grand flaw lies in the very first link of the chain. You have not yet proved, that "death throughout this passage means only the death of the body."

This flaw is not amended by your observing, that St. Paul was a Jew, and wrote to Jews as well as Gentiles: that he often uses Hebrew idioms and that "the Hebrew word which signifies to be a sinner, in Hiphil, signifies to condemn, or make, (i. e. declare) a man a sinner by a judicial sentence: that you can (by the help of your concordance) produce fifteen Hebrew texts in which the word is so taken!" (p. 31, 32.) For if it would follow from hence, That by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation,' is just equivalent with, by one man's disobedience many were made sinners: still this does not prove, that the death in question is noother than temporal death.

But indeed it does not follow, that two expressions are just equivalent, because one Hebrew word may contain them both nor can it therefore be inferred from hence, that many were made sinners is just equivalent with judgment came upon all men to condemnation. Rather the former expression answers to all have sinned, the latter to death passed upon all men. Sin is the cause of their condemnation, and not

the same thing with it.

You go on. "Besides all this, it is here expressly affirmed, that the many are made sinners by the disobedience of another man." It is expressly affirmed; and by an inspired apostle. Therefore I firmly believe it. "But they can be made sinners by the disobedience of another in no other sense than as they are sufferers." How is this proved? We grant, the Hebrew words for sin and iniquity, are often used to signify suffering. But this does not prove, that the phrase 'were made sinners,' signifies only, they were made sufferers.

"So Christ was made sin for us." (p. 35.) No: not so: but as he was made an offering for sin. "He suffered on account of the sins of men, and so he was made sin :" yes, a sin-offering. But it is never said, he was made a sinner: therefore the expressions are not parallel. But he need not have been made sin at all, if we had not been made sinners by Adam. "And men suffer on account of Adam's sin, and so they are made sinners." Are they made sinners so only? That remains to be proved.

"It seems then confirmed beyond all doubt, That by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,' meaneth only, by Adam's sin, the many, that is, all mankind were made subject to death.'' He that will believe it, (taking death in the common sense,) may. But you have not confirmed it by one sound argument.

11. You affirm, IV. "The Apostle draws a comparison between Adam and Christ, between what Adam did, with the consequences of it, and what Christ did, with the consequences of that. And this comparison is the main thing he has in view." (p. 36.)

6

This is true. "The comparison begins at the 12th verse. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.' There he stops awhile, and brings an argument to prove,

That death came on mankind through Adam's transgression." (p. 37, 38.) He does so but not before he had finished his sentence, which literally runs thus: As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, even so death passed upon all men, in that all had sinned.' The comparison, therefore, between Adam and Christ, begins not at the 12th, but the 14th verse. Of this you seem sensible yourself; when you say, "Adam is the pattern of him that was to come. Here a new thought starts into the Apostle's mind." (p. 39.) For it was not a new thought, starting into his mind here, if it was the same which he began to express at the 12th verse.

You proceed, "The extent of the free-gift in Christ answers to the extent of the consequences of Adam's sin; nay, abounds far beyond them. This he incidentally handles, (ver. 15, 16, 17.) and then resumes his main design, (ver. 18, 19,) half of which he had executed in the 12th verse." Not one jot of it. That verse is a complete sentence, not half of one only. And the particle therefore prefixed to the 18th verse, shows that the discourse goes straight forward and that this, as well as the 19th verse, are closely connected with the 17th.

Allowing then, "That the Apostle draws a comparison between the disobedience of Adam, by which all men are brought under condemnation, and the obedience of Christ, by which all men are, (in some sense,) justified unto life;" (p. 40.) still it does not appear, either that this condemnation means no more than the death of the body, or that this justification means no more than the resurrection of the body.

12. You affirm, V. "The whole of the apostle's argument stands upon these two principles, that by the offence of one death passed upon all men; and by the obedience of one, all are justified."

This is allowed. But I cannot allow your interpretation of sin is not imputed, when there is no law, or (as you would oddly, and contrary to all precedent, translate it, where law is not in being.) "The sins of mankind," say you, "were not imputed, were not taxed with the forfeiture of life, because the law which subjects the transgressor to death, was not then in being. For it was abrogated upon Adam's transgression, and was not again in force till revived by Moses." (p. 41.) On this I would ask, 1. Where is it written, that "the law which subjected the transgressor to death, was abrogated by Adam's transgression?" I want a clear text for this. 2. Suppose it was, how does it appear, that it was not again in force till revived by Moses? 3. Did not that law, whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed,' "subject the transgressor to death?" And was it "not in force" after Adam's transgression and before Moses? 4. What do you mean by that ambiguous expression, "Were not taxed with the forfeiture of life?" Your argument requires that it should mean, " Were not punished or punishable with death." But is this true? Were not the sins of the men of Sodom, and indeed the whole antediluvian world, punished with

death, during that period? 5. Was not every wilful, impenitent transgressor, during this whole time, subject to death everlasting?

Neither can I allow that unnatural interpretation of them who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression' "had not sinned against law, making death the penalty of their sin, as Adam did." (p. 42.) Do not the words obviously mean, "Had not sinned by any actual sin, as Adam did?”

Nay, "the Sodomites and Antediluvians are no objection to this." That is strange indeed! But how so? "Because extraordinary interpositions come under no rule, but the will of God." What is that to the purpose? Their sins are actually punished with death, "during that space, wherein" you say "mankind were not subject to death for their transgressions." They were subject to death for their transgressions, as God demonstrated by those extraordinary interpositions.

You add, "That law, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed,' makes death the penalty of murder." (p. 43.) It does, and thereby overthrows your whole assertion. "No, for, 1. It was not enacted till the year of the world 1657." Well, and if it had been enacted only the year before Moses was born, it would still have destroyed your argument. But, 2. "It is given as a rule for magistrates in executing justice, and not as a declaration of the penalty of sin to be inflicted by God himself." What then? What does it matter, whether the penalty annexed by God, were inflicted by God or man? However, I suppose, this punishment on the Antediluvians, and on Sodom and Gomorrah, was "inflicted by God himself." But, 3. "None of these were made mortal by those sins." Certainly, infallibly true! And yet the case of any of these abundantly proves, that the law was in force from Adam to Moses, even according to your own definition of it, "a rule of duty, with the penalty of death annexed, as due to the transgressor from God." 13. You affirm, VI. "The consequences of Adam's sin, answer those of Christ's obedience; but not exactly, Not as the offence, so is the free-gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, MUCH MORE the grace (or favour) of God and the gift (the benefits that are) by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, hath ABOUNDED unto many.' ver. 15. (p. 43, 44.) That is, he hath in Christ bestowed benefits upon mankind, far exceeding the consequences of Adam's sin; in erecting a new dispensation, furnished with a glorious fund of light and truth, means and motives." This is true but how small a part of the truth? What a poor, low account of the Christian dispensation?

You go on. (ver. 16.) Not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one offence to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification:" "That is, The grace of God in Christ discharges mankind from the consequences of Adam's one offence." Does it entirely discharge them from these consequences? From sorrow, and labour, and death? Which you affirmed, awhile ago, to be the only consequences of it that affect

his posterity. It also sets them quite to rights with God, both as to a conformity to the law and eternal life."

Is not this allowing too much: is it well consistent with what you said before? In the 19th verse the apostle concludes the whole argument: As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.'" (p. 29, &c.) Were made sinners you aver means only, were made mortal. If so, the counterpart, made righteous, can only mean, made immortal. And that you thought so then, appears from your citing as a parallel text, In Christ shail ail be made alive:' which you had before asserted to mean only, shall be raised from the dead.

14. "Hence it followeth, 1. That the ABOUNDING of God's grace, and the blessings by that grace, doth not respect the consequences of Adam's sin, hath no reference to his transgression, but to the grace of God and the obedience of Christ." (p. 45.) "The ABOundING of God's grace," you inform us, "has reference to the grace of God." Most sure. But this does not prove, that it has no reference to the consequences of Adam's sin. If we gain more blessings by Christ than we lost by Adam, it is doubtless abounding grace. But still it has a reference to Adam's transgression, and the consequences of it. It is over these that it abounds. Therefore it has. a manifest respect to them.

"It followeth, secondly, That in the 18th and 19th verses the apostle considers the effects of Christ's obedience only so far as they answer to and reverse the consequences of Adam's disobedience; the additional benefits flowing therefrom having been mentioned apart in the 15th, 16th, and 17th verses." (p. 47.) In those verses the apostle does undoubtedly show, how the blessing by Christ abounded over the curse by Adam. But what then? How does this prove, that the 18th and 19th verses do not respect all the benefits mentioned before? Without question they do: they are a general conclusion, not from one, but all the preceding verses.

For

"Again observe, That the justification to life is such a justification as comes upon all men." (p. 47%) It may in some sense. But does it in fact? According to your sense of it, it comes upon none. if it means, "The discharging men from the consequences of Adam's sin; and if the only consequences of that sin are sorrow, labour and death," it is manifest no man upon earth is justified to this day.

"

But you go on. "As justification to life comes upon all men.' No: not in the proper, scriptural, sense of justification. That term is never once in the Bible used for the resurrection, no more than for heaven or hell.

It may be proper here once for all to observe, that what St. Paul says of abounding grace is simply this, 1. The condemnation came by one offence only: the acquittal is from many offences: 2. They who receive this shall enjoy a far higher blessing by Christ than they lost by Adam. In both these respects the consequences of Christ's death abound over the consequences of Adam's sin. And this whole

blessing by Christ is termed in the 18th verse justification, in the 19th being made righteous.

"Further, The phrase, being made righteous, as well as being made sinners, is a Hebrew way of speaking." (p. 49.) I do not allow that. Both the phrases καθιςασθαι δικαίοι, Οι αμαρτωλοί, are pure and good Greek. That, therefore, there is any Hebraism at all in these expressions, cannot be admitted without proof. If then the same Hebrew word does signify to make righteous, and to acquit in judgment; it does not follow, that the Greek word, here translated, made righteous, means only being acquitted. You yourself say the contrary. You but now defined this very gift, "The benefits that are by grace." (p. 44.) And in explaining those very words, The free gift is of many offences unto justification,' affirmed, that is, "The grace of God in Christ, not only discharges mankind from the consequences of Adam's sin, but also sets them quite to rights with God, both as to a conformity to the law, and as to eternal life." And is this no more than "acquitting them in judgment?" Or "reversing the sentence of condemnation ?"

Through this whole passage it may be observed, that the gift, the free gift, the gift by grace mean one and the same thing, even the whole benefit given by the abounding grace of God, through the obedience of Christ: abounding both with regard to the fountain itself, and streams: abundant grace producing abundant blessings.

If then these verses are "evidently parallel to those, 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22," it follows even hence, that dying and being made alive, in the latter passage, do not refer to the body only: but that dying implies, all the evils, temporal and spiritual, which are derived from Adam's sin; and being made alive, all the blessings which are derived from Christ, in time and in eternity.

Whereas, therefore, you add, "It is now evident surely beyond all doubt, (strong expressions!) that the consequences of Adam's sin here spoken of, are no other than the death which comes upon all men" (p. 50.) I must beg leave to reply, It is not evident at all; nay, it is tolerably evident on the contrary, that this death implies all manner of evils, to which either the body or soul is liable.

15. You next re-consider the 12th verse, which you understand thus: "Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,' namely, in Adam. All have sinned,' that is, are subjected to death through that one offence of his." (p. 51.)

You said before, "Death passed upon all men,' means, all were by a judicial sentence made subject to death." And here you say, "All have sinned,' means, all have been subjected to death." Sa the apostle asserts, "All were subjected to sin, because all were subjected to death." Not so. Sin is one thing, death another; and the former is here assigned as the cause of the latter.

Although the criticism on w, (p. 52.) is liable to much exception, yet I leave that and the Hebrew citations as they stand: because, though they may cause many readers to admire your learning, yet they are not to the point.