in this argument, viz. That there was no law of God in being, by which men were exposed to death for personal sin, during the time from Adam to Moses, is neither true, nor agreeable to this apostle's own doctrine.

First, The assertion is not true. For the law of nature, written in men's hearts, was then in being, and was a law by which men were exposed to death for personal sin. That there was a divine establishment, fixing the death and destruction of the sinner as the consequence of personal sin, which was well known before the giving of the law by Moses, is plain by many passages in the book of Job, as fully and clearly implying a connection between such sin and such a punishment, as any passage in the law of Moses: Such as that in Job xxiv. 19. Drought and heat consume the snow-waters; so doth the grave them that have sinned." (Compare ver. 20 and 24.) Also chap. xxxvi. 6. "He preserveth not the life of the wicked. Chap. xxi. 29-32. Have ye not asked them that go by the way? and do ye not know their tokens? That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction; they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath. Ver. 32. Ver. 32. He shall be brought to

66

the grave.

Secondly, To suppose that there is no law in being by which men are exposed to death for personal sins, when a revealed law of God is not in being, is contrary to our apostle's own doctrine in this epistle. Rom. ii. 12, 14, 15. For as many as have sinned without law, (i. e. the revealed law) shall perish without law. But how they can be exposed to die and perish, who have not the law of Moses, nor any revealed law, the apostle shews us in the 14th and 15th verses; viz. In that they have the law of nature, by which they fall under sentence to this punishment. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law to themselves; which shew the work of the law written in their hearts; their conscience also bearing witness." Their conscience not only bore witness to the duty prescribed by this law, but also to the punishment before spoken of, as that which they who sinned without law were liable to suffer, viz. that they should perish. In which the apostle is yet more express, chap. i. 32. speaking more especially of the heathen, "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death." Dr. T. often calls the law the rule of right; and this rule of right sentenced those sinners to death who who were not under the law of Moses, according to this author's own paraphrase of this verse,

* See also Job iv. 7, 8, 9. Chap. xv. 17-35. Chap. xviii. 5-21. xix. 29. and XX. 4-8. and ver. 23-29. Chap. xxi. 16.-18. 20-26. xxii. 13-20. and xxvii. 11. to the end. Chap. xxxi. 3, 23. xxxiii. 18, 22, 23, 24, 28, 30. xxxiv. 11. 2126. xxxvii. 12, 18, 19, 20. and xxxviii. 13.

in these words, "The heathen were not ignorant of the rule of right, which God has implanted in the human nature; and which shews that they which commit such crimes are deserving of death.” And he himself supposes Abraham, who lived between Adam and Moses, to be under law, by which he would have been exposed to punishment without hope, were it not for the promise of grace.-(Paraph. on Rom. iv. 15.)

So that in our author's way of explaining the passage before us, the grand argument which the apostle insists upon here to prove his main point, viz. that death does not come by men's personal sins, but by Adam's sin, because it came before the law was given that threatened death for personal sin; I say, this argument which Dr. T. supposes so clear and strong,* is brought to nothing more than a mere shadow without substance; the very foundation of the argument having no truth. To say there was no such law actually expressed 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 wicked men that lived in Noah's time were exposed to, as appears by 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20. and which Dr T. 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 punishment. It may here be properly observed, that our author supposes 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 bringing death on men for their personal sins, for which their own consciences tell them they deserve death without a revealed law?

2. If 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's law would have been wholly impertinent, and of no signification in the argument, according to our author. He supposes that what the apostle would prove is, † Page 77, 78. + Page 68.

* Page 117, S.

that temporal death 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 himself supposes, that the law of Moses, when it was in being, 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 nature widely different from the death we now die ;* as was also observed before.

How impertinently therefore does Dr. T. 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's 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. T. 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.t 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. T.'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, agreeable to our author's supposition, not as a punishment, nor as a calamity, but only as a favour, what necessity of any settled constitution, or revealed sentence, in order to bestow such a favour, more than other favours; and particularly more than that great benefit, which he said entered into the world by the sin of the Antediluvians, the shortening men's lives so much after the flood? Thus the apostle's arguing, by Dr. T.'s explanation of it, is turned into mere trifling, a vain and impertinent use of words, without any real force or significance.

VI. The apostle here speaks of that great benefit which we have by Christ, as the antitype of Adam, under the notion

*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.

of a fruit of GRACE. I do not mean only that super-abounding 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—18, 20, 21.) which 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 favour of the lawgiver.* And speaking of this restoration, be breaks out in admiration of the unspeakable riches of this grace.t

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. T. 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 such shocking ruin, them who 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 deliverence and life through Christ, as by grace, and the free gift of God. Whereas, on the contrary, by Dr. T.'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 basis of a covenant of grace: But in the deliverence 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.

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. § Page 148.

VII. Dr. T. 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 who are perfectly innocent-and viewed by the judge, even in passing the condemnatory sentence, as having no guilt of sin, or any 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 threatening death, that he or any one else ever pretended to have been established, but only this, In the day 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 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 a condemnation to a great favour!

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, in this epistle to the Romans often speaks of condemnation, using the same or similar terms and phrases as here, but never in the abovesaid sense.* This will be plain to every one who casts his eye on those places. And if we look into the former part of this chapter, the apostle's discourse makes it evident, that he is speaking of a condemnation, which is no testimony of favour to the innocent; but of God's displeasure towards those to whom he is not reconciled, but looks on as offenders and enemies, and holds as the objects of his wrath, from which we are delivered by Christ. (See ver. 6-11.)

And even viewing this discourse itself, in the very paragraph we are upon, if we may judge any thing by language, there is every thing to lead us to suppose, that the apostle uses words here, as he does elsewhere, properly, and as implying a supposition of sin, chargeable on the subject, and

* See 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.