ors to convince them of the falseness of, in chapter ii. 12....16. And he has a manifest regard again to the same thing here, in the 12th, 13th, and 14th verses of chapter v. Which may lead us the more clearly to see the true sense of those verses; about the sense of which is the main controversy, and the meaning of which being determined, it will settle the meaning of every other controverted expression through the whole discourse.

Dr. Taylor misrepresents the apostle's argument in these verses. (Which as has been demonstrated, is in his sense altogether vain and impertinent.) He supposes, the thing which the apostle mainly intends to prove, is, that death or mortality does not come on mankind by personal sin; and that he would prove it by this medium, that death reigned when there was no law in being which threatened personal sin with death. It is acknowledged, that this is implied, even that death came into the world by Adam's sin: Yet this is not the main thing the apostle designs to prove. But his main point evidently is, that sin and guilt, and just exposedness to death and ruin, came into the world by Adam's sin; as righteousness, justification, and a title to eternal life come by Christ. Which point he confirms by this consideration, that from the very time when Adam sinned, these things, viz. sin, guilt, and desert of ruin, became universal in the world, long before the law given by Moses to the Jewish nation had any being.

The apostle's remark, that sin entered into the world by one man, who was the father of the whole human race, was an observation which afforded proper instruction for the Jews, who looked on themselves as an holy people, because they had the law of Moses, and were the children of Abraham, an holy father; while they looked on other nations as by nature unholy and sinners, because they were not Abraham's childdren. He leads them up to an higher ancestor than this patriarch, even to Adam, who being equally the father of Jews and Gentiles, both alike come from a sinful father; from whom guilt and pollution were derived alike to all mankind. And this the apostle proves by an argument, which of all that could possibly be invented, tended the most briefly and direct

ly to convince the Jews; even by this reflection, that death had come equally on all mankind from Adam's time, and that the posterity of Abraham were equally subject to it with the rest of the world. This was apparent in fact, a thing they all knew. And the Jews had always been taught that death (which began in the destruction of the body, and of this present life) was the proper punishment of sin. This they were taught in Moses' history of Adam, and God's first threatening of punishment for sin, and by the constant doctrine of the law and the prophets, as has been already observed.

And the apostle's observation, that sin was in the world long before the law was given, and was as universal in the world from the times of Adam, as it had been among the Heathen since the law of Moses, this shewed plainly that the Jews were quite mistaken in their notion of their particu lar law, and that the law which is the original and universal rule of righteousness and judgment for all mankind, was another law, of far more ancient date, even the law of nature, which began as early as the human nature began, and was established with the first father of mankind, and in him with the whole race : The positive precept of abstaining from the forbidden fruit, being given for the trial of his compliance with this law of nature; of which the main rule is supreme regard to God and his will. And the apostle proves that it must be thus, because, if the law of Moses had been the highest rule of judgment, and if there had not been a superior, prior, divine rule established, mankind in general would not have been judged and condemned as sinners, before that was given, (for "sin is not imputed, when there is no law") as it is apparent in fact they were, because death reigned before that time, even from the times of Adam.

It may be observed, the apostle in this epistle, and that to the Galatians, endeavors to convince the Jews of these two things, in opposition to the notions and prejudices they had entertained concerning their law. 1. That it never was intended to be the covenant, or method by which they should actually be justified. 2. That it was not the highest and uni

versal rule or law, by which mankind in general, and particu ́larly the Heathen world, were condemned. And he proves both by similar arguments. He proves that the law of Moses was not the covenant, by which any of mankind were to obtain justification, because that covenant was of older date, being expressly established in the time of Abraham, and Abraham himself was justified by it. This argument the apostle particularly handles in the 3d chapter of Galatians, especially in verses 17, 18, 19. And this argument is also made use of in the apostle's reasonings in the 4th chapter of this epistle to the Romans, especially verses 13, 14, 15. He proves also that the law of Moses was not the prime rule of judgment, by which mankind in general, and particularly the Heathen world, were condemned. And this he proves also the same way, viz. by shewing this to be of older date than that law, and that it was established with Adam. Now these things. tended to lead the Jews to right notions of their law, not as the intended method of justification, nor as the original and universal rule of condemnation, but something superadded to both, both being of older date, superadded to the latter, to il lustrate and confirm it, that the offence might abound; and superadded to the former, to be as a schoolmaster, to prepare men for the benefits of it, and to magnify divine grace in it, that this might much more abound.

The chief occasion of the obscurity and difficulty which seems to attend the scope and connexion of the various clauses in the three first verses of this discourse, particularly the 13th and 14th verses, is, that there are two things (although things closely connected) which the apostle has in his eye at once, in which he aims to enlighten them he writes to; which will not be thought at all strange by them that have been conversant with, and have attended to this apostle's writings. He would illustrate the grand point he had been upon from the beginning, even justification through Christ's righteousness alone, by shewing how we are originally in a sinful, miserable state, and how we derive this sin and misery from Adam, and how we are delivered and justified by Christ as a second Adam. At the same time he would confute those foolish

and corrupt notions of the Jews, about their nation and their law, that were very inconsistent with these doctrines. And he here endeavors to establish, at once, these two things in opposition to those Jewish notions.

1. That it is our natural relation to Adam, and not to Abraham, which determines our native, moral state; and that therefore the being natural children of Abraham, will not make us by nature holy in the sight of God, since we are the natural seed of sinful Adam; nor does the Gentiles being not descended from Abraham, denominate them sinners, any more than the Jews, seeing both alike are descended from Adam.

2. That the law of Moses is not the prime and general law and rule of judgment for mankind, to condemn them, and denominate them sinners; but that the state they are in with regard to a higher, more ancient and universal law, deter mines mankind in general to be sinners in the sight of God, and liable to be condemned as such. Which observation is, in many respects, to the apostle's purpose; particularly in this respect, that if the Jews were convinced, that the law, which was the prime rule of condemnation, was given to all, was common to all mankind, and that all fell under condem nation through the violation of that law by the common father of all, both Jews and Gentiles, then they would be led more easily and naturally to believe, that the method of justification which God had established, also extended equally to all mankind; and that the Messiah, by whom we have this justification, is appointed, as Adam was, for a common head to all, both Jews and Gentiles.

The apostle's aiming to confute the Jewish notion, is the principal occasion of those words in the 13th verse : « For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed, when there is no law."

As to the import of that expression, "Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression," not only is the thing signified by it, in Dr. Taylor's sense of it, not true; or if it had been true, would have been impertinent, as has been shewn; but his interpre

tation is, otherwise, very much strained and unnatural. According to him, by "sinning after the similitude of Adam's transgression," is not meant any similitude of the act of sinning, nor of the command sinned against, nor properly any circumstance of the sin; but only the similitude of a circumstance of the command, viz. the threatening it is attended with. A far fetched thing, to be called a similitude of sinning! Besides this expression in such a meaning, is only a needless, impertinent, and awkward repeating over again the same thing, which it is supposed the apostle had observed in the foregoing verse, even after he had left it, and had proceeded another step in the series of his discourse, or chain of arguing. As thus, in the foregoing verse the apostle had plainly laid down. his argument, (as our author understands it) by which he would prove, death did not come by personal sin, viz. that death reigned before any law, threatening death for personal sin, was in being; so that the sin then committed was against no law, threatening death for personal sin. Having laid this down, the apostle leaves this part of his argument, and proceeds another step, Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses; and then returns, in a strange, unnatural manner, and repeats that argument or assertion again, but only more obscurely than before, in these words, Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, i. e. over them that had not sinned against a law threatening death for personal sin. Which is just the same thing as if the apostle had said, "They that sinned before the law, did not sin against a law threatening death for personal sin; for there was no such law for any to sin against at that time: Nevertheless death reigned at that time, even over such as did not sin against a law threatening death for personal sin.” Which latter clause adds nothing to the premises, and tends nothing to illustrate what was said before, but rather to obscure and darken it. The particle xa, even, when prefixed in this manner used to signify something additional, some advance in the sense or argument; implying that the words following express something more, or express the same thing more fully, plainly, or forcibly. But to unite two clauses by such a par