pressed in any standing revelation, would be mere trifling: For it no more appears, that God would not bring temporal death for personal sins, without a standing revealed law threatening it, than that he would not bring eternal death before there was a revealed law threatening that: Which yet wick. ed men that lived in Noah's time, were exposed to, as appears by 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20, and which Dr. Taylor supposes all mankind are exposed to by their personal sins; and he himself says, "Sin, in its own unalterable nature, leads to death." Yea, it might be argued with as much strength of reason, that God could bring on men no punishment at all for any sin, that was committed from Adam to Moses, because there was no standing revealed law then extant, threatening any punish. ment. It may here be properly observed, that our author sup poses the shortening of man's days, and hastening of death, entered into the world by the sin of the antediluvians, in the same sense as death and mortality entered into the world by Adam's sin. But where was there any standing revealed law for that, though the event was so universal? If God might bring this on all mankind, on occasion of other men's sins, for which they deserved nothing, without a revealed law, what could there be to hinder God's bringing death on men for their personal sins, for which their own consciences tell them they do deserve death without a revealed law?

2. If it had been so, that from Adam to Moses there had been no law in being, of any kind, revealed or natural, by which men could be properly exposed to temporal death for personal sin, yet the mention of Moses' law would have been wholly impertinent, and of no signification in the argument, according to our author's understanding of it. He supposes, what the apostle would prove, is, that temporal death, or the death we now die, comes by Adam; and not by any law threatening such a punishment for personal sin; because this death prevailed before the law of Moses was in being, which is the only law threatening death for personal sin. And yet he him. self supposes, that the law of Moses, when it was in being,

* Page 77, 78. + Page 68.

threatened no such death for personal sin. For he abundantly asserts, that the death which the law of Moses threatened for personal sin, was eternal death, as has been already noted: And he says in express terms, that eternal death is of a natyre widely different from the death we now die ;* as was also observed before.

How impertinently therefore does Dr. Taylor make an inspired writer argue, when, according to him, the apostle would prove, that this kind of death did not come by any law threatening this kind of death, because it came before the existence of a law threatening another kind of death, of a nature widely different? How is it to the apostle's purpose, to fix on that period, the time of giving Moses' law, as if that had been the period wherein men began to be threatened with this punishment for their personal sins, when in truth it was no such thing? And therefore it was no more to his purpose, to fix on that period, from Adam to Moses, than from Adam to David, or any other period whatsoever. Dr. Taylor holds, that even now, since the law of Moses has been given, the mortality of mankind, or the death we now die, does not come by that law; but that it always comes only by Adam. And if it never comes by that law, we may be sure it never was threatened in that law.

3. If we should allow the argument in Dr. Taylor's sense of it, to prove that death does not come by personal sin, yet it will be wholly without force to prove the main point, even that it must come by Adam's sin: For it might come by God's sovereign and gracious pleasure; as innumerable other divine benefits do. If it be ordered, agreeably to our author's supposition, not as a punishment, nor as a calamity, but only as a favor, what necessity of any settled constitution, or revealed sentence, in order to the bestowing such a favor, more than other favors; and particularly more than that great benefit, which he says entered into the world by the sin of the antediluvians, the shortening men's lives so much af

*Page 120. S. He says to the like purpose in his Note on Rom, v. 17. This is plain by what he says, p. 38, 40, 53, 117, S.

ter the flood? Thus the apostle's arguing, by Dr. Taylor's explanation of it, is turned into mere trifling, and a vain and impertinent use of words, without any real force or signifi

cance.

VI. The apostle here speaks of that great benefit which we have by Christ, as the antitype of Adam, under the notion of a fruit of grace. I do not mean only that superabounding of grace, wherein the benefit we have by Christ goes beyond the damage sustained by Adam; but that benefit, with regard to which Adam was the figure of him that was to come, and which is, as it were, the counterpart of the suffering by Adam, and which repairs the loss we have by him. This is here spoken of as the fruit of the free grace of God; as appears by ver. 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21. This, according to our author, is the restoring of mankind to that life which they lost in Adam And he himself supposes this restoration of life by Christ to be what grace does for us, and calls it the free gift of God, and the grace and favor of the lawgiver. And speaking of this restoration, he breaks out in admiration of the unspeakable riches of this grace.†

But it follows from his doctrine, that there is no grace at all in this benefit, and it is no more than a mere act of justice, being only a removing of what mankind suffer, being innocent. Death, as it commonly comes on mankind, and even on infants (as has been observed) is an extreme positive calamity; to bring which on the perfectly innocent, unremedied, and without any thing to countervail it, we are sufficiently taught, is not consistent with the righteousness of the Judge of all the earth. What grace, therefore, worthy of being so celebrated, would there be in affording remedy and relief, after there had been brought on innocent mankind that which is (as Dr. Taylor himself represents)† the dreadful and universal destruction of their nature; being a striking demonstration how infinitely hateful sin is to God! What grace in delivering from

* Page 39, 70, 148, 27, S. See also contents of this paragraph in Rom, v. in his notes on the epistle, and his note on ver. 15, 16, 17. + Page 119, S. + Page 69.

such shocking ruin, them that did not deserve the least calamity! Our author says, "We could not justly lose communion with God by Adam's sin."* If so, then we could not justly lose our lives, and be annihilated, after a course of extreme pains and agonies of body and mind, without any restoration; which would be an eternal loss of communion with God, and all other good, besides the positive suffering. The apostle, throughout this passage, represents the death, which is the consequence of Adam's transgression, as coming in a way of judgment and condemnation for sin; but deliverance and life through Christ, as by grace, and the free gift of God. Whereas, on the contrary, by Dr. Taylor's scheme, the death that comes by Adam, comes by grace, great grace ; it being a great benefit, ordered in fatherly love and kindness, and on the foot of a covenant of grace: But in the deliverance and restoration by Christ, there is no grace at all. So things are turned topsy turvy, the apostle's scope and scheme entirely inverted and confounded.

VII. Dr. Taylor explains the words, judgment, condemnation, justification, and righteousness, as used in this place, in a very unreasonable manner.

I will first consider the sense he puts upon the two former, judgment and condemnation. He often calls this condemnation a judicial act, and a sentence of condemnation. But, according to his scheme, it is a judicial sentence of condemnation passed upon them that are perfectly innocent, and viewed by the Judge, even in his passing the sentence, and condemning them, as having no guilt of sin, or fault at all chargeable upon them; and a judicial proceeding, passing sentence arbitrarily, without any law or rule of right before established: For there was no preceding law or rule threatening death, that he, or any one else, ever pretended to have been established, but only this, "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." And concerning this, he insists, that there is not a word said in it of Adam's posterity. So that the condemnation spoken of, is a sentence of condemnation to

* Page 148.

death, for, or in consequence of the sin of Adam, without any law, by which that sin could be imputed to bring any such consequence; contrary to the apostle's plain scope. And not only so, but over and above all this, it is a judicial sentence of condemnation to that which is no calamity, nor is considered as such in the sentence; but it is condemnation to a great favor!

The apostle uses the words judgment and condemnation in other places; they are no strange and unusual terms with him: But never are they used by him in this sense, or any like it; nor are they ever used thus any where else in the New Testament. This apostle elsewhere in this epistle to the Romans is often speaking of condemnation, using the same, or similar terms and phrases as here, but never in the abovesaid sense. Chap. ii. 1, 2, 3, six times in these verses; also ver. 12 and 27, and chap. iii. 7; chap. viii. 1 and 3; chap. xiv. 3, 4, and ver. 10, 13, 22 and 23. This will be plain to every one that casts his eye on these places: And if we look into the former part of this chapter, the apostle's discourse here makes it evident, that he is here speaking of a condemnation, that is no testimony of favor to the innocent; but of God's displeasure towards those that he is not reconciled to, but looks on as offenders, sinners, and enemies, and holds as the objects of his wrath, which we are delivered from by Christ; as may be seen in verses 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

And viewing this discourse itself, in the very paragraph we are upon, if we may judge any thing by language and manner of speaking, there is every thing to lead us to sup pose, that the apostle uses these words here, as he does elsewhere, properly, and as implying a supposition of sin, chargeable on the subject, and exposing to punishment. He speaks of condemnation with reference to sin, as what comes by sin. and as a condemnation to death, which seems to be a most terrible evil, and capital punishment, even in what is temporal and visible; and this in the way of judgment and execution of justice, in opposition to grace or favor, and gift or a benefit coming by favor. And sin and offence, transgression and disobedience, are over and over again spoken of as the ground