Taylor supposes the reason why the
law could not give life, to be, "not because it was weak in itself, but through the weakness of our flesh, and the infirmity of the human nature in the present state." But he says, "We are all under a mild dispensation of grace, making allowance for our infirmities." By our "infirmities," we may upon good grounds suppose, he means that infirmity of human nature, which he gives as the reason, why the law can't give life. But what grace is there in making that allowance for our infirmities, which justice itself (according to his doctrine) most absolutely requires, as he supposes divine justice exactly proportions our duty to our ability?
Again, if it be said, that although Christ's redemption was not necessary to preserve men from beginning to sin, and getting into a course of sin, because they have sufficient power in themselves to avoid it; yet it may be necessary to deliver men, after they have by their own folly brought themselves under the dominion of evil appetites and passions. I answer, if it be so, that men need deliverance from those habits and passions, which are become too strong for them, yet that deliverance, on our author's principles, would be no salvation from sin. For, the exercise of passions which are too strong for us, and which we can't overcome, is necessary; and he strongly urges, that a necessary evil can be no moral evil. It's true, 'tis the effect of evil as 'tis the effect of a bad practice, while the man remained at liberty, and had power to have avoided it. But then, according to Dr. Taylor, that evil cause alone is sin; and not so, the necessary effect: for he says expressly, "The cause of every effect, alone, is chargeable with the effect it produceth, or which proceedeth from it." And as to that sin which was the cause, the man needed no saviour from that, having had sufficient power in himself to have avoided it. So that it follows, by our author's scheme, that none of mankind, neither infants, nor adult persons, neither the more nor less vicious, neither Jews nor Gentiles, neither heathens nor
Christians, ever did, or ever could stand in any need of a saviour; and that, with respect to all, the truth is, Christ is dead in vain.
If any should say, although all mankind in all ages have sufficient ability to do their whole duty, and so may by their own power enjoy perfect freedom from sin, yet God foresaw that they would sin, and that after they had sinned they would need Christ's death: I answer, it's plain by what the Apostle says, in those places which were just now mentioned. (Gal. 2:21 and 3:21), that God would have esteemed it needless to give his Son to die for men, unless there had been a prior impossibility of their having righteousness by law; and that if there had been a law which could have given life, this other way by the death of Christ would not have been provided. And this appears to be agreeable to our author's own sense of things, by his words which have been cited, wherein he says, "It would have frustrated or rendered useless the grace of God, if Christ died to accomplish what was or might have been effected by law itself, without his death."
V. It will follow on Dr. Taylor's scheme, not only that Christ's redemption is needless for the saving from sin or its consequences, but also that it does no good that way, has no tendency to any diminution of sin in the world. For as to any infusion of virtue or holiness into the heart, by divine power, through Christ or his redemption, it is altogether inconsistent with this author's notions. With him, inwrought virtue, if there were any such thing, would be no virtue; not being the effect of our own will, choice and design, but only of a sovereign act of God's power. And therefore, all that Christ does to increase virtue, is only increasing our talents, our light, advantages, means and motives; as he often explains the matter.6 But sin is not at all diminished. For he says, "Our duty must be measured by our talents": as, a child that has less talents, has less duty; and therefore must be no more exposed to commit sin, than he
that has greater talents; because he that has greater talents, has more duty required, in exact proportion. If so, he that has but one talent, has as much advantage to perform that one degree of duty which is required of him, as he that has five talents, to perform his five degrees of duty, and is no more exposed to fail of it. And that man's guilt, who sins against greater advantages, means and motives, is greater in proportion to his talents.8 And therefore it will follow, on Dr. Taylor's principles, that men stand no better chance, have no more eligible or valuable probability of freedom from sin and punishment, or of contracting but little guilt, or of performing required duty, with the great advantages and talents implied in Christ's redemption, than without them; when all things are computed, and put into the balances together, the numbers, degrees and aggravations of sin exposed to, degrees of duty required, etc. So that men have no redemption from sin, and no new means of performing duty, that are valuable or worth anything at all. And thus the great redemption by Christ in every respect comes to nothing, with regard both to infants and adult persons.
CHAPTER II
THE EVIDENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF
ORIGINAL SIN FROM WHAT THE
SCRIPTURE TEACHES OF THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION
THE truth of the doctrine of original sin is very clearly manifest from what the Scripture says of that change of state, which it represents as necessary to an actual interest in the spiritual and eternal blessings of the Redeemer's kingdom.
In order to this, it speaks of it as absolutely necessary for everyone, that he be regenerated, or born again. (John 3:3), "Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man (γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν) be begotten again," or born again, "he cannot see the kingdom of God." Dr. Taylor, though he will not allow, that this signifies any change from a state of natural propensity to sin, yet supposes, that the new birth here spoken of means a man's being brought to a "divine life, in a right use and application of the natural powers in a life of true holiness": and that it is the attainment of "those habits of virtue and religion, gives us the real character of true Christians, and the children of God";2 and that it is "putting on the new nature of right action."
But in order to proceed in the most sure and safe manner, in our understanding what is meant in Scripture by "being born again," and so in the inferences we draw from what is said of the necessity of it, let us compare Scripture with Scripture, and consider what other terms or phrases are used in other places, where respect is evidently had to the same change. And here I would observe the following things.
I. If we compare one Scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest, that by regeneration, or being begotten or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified, with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected in true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts 3:19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing. The word μετάνοια (repentance) signifies a change of the mind; as the word "conversion" means a change or turning from sin to God. And that this is the same change with that which is called regeneration (excepting that this latter term especially signifies the change, as the mind is passive in it) the following things do shew.
In the change which the mind passes under in repentance and conversion, is attained that character of true Christians, which is necessary to the eternal privileges of such. (Acts 3:19), "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord Jesus." And so it is with regeneration; as is evident from what Christ says to Nicodemus, and as is allowed by Dr. Taylor.
The change the mind passes under in repentance and conversion, is that in which saving faith is attained. (Mark 1:15), "The kingdom of heaven is at hand, repent ye and believe the gospel"—and so it is with a being born again, or born of God; as appears by John 1:12, 13. "But to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, which were born, not of blood, etc. but of God."
Just as Christ says concerning conversion (Matt. 18:3), "Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God": so does he say concerning being born again, in what he spake to Nicodemus.
By the change men pass under in conversion, they become as little children; which appears in the place last cited; and so they do by regeneration (1 Pet. 1 at the end, and ch. 2 at the beginning). "Being born again … wherefore … as newborn babes … desire … etc." 'Tis no objection, that the disciples, whom Christ spake to in Matt. 18:3 were converted already: this makes it not less proper for Christ to declare the necessity of conversion to them, leaving it with them to try themselves, and to make sure their conversion: in like manner as he declared to 'em the necessity of repentance, in Luke 13:3, 5, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
The change that men pass under at their repentance, is expressed and exhibited by baptism. Hence it is called the "baptism of repentance," from time to time (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:3; Acts 19:4 and 2:38). And so is regeneration or being born again expressed by baptism: as is evident by such representations of regeneration as those (John 3:5), "Except a man be born of water, and of the spirit"; (Titus 3:5), "He saved us by the washing of regeneration." Many other things might be observed, to shew, that the change men pass under in their repentance and conversion, is the same with that which they are the subjects of in regeneration. But these observations may be sufficient.
II. The change which a man passes under when born again, and in his repentance and conversion, is the same that the Scripture calls the circumcision of the heart. This may easily appear by considering,
That as regeneration is that in which are attained the habits of true virtue and holiness, as has been shewn, and as is confessed; so is circumcision of heart. (Deut. 30:6), "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul."
Regeneration is that whereby men come to have the character of true Christians; as is evident, and as is confessed; and so is circumcision of heart: for by this men become Jews inwardly, or Jews in the spiritual and Christian sense (and that is the same as being true Christians), as of old proselytes were made Jews by circumcision of the flesh. (Rom. 2:28, 29), "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward of the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God."
That circumcision of the heart is the same with conversion, or turning from sin to God, is evident by Jer. 4:1–4. "If thou wilt return, O Israel, return" (or, convert) "unto me.… Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and put away the foreskins of your heart." (And Deut. 10:16), "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of thine heart, and be no more stiff-necked."
Circumcision of the heart is the same change of the heart, that men pass under in their repentance; as is evident by Lev. 26:4. "If their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and they accept the punishment of their iniquity."
The change men pass under in regeneration, repentance and conversion is signified by baptism, as has been shewn; and so is circumcision of the heart signified by the same thing. None will deny, that it was this internal circumcision, which of old was signified by external circumcision; nor will any deny, now under the New Testament, that inward and spiritual baptism, or the cleansing of the heart, is signified by external washing, or baptism. But spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism are the same thing; both being the "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh"; as is very plain by Col. 2:11, 12, 13. "In whom also ye are circumcised, with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism; wherein also ye are risen with him, etc."
III. This inward change, called regeneration, and circumcision of heart, which is wrought in repentance and conversion, is the same with that spiritual resurrection, so often spoken of, and represented as a dying unto sin, and living unto righteousness.
This appears with great plainness in that last cited place, Col. 2. "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without
hands … buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God … And you, being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him; having forgiven you all trespasses."
The same appears by Rom. 6:3, 4, 5. "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the father, even so we also should walk in newness of life," etc. (v. 11), "Likewise reckon ye so yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."
In which place also it is evident, by the words recited, and by the whole context, that this spiritual resurrection is that change, in which persons are brought to habits of holiness and to the divine life, by which Dr. Taylor describes the thing obtained in being born again.
That a spiritual resurrection, to a new divine life, should be called a being born again, is agreeable to the language of Scripture; in which we find, a resurrection is called a being born or begotten. So those words in the second Psalm, "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee," are applied to Christ's resurrection (Acts 13:33). So in Col. 1:18, Christ is called the first born from the dead; and in Rev. 1:5, "The first begotten from the dead." The saints, in their conversion or spiritual resurrection, are risen with Christ, and are begotten and born with him. (1 Pet. 1:3), "Which hath begotten us again, to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible." This inheritance is the same thing with that kingdom of heaven, which men obtain by being born again, according to Christ's words to Nicodemus; and that same inheritance of them that are sanctified, spoken of as what is obtained
in true conversion. (Acts 26:18), "To turn them" (or convert them) "from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified, through faith that is in me." Dr. Taylor's own words, in his Note on Rom. 1:4, speaking of that place in the second Psalm, just now mentioned, are very worthy to be here recited. He observes how this is applied to Christ's resurrection and exaltation, in the New Testament, and then has this remark, "Note, begetting is conferring a new and happy state; a son is a person put into it. Agreeably to this, good men are said to be the sons of God, as they are the sons of the resurrection to eternal life, which is represented as παλιγγενεσία, a being begotten or born again, regenerated."
So that I think it is abundantly plain, that the spiritual resurrection spoken of in Scripture, by which the saints are brought to a new divine life, is the same with that being born again, which Christ says is necessary for everyone, in order to his seeing the kingdom of God.
IV. This change, which men are the subjects of, when they are born again, and circumcised in heart, when they repent and are converted, and spiritually raised from the dead, is the same change which is meant when the Scripture speaks of making the heart and spirit new, or giving a new heart and spirit.
'Tis needless here to stand to observe, how evidently this is spoken of as necessary to salvation, and as the change in which are attained the habits of true virtue and holiness, and the character of a true saint; as has been observed of regeneration, conversion, etc. and how apparent it is from thence, that the change is the same. For it is as it were self-evident; 'tis apparent by the phrases themselves, that they are different expressions of the same thing. Thus repentance (μετάνοια) or the change of the mind is the same as being changed to
a new mind, or new heart and spirit. Conversion is the turning of the heart; which is the same thing as changing it so, that there shall be another heart, or a new heart, or a new spirit. To be born again, is to be born anew; which implies a becoming new, and is represented as a becoming new-born babes: but none supposes, it is the body, that is immediately and properly new, but the mind, heart, or spirit. And so a spiritual resurrection is the resurrection of the spirit, or rising to begin a new existence and life, as to the mind, heart or spirit. So that all these phrases imply an having a new heart, and being renewed in the spirit, according to their plain signification.
When Nicodemus expressed his wonder at Christ's declaring it necessary, that a man should be born again in order to see the kingdom of God, or enjoy the privileges of the kingdom of the Messiah, Christ says to him (John 3:10), "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" i.e. "Art thou one who is set to teach others, the things written in the law and the prophets, and knowest not a doctrine so plainly taught in your Scriptures, that such a change as I speak of, is necessary to a partaking of the blessings of the kingdom of the Messiah?" But what can Christ have respect to in this, unless such prophecies as that in Ezek. 36:25, 26, 27? Where God by the prophet speaking of the days of the Messiah's kingdom, says, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.… A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you … and I will put my spirit within you." Here God speaks of having a new heart and spirit, by being washed with water, and receiving the spirit of God, as the qualification of God's people, that shall enjoy the privileges of the kingdom of the Messiah. How much is this like the doctrine of Christ to Nicodemus, of being born again of water and of the spirit? We have another like prophecy in Ezek. 11:19.
Add to these things, that regeneration or being born again, and the renewing (or making new) by the Holy Ghost, are spoken of as the same thing. (Titus 3:5), "By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."
V. 'Tis abundantly manifest, that being born again, a spiritually rising from the dead, to newness of life, receiving a new heart, and being renewed in the spirit of the mind, these are the same thing with that which is called putting off the old man, and putting on the new man.
The expressions are equivalent; and the representations are plainly of the same thing. When Christ speaks of being born again, two births are supposed; a first and a second; an old birth and a new one: and the thing born is called man, so what is born in the first birth, is the old man: and what is brought forth in the second birth, is the new man. That which is born in the first birth (says Christ) is flesh: it is the carnal man, wherein we have borne the image of the earthly Adam, whom the Apostle calls the first man. That which is born in the new birth, is spirit, or the spiritual and heavenly man: wherein we proceed from Christ the second man, the new man, who is made a quickening spirit, and is the Lord from heaven, and the head of the new creation. In the new birth, men are represented as becoming new-born babes (as was observed before) which is the same thing as becoming new men.
And how apparently is what the Scripture says of the spiritual resurrection of the Christian convert, equivalent and of the very same import with putting off the old man, and putting on the new man? So in the 6th of Romans, the convert is spoken of as dying and being buried with Christ: which is explained in the 6th verse by this, that "the old man is crucified, that the body of sin might be destroyed."
And in the 14th verse converts in this change are spoken of as rising to newness of life. Are not these things plain enough? The Apostle does in effect tell us, that when he speaks of that spiritual death and resurrection which is in conversion, he means the same thing as crucifying and burying the old man, and rising a new man.
And 'tis most apparent, that spiritual circumcision, and spiritual baptism, and the spiritual resurrection, are all the same with putting off the old man, and putting on the new man. This appears by Col. 2:11, 12. "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him by baptism; wherein also ye are risen with him." Here it is manifest, that the spiritual circumcision, baptism, and resurrection, all signify that change, wherein men put off the body of the sins of the flesh: but that is the same thing, in this Apostle's language, as "putting off the old man"; as appears by Rom. 6:6. Our old man is crucified, that the body of sin may be destroyed. And that putting off the old man is the same with putting off the body of sins, appears further by Eph. 4:22, 23, 24, and Col. 3:8, 9, 10.
As Dr. Taylor confesses, that a being born again is "that wherein are obtained the habits of virtue, religion and true holiness"; so how evidently is the same thing predicated of that change, which is called "Putting off the old man, and putting on the new man"? (Eph. 4:22, 23, 24), "That ye put off the old man, which is corrupt … and put on the new man, which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness."
And 'tis most plain, that this putting off the old man, etc. is the very same thing with making the heart and spirit new. 'Tis apparent in itself: the spirit is called the "man" in the language of the Apostle; 'tis
called the "inward man," and the "hidden man" (Rom. 7:22; 2 Cor. 4:16; 1 Pet. 3:4). And therefore putting off the old man, is the same thing with the removal of the old heart, and the putting on the new man is the receiving a new heart and a new spirit. Yea, putting on the new man is expressly spoken of as the same thing with receiving a new spirit, or being renewed in spirit. (Eph. 4:22, 23, 24), "That ye put off the old man … and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that ye put on the new man."
From these things it appears, how unreasonable, and contrary to the utmost degree of scriptural evidence, is Dr. Taylor's way of explaining the old man, and the new man, as though thereby were meant nothing personal; but that by the old man were meant the heathen state, and by the new man the Christian dispensation, or state of professing Christians, or the whole collective body of professors of Christianity, made up of Jews and Gentiles: when all the color he has for it, is, that the Apostle once calls the Christian church a new man (Eph. 2:15). 'Tis very true, in the Scripture, often both in the Old Testament and New, collective bodies, nations, people, cities, are figuratively represented by persons: particularly the church of Christ is represented as one holy person, and has the same appellatives as a particular saint or believer; and so is called a "child" and a "son of God" (Ex. 4:22; Gal. 4:1, 2), and a "servant of God" (Is. 41:8, 9 and 44:1), the "daughter of God" and "spouse of Christ" (Ps. 45:10, 13, 14; Rev. 19:7). Nevertheless, would it be reasonable, to argue from hence that such appellations, as a servant of God, a child of God, etc. are always or commonly to be taken as signifying only the church of God in general, or great collective bodies; and not to be understood in a personal sense? But certainly, this would not be more unreasonable, than to urge, that by the old and the new man, as the phrases are mostly used in Scripture, is to be understood nothing but the great collective bodies of pagans and
of Christians, or the heathen and the Christian world, as to their outward profession and the dispensation they are under. It might have been proper, in this case, to have considered the unreasonableness of that practice which our author charges on others, and finds so much fault with in them, "That they content themselves with a few scraps of Scripture, which though wrong understood they make the test of truth, and the ground of their principles, in contradiction to the whole tenour of revelation."
VI. I observe once more, 'tis very apparent, that a being born again, and spiritually raised from death to a state of new existence and life, having a new heart created in us, being renewed in the spirit of our mind, and being the subjects of that change by which we put off the old man, and put on the new man, is the same thing with that which in Scripture is called a being created anew, or made new creatures.
Here, to pass over many other evidences of this, which might be mentioned, I would only observe, that the representations are exactly equivalent. These several phrases naturally and most plainly signify the same effect. In the first birth or generation, we are created, or brought into existence; 'tis then the whole man first receives being: the soul is then formed, and then our bodies are fearfully and wonderfully made, being curiously wrought by our Creator; so that a new-born child is a new creature. So, when a man is born again, he is created again; in that new birth, there is a new creation; and therein he becomes as a new-born babe, or a new creature. So, in a resurrection, there is a new creation. When a man is dead, that which was created or made in the first birth or creation, is destroyed: when that which was dead is raised to life, the mighty power of the Creator or Author of life, is exerted the second time, and the subject restored to new existence, and new life, as by a new creation. So, giving a new heart is called "creating a clean heart" (Ps. 51:10). Where the word