world, than if it should be inquired, how mankind came into America, and there had anciently been a ship of the Phenicians wrecked at sea, and a single man of the crew was driv en ashore on this continent, and here died as soon as he reached the shore, it should be said, By that one man mankind came into America.

And besides, it is not true, that by one man, or by Adam, sin entered into the world, in Dr. Taylor's sense; for it was not he, but Eve, that begun transgression. By one man Dr. Taylor understands Adam, as the figure of Christ. And it is plain that it was for his transgression, and not Eve's, that the sentence of death was pronounced on mankind after the fall, Gen. iii. 19. It appears unreasonable to suppose the apostle means to include Eve, when he speaks of Adam; for he lays great stress on it, that it was by one, repeating it several times.

III. In like manner this author brings to nothing the sense of the causal particles, in such phrases as these, so often repeated; "Death by sin," verse 12. "If through the offence of one, many be dead," verse 15.

"By one that

sinned....Judgment was by one to condemnation," verse 16. "By one man's offence, death reigned by one," verse 17. "By the offence of one, judgment came upon all," &c. verse 18. By one man's disobedience," verse 19. These causal particles, so dwelt upon, and so variously repeated, unless we make mere nonsense of the discourse, signify some connexion and dependence, by some sort of influence of that sin of one man, or some tendency to that effect, which is so often said to come by it. But according to Dr. Taylor, there can be no real dependence or influence in the case of any sort whatsoever. There is no connexion by any natural influence of that one act to make all mankind mortal. Our author does not pretend to account for this effect in any such man. ner, but in another most diverse, viz. A gracious act of God, laying mankind under affliction, toil and death, from special favor and kindness. Nor can there be any dependence of this effect on that transgression of Adam, by any moral influence, as deserving such a consequence, or exposing to it on

any moral account, for he supposes that mankind are not in this way exposed to the least degree of evil. Nor has this effect any legal dependence on that sin, or any connexion by virtue of any antecedent constitution, which God had established with Adam; for he insists that in that threatening, In the day thou eatest thou shalt die, there is not a word said of his posterity, page 8. And death on mankind, according to him, cannot come by virtue of that legal constitution with Adam ; because the sentence by which it came, was after the annulling and abolishing that constitution, page 113, S. And it is manifest that this consequence cannot be through any kind of tendency of that sin to such an effect, because the effect comes only as a benefit, and is the fruit of mere favor; but sin has no tendency, either natural or moral, to benefits and divine faAnd thus that sin of Adam could neither be the efficient cause nor the procuring cause, neither the natural, moral, nor legal cause, nor an exciting and moving cause, any more than Adam's eating of any other tree of the garden. And the only real relation that the effect can have to that sin, is a relation as to time, viz. that it is after it. And when the matter is closely examined, the whole amounts to no more than this, That God is pleased, of his mere good will and pleasure, to bestow a greater favor upon us, than he did upon Adam in innocency, after that sin of his eating the forbidden fruit; which sin we are no more concerned in, than in the sin of the king of Pegu, or emperor of China.

vors.

IV. It is altogether inconsistent with the apostle's scope, and the import of what he says, to suppose that the death which he here speaks of, as coming on mankind by Adam's sin, comes not as a punishment, but only as a favor. It quite makes void the opposition, in which the apostle sets the consequences of Adam's sin, and the consequences of the grace and righteousness of Christ. They are set in opposition to each other, as opposite effects, arising from opposite causes, throughout the paragraph: One as the just consequence of an offence, the other a free gift, verse 15....18. Whereas, according to this scheme, there is no such opposition in the case; both are bencfits, and both are free gifts.

A very wholesome medicine to save from perishing, ordered by a kind father, or a shield to preserve from an enemy, bestowed by a friend, is as much a free gift as pleasant food. The death that comes by Adam, is set in opposition to the life and happiness that comes by Christ, as being the fruit of sin, and judgment for sin; when the latter is the fruit of divine grace, verses 15, 17, 20, 21. Whereas, according to our author, both came by grace : Death comes on mankind by the free kindness and love of God, much more truly and properly than by Adam's sin. Dr. Taylor speaks of it as coming by occasion of Adam's sin. (But as I have observed, it is an occasion without any influence.) Yet the proper cause is God's grace; so that the true cause is wholly good. Which by the way, is directly repugnant to the apostle's doctrine in Rom. vii. 13. "Was then that which is good, made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good." Where the apostle utterly rejects any such suggestion, as though that which is good were the proper cause of death; that sin is the proper cause, and that which is good, only the occasion. But according to this author, the reverse is true: That which is good in the highest sense, even the love of God, and a divine, gracious constitution, is the proper cause of death, and sin only the occasion.

and signifies

But to return, it is plain, that death by Adam, and life and happiness by Christ, are here set in opposition; the latter being spoken of as good, the other as evil; one as the effect of righteousness, the other of an offence; one the fruit of obedience, the other of disobedience; one as the fruit of God's favor, in consequence of what was pleasing and acceptable to him, but the other the fruit of his displeasure, in consequence of what was displeasing and hateful to him; the latter coming by justification, the former by the condemnation of the subject. But according to the scheme of our author, there can be no opposition in any of these respects; the death here spoken of, neither comes as an evil, nor from an evil cause, either an evil efficient cause, or procuring cause; not at all as any testimony of God's displeasure to the subject, but as

properly the effect of God's favor, no less than that which is spoken of as coming by Christ; yea, and as much as to that appointed by an act of justification of the subject, as he understands and explains the word justification; for both are by a grant of favor, and are instances of mercy and goodness. And he does abundantly insist upon it, that " any grant of favor, any instance of mercy and goodness, whereby God delivers and exempts from any kind of danger, suffering or calamity, or confers any favor, blessing, or privilege, is called justification, in the scripture sense and use of the word."*

And over and above all these things, our author makes void, and destroys the grand and fundamental opposition of all, to illustrate which is the chief scope of this whole passage, viz. That between the first and second Adam, in the death that comes by one, and the life and happiness by the other. For, according to his doctrine, both come by Christ, the second Adam; both by his grace, righteousness, and obedience : The death that God sentenced mankind to in Gen. iii. 19, being a great deal more properly and truly by Christ, than by Adam. For, according to him, that sentence was not pronounced on the foot of the covenant with Adam, because that was abrogated, and entirely set aside, as what was to have no more effect, before it was pronounced; as he largely insists for many pages together, pages 113....119, S, He says, page 113, S. "This covenant with Adam was disannulled immediately after Adam sinned. Even before God passed sentence upon Adam, grace was introduced." And in p. 119, S. he says, "The death that mankind are the subjects of now, stands under the covenant of grace." And in p. 120, S. "In the counsel and appointment of God, it stood in this very light, even before the sentence of death was pronounced upon Adam; and consequently, death is no proper and legal pun

* Key, § 374, where it is to be observed, that he himself puts the word ANY in capital letters. The same thing in substance is often asserted elsewhere. And this, indeed, is his main point in what he calls "the true gospel scheme."

*

ishment of sin." And he often insists, that it comes only as a favor and benefit; and standing, as he says, under the cov enant of grace, which is by Christ, therefore is truly one of the benefits of the new covenant, which comes by Christ, the second Adam. For he himself is full in it, to use his own words, "That all the grace of the gospel is dispensed to us, in, by, or through the Son of God." "Nothing is clearer (says het) from the whole current of scripture, than that all the mercy and love of God, and all the blessings of the gospel, from first to last, are in, by, and through Christ, and particularly by his blood, by the redemption that is in him. This (says he) can bear no dispute among Christians." What then becomes of all this discourse of the apostle, about the great difference and opposition between Adam and Christ; as death is by one, and eternal life and happiness by the other? This grand distinction between the two Adams, and all the other instances of opposition and difference here insisted on, as between the effects of sin and righteousness, the consequences of obedience and disobedience, of the offence and the free gift, judgment and grace, condemnation and justification, they all come to nothing; and this whole discourse of the apostle, wherein he seems to labor much, as if it were to set forth some very grand and most important distinctions and oppositions in the state of things, as derived from the two great heads of mankind, proves nothing but a multitude of words without meaning, or rather an heap of inconsistencies.

V. Our author's own doctrine entirely makes void what he supposes to be the apostle's argument in the 13th and 14th verses, in these words: "For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgres sion.

What he supposes the apostle would prove here, is, hat death, or the mortality of mankind, comes only by Adam's

VOL. VI.

Key, chap. viii. Title, p. 44.
2X

+ Key, § 145