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

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

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

*Note on Rom. viii. 11.

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

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

Here I observe,

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

* Page 30.

+ Page 54, and elsewhere.

Page 34.

any notion of sin's being at all laid to the charge of the suffer er, or the suffering's being at all of the nature of any recom. pense, compensation, or satisfaction for sin. And therefore none of the instances he mentions, come up to his purpose. When Lot is commanded to leave Sodom, that he might not be consumed in the iniquity of the city, meaning in that fire, which was the effect and punishment of the iniquity of the city; this is quite another thing, than if that fire came on the city in general, as no punishment at all, nor as any fruit of a charge of iniquity on the city, or of God's displeasure for their sin, but as a token of God's favor to the inhabitants; which is what is supposed with respect to the death of mankind; it being introduced only as a benefit, on the foot of a covenant of grace. And especially is this quite another thing, than if, in the expression used, the iniquity had been ascribed to Lot; and God, instead of saying, Lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city, had said, Lest thou be consumed in thine iniquity, or, Lest thou sin, or be made a sinner. Whereas the expression is such, as does expressly remove the iniquity spoken of from Lot, and fix it on another subject, viz. the city. The place cited by our author in Jer. li, is exactly parallel. And as to what Abimelech says to Abraham, "What have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me, and on my kingdom, a great sin? It is manifest, Abimelech was afraid that God was angry, for what he had done to Sarah; or, would have been angry with him, if he had done what he was about to do, as imputing sin to him for it: Which is a quite different thing from calling some calamity, sin, under no notion of its being any punishment of sin, nor in the least degree from God's displeasure. And so with regard to every place our author cites in the margin, it is plain, that what is meant in each of them, is the punishment of sin, and not some suffering which is no punishment at all. And as to the instances he mentions in his Supplement, p. 8, the two that look most favorable to his design, are those in Gen. xxxi. 39, and 2 Kings vii. 9. With respect to the former, where Jacob says, That which was torn of beasts, Anochi-achattenah, Dr. Taylor is pleased to translate it, I was the sinner; but prop

erly rendered, it is, I expiated it; the verb in Pihel properly signifying to expiate; and the plain meaning is, I bore the blame of it, and was obliged to pay for it, as being supposed to be lost through my fault or neglect: Which is a quite different thing from suffering without any supposition of fault. And as to the latter place, where the lepers say, "This day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace: If we tarry till morning some mischief will be fal us:" In the Hebrew it is Umetzaanu gnavon, “ Iniquity will find us," that is, some punishment of our fault will come upon us. Elsewhere such phrases are used, as, Your iniquity will find you out, and the like. But certainly this is a different thing from suffering without fault, or supposition of fault. And it does not appear, that the verb in Hiphil, hirshiang, is ever put for condemn, in any other sense than condemning for sin, or guilt, or suppos ed guilt belonging to the subject condemned. This word is used in the participle of Hiphil, to signify condemning, in Prov. xvii. 15. "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even both are an abomination to the Lord." This Dr. Taylor observes, as if it were to his pur pose, when he is endeavoring to shew, that in this place, in the 5th of Romans, the apostle speaks of God himself as condemning the just, or perfectly innocent, in a parallel significa tion of terms. Nor is any instance produced, wherein the verb, sin, which is used by the apostle when he says, All have sinned, is any where used in our author's sense, for being brought into a state of suffering, and that not as a punishment for sin, or as any thing arising from God's displeasure; much less for being the subject of what comes only as the fruit of divine love, and as a benefit of the highest nature.* Nor can any thing like this sense of the verb be found in the whole Bible.

2. If there had been any thing like such an use of the words, sin and sinner, as our author supposes, in the Old Testament, it is evident that such an use of them is quite alien from the language of the New Testament. Where can

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