no better by nature than others, but were to be reckoned among the children of disobedience, and children of wrath.

Besides, if the apostle chooses to put himself among the Gentiles, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, I would ask, why does he not do so in the 11th verse of the same chapter, where he speaks of the gentile state expressly? Remember that YE being in time past Gentiles in the flesh. Why does he here make a distinction between the Gentiles and himself? Why did he not say, Let us remember, that we being in time past Gentiles? And why does the same apostle, even universally, make the same distinction, speaking either in the second or third person, and never in the first, where he expressly speaks of the gentilism of those to whom he wrote, or of whom he speaks, with reference to their distinction from the Jews? So every where in this same epistle; as in chap. i. 12, 13. where the distinction is made just in the same manner as here, by the change of the person, and by the distinguishing particle also: That we should be to the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ, (the first believers in Christ being of the Jews, before the Gentiles were called) in whom YE ALSO trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. And in al! the following part of this second chapter, as ver. 11, 17, 19, and 22. in which last verse the same distinguishing particle again is used; In whom YE ALSO are builded together for an habitation of God through the spirit.*

Though I am far from thinking our author's exposition of the viith chap. of Romans to be in any wise agreeable to the true sense of the apostle, yet it is needless here to stand particularly to examine it; because the doctrine of original sin may be argued not the less strongly, though we should allow the thing wherein he mainly differs from such as he opposes in his interpretation, viz. That the apostle does not speak in his own name, or to represent the state of a true Christian, but as representing the state of the Jews under the law. For even on this supposition, the drift of the place will prove, that every one who is under the law, and with equal reason every one of mankind, is carnal, sold under sin, in his first state, and till delivered by Christ. For it is plain, that the apostle's design is to shew the insufficiency of the law to give life to any one whatsoever. This appears by what he says when he comes to draw his conclusion, in the continuation of this discourse; chap. viii. 3. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through

See also the following chapters, chap. iii. 6. and iv. 17. And not only in this epistle, but constantly in other epistles; as Rom. i. 12, 13, chap. xi. 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31. chap. xv. 15, 16. 1 Cor. xii. 2 Gal. iv. 8. Col. i. 27. chap. ii. 13, 1 Thess. i. 5, 6, 9. chap. ii 13, 14, 15, 16.

† Dr. T. himself reckons this a part of the same discourse or paragraph, in the division he makes of the epistle, in his paraphrase, and notes upon it.

the flesh: God sending his own son, &c. Our author supposes what is here spoken of, viz. "that the law cannot give life because it is weak through the flesh," is true with respect to every one of mankind*. And when the apostle gives this reason, in that it is weak through the flesh, it is plain that by the flesh, which here he opposes to the spirit, he means the same thing which in the preceding part of the same discourse, in the foregoing chapter, he had called by the name flesh, ver. 5, 14, 18. and the law of the members, ver. 23. and the body of death, ver. 24. This is what, through this chapter, he insists on as the grand hindrance why the law could not give life; just as he does in his conclusion, chap. viii. 3. Which, in his last place is given as a reason why the law cannot give life to any of mankind. And it being the same reason of the same thing, spoken of in the same discourse, in the former part of it-this last place being the conclusion, of which that former part is the premisesand inasmuch as the reason there given is being in the flesh, and being carnal, sold under sin: Therefore, taking the whole of the apostle's discourse, this is justly understood to be a reason why the law cannot give life to any of mankind; and consequently, that all mankind are in the flesh and are carnal, sold under sin, and so remain till delivered by Christ: And consequently, all mankind in their first original state are very sinful ; which was the thing to be proved.

CHAP. IV.

Containing Observations on Rom. v. 12. to the End.

SECT. I.

Remarks on Dr. T.'s way of explaining this Text.

The following things are worthy of notice, concerning our author's exposition of this remarkable passage.

I. He greatly insists, that by death in this place no more is meant, than that death which we all die, when this present life is extinguished and the body returns to the dust. That no more is meant in the 12, 14, 15, and 17th verses (P. 27.) he declares as evidently, clearly, and infallibly so, because the apostle is still discoursing on the same subject; plainly implying, that infallibly the apostle means no more by death, throughout this paragraph on the subject. But as infallible as this is, if we

* See note on Rom. v. 20.

believe what Dr. T. says elsewhere, it must needs be otherwise: for, (p. 120. S.) speaking of those words in Rom. vi. 23. The wages of sin is DEATH, but the gift of God is ETERNAL LIFE, through Jesus Christ our Lord, he says, "Death in this place is widely different from the death we now die; as it stands there opposed to eternal life, which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ, it manifestly signifies eternal death, the second death, or that death which they shall hereafter die, who live after the flesh." But the death, (in the conclusion of the paragraph we are upon) that comes by Adam and the life that comes by Christ, (in the last verse of the chapter,) is opposed to eternal life just in the same manner as in the last verse of the next chapter: "That as sin has reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord." So that by our author's own argument, death in this place also, is manifestly widely different from the death we now die, as it stands here opposed to eternal life through Jesus Christ; and signifies eternal death, the second death. And yet this is a part of the same discourse, begun in the 12th verse; as reckoned by Dr. T. himself in his division of paragraphs, in his paraphrase and notes on the epistle. So that if we follow him, and admit his reasonings in the various parts of his book, here is manifest proof against infallible evidence! So that it is true, the apostle throughout this whole passage on the same subject, by death, evidently, clearly, and infallibly means no more than that death we now die, when this life is extinguished; and yet by death, in some part of this passage, is meant something widely different from the death we now die-MANIFESTLY eternal death, the second death.

But had our author been more consistent with himself, in laying it down as certain and infallible, that because the apostle has a special respect to temporal death in the 14th verse "Death reigned from Adam to Moses," therefore he means no more in the several consequent parts of this passage, yet he is doubtless too confident and positive in this matter. This is no more evident, clear, and infallible, than that Christ meant by perishing-in Luke xiii. 5. when he says, "I tell you, Nay, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish"-no more than such a temporal death as came on those who died by the fall of the tower of Siloam, spoken of in the preceding words of the same speech; and no more infallible, than that by life, Christ means no more than this temporal life, in each part of that one sentence - Matth. x. 39. "He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it”—because in the first part of each clause he has respect especially to temporal life:*

There are many places parallel with these, as John xi. 25, 26. “I am the resurrection, and the life: He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall

The truth of the case, with respect to what the apostle here intends by the word death, is this, viz. The whole of that death which he, and the scripture every where, speaks of as the proper wages and punishment of sin, including death temporal, spiritual, and eternal; though in some parts of this discourse he has a more special respect to one part of this whole, in others to another, as his argument leads him; without any more variation than is quite common in the same discourse. That life which the scripture speaks of as the reward of righteousness, is a whole containing several parts, viz. The life of the body, union of soul and body, and the most perfect sensibility, activity, and felicity of both, which is the chief thing. In like manner the death which the scripture speaks of as the punishment of sin, is a whole including the death of the body and the death of the soul, and the eternal, sensible, perfect destruction and misery of both. It is this latter whole that the apostle speaks of by the name of death in this discourse, in Rom. v. though in some sentences he has a more special respect to one part, in others to another: And this, without changing the signification of the word. For having respect to several things included in the extensive signification of the word, is not the same thing as using the word in several distinct significations. As for instance, the appellative, man, or the proper name of any particular man is the name of a whole, including the different parts of soul and body. And if any one in speaking of James or John, should say, he was a wise man, and a beautiful man ; in the former part of the sentence, respect would be had more especially to his soul, in the latter to his body, in the word man: But yet without any proper change of the signification of the name to distinct senses. In John xxi. 7-it is said, Peter was naked, and in the following part of the same story it is said, Peter was grieved. In the former proposition, respect is had especially to his body, in the latter to his soul: But yet here is no proper change of the meaning of the name, Peter. And as to the apostle's use of the word death in the passage now under consideration, on the supposition that he in general means the whole of that death which is the wages of sin, there is nothing but what is perfectly natural in sup

he live: And whosoever liveth, and believeth in me, shall never die." Here both the words, life and death, are used with this variation; I am the resurrection and the life, meaning spiritual and eternal life: He that believeth in me, though he were dead, having respect to temporal death, yet shall he live, with respect to spiritual life, and the restoration of the life of the body. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die, meaning a spiritual and eternal death. So in John vi. 49, 50. Your fathers did eat manna in the Wilderness, and are dead, having respect chiefly to temporal death. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die, i. e. by the loss of spiritual life, and by eternal death. (See also ver. 58.) And in the next verse, If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, have eternal life. So ver. 54. See another like instance, John v. 24-29.

posing that-in order to evince that death, the proper punishment of sin, comes on all mankind in consequence of Adam's sin-he should take notice of that part of this punishment which is visible in this world, and which every body therefore sees does in fact come on all mankind. (as in ver. 14.) And is it not equally natural from thence to infer, that all mankind are exposed to the whole of that death which is the proper punishment of sin, whereof temporal death is a part, and a visible image of the whole, and (unless changed by divine grace) an introduction to the principal, and infinitely the most dreadful part?

II. Dr. T.'s explanation of this passage makes wholly insignificant those first words, By one man sin entered into the world, and leaves this proposition without any sense at all. The apostle had been largely and elaborately representing how the whole world was full of sin, both among Jews and Gentiles, and all exposed to death and condemnation. It is plain that in these words he would tell us how this came to pass, namely, that the sorrowful event came by one man, even the first man. That the world was full of sin, and full of death, were two great and notorious facts, deeply affecting the interests of mankind; and they seemed very wonderful facts, drawing the attention of the more thinking part of mankind every where, who often asked this question, Whence comes evil, moral and natural evil? It is manifest the apostle here means to tell us, how these came into the world, and came to prevail in it as they do. But all that is meant, according to Dr. T.'s interpretation, is "He begun transgression."* As if all that the

apostle meant was to tell us who happened to sin first; not how such a malady came upon the world, or how any one in the world, besides Adam himself, came by such a distemper. The words of the apostle, By one man sin entered INTO THE WORLD, and death by sin, shew the design to be, to tell us how these evils came, as affecting the state of the world; and not only as reaching one man in the world. If this were not plain enough in itself, the words immediately following demonstrate it; "And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." By sin being in the world, the apostle does not mean being in the world only in that one instance of Adam's first transgression, but being abroad in the world, among the inhabitants of the earth, in a wide extent, and continued series of wickedness; as is plain in the first words of the next verse. For until the law, sin was IN THE WORld. And therefore when he gives us an account how it came to be in the world, or, which is the same thing, how it entered into the world, he does not mean only coming in one in

stance.

* Page 56.