erly rendered, it is, I expiated it; the verb in Pihel properly signifying to expiate; and the plain meaning is, I bore the blame of it, and was obliged to pay for it, as being supposed to be lost through my fault or neglect: Which is a quite different thing from suffering without any supposition of fault. And as to the latter place, where the lepers say, "This day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace: If we tarry till morning some mischief will befal us:" In the Hebrew it is Umetzaanu gnavon, “Iniquity will find us," that is, some punishment of our fault will come upon us. Elsewhere such phrases are used, as, Your iniquity will find you out, and the like. But certainly this is a different thing from suffering without fault, or supposition of fault. And it does not appear, that the verb in Hiphil, hirshiang, is ever put for condemn, in any other sense than condemning for sin, or guilt, or suppos ed guilt belonging to the subject condemned. This word is used in the participle of Hiphil, to signify condemning, in Prov. xvii. 15. "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even both are an abomination to the Lord." This Dr. Taylor observes, as if it were to his purpose, when he is endeavoring to shew, that in this place, in the 5th of Romans, the apostle speaks of God himself as con demning the just, or perfectly innocent, in a parallel significa tion of terms. Nor is any instance produced, wherein the verb, sin, which is used by the apostle when he says, All have sinned, is any where used in our author's sense, for being. brought into a state of suffering, and that not as a punishment for sin, or as any thing arising from God's displeasure; much less for being the subject of what comes only as the fruit of divine love, and as a benefit of the highest nature. Nor can any thing like this sense of the verb be found in the whole Bible.

2. If there had been any thing like such an use of the words, sin and sinner, as our author supposes, in the Old Testament, it is evident that such an use of them is quite alien from the language of the New Testament. Where can

sense

an instance be produced of any thing like it, in any one place, besides what is pretended in this? And particularly, where else shall we find these words and phrases used in such a sense in any of this apostle's writings? We have enough of his writings, by which to learn his language and way of speaking about sin, condemnation, punishment, death, and suffering. He wrote much more of the New Testament than any other person. He very often has occasion to speak of condemnation, but where does he express it by being made sinners? Especially how far is he elsewhere from using such a phrase, to signify a being condemned without guilt, or any imputation or supposition of guilt? Vastly more still is it remote from his language, so to use the verb sin, and to say, man sinneth, or has sinned, though hereby meaning nothing more nor less, than that he, by a judicial act, is condemned, on the foot of a dispensation of grace, to receive a great favor! He abundantly uses the words sin and sinner; his writings are full of such terms; but where else does he use them in such a ? He has much occasion in his epistles to speak of death, temporal and eternal; he has much occasion to speak of suffering, of all kinds, in this world, and the world to come; but where does he call these things sin, and denominate innocent men sinners, or say, they have sinned, meaning that they are brought into a state of suffering? If the apostle, because he was a Jew, was so addicted to the Hebrew idiom, as thus in one paragraph to repeat this particular Hebraism, which, at most, is comparatively rare even in the Old Testament, it is strange that never any thing like it should appear any where else in his writings; and especially that he should never fall into such a way of speaking in his epistle to the Hebrews, written to Jews only, who were most used to the Hebrew idiom. And why does Christ never use such language in any of his speeches, though he was born and brought up amongst the Jews, and delivered almost all his speeches only to Jews? And why do none of the rest of the writers of the New Testament ever use it, who were all born and educated Jews, (at least all excepting Luke) and some of them wrote especially for the benefit of the Jews?

It is worthy to be observed, what liberty is taken, and boldmess used with this apostle ; such words as αμαρτωλώ, αμαρτάνω, κρίμα, κατακριμα, δικαιον, δικαίωσις, and words of the same root and signification, are words abundantly used by him elsewhere in this and other epistles, and also when speaking, as he is here, of Christ's redemption and atonement, and of the general sinfulness of mankind, and of the condemnation of sinners, and of justification by Christ, and of death as the consequence of sin, and of life and restoration to life by Christ, as here; yet no where are any of these words used, but in a sense very remote from what is supposed here. However in this place, these terms must have a distinguished, singular sense found out for them, and annexed to them! A new language must be coined for the apostle, which he is evidently quite unused to, and put into his mouth on this occasion, for the sake of evading this clear, precise, and abundant testimony of his, to the doctrine of Original Sin.

3. The putting such a sense on the word sin, in this place, is not only to make the apostle greatly to disagree with himself in the language he uses every where else, but also to disagree with himself no less in the language he uses in this very passage. He often here uses the word sin, and other words plainly of the same design and import, such as transgression, disobedience, offence. Nothing can be more evident, than that these are here used as several names of the same thing; for they are used interchangeably, and put one for another, as will be manifest only on the cast of an eye on the place. And these words are used no less than seventeen times in this one paragraph. Perhaps we shall find no place in the whole Bible, in which the word sin, and other words synonymous, are used so often in so little compass; and in all the instances, in the proper sense, as signifying moral evil, and even so understood by Dr. Taylor himself (as appears by his own exposition) but only in these two places; where in the midst of all, to evade a clear evidence of the doctrine of Original Sin, another meaning must be found out, and it must be supposed that the apostle uses the

word in a sense entirely different, signifying something that neither implies nor supposes any moral evil at all in the subject.

Here it is very remarkable, the gentleman who so greatly insisted upon it, that the word death must needs be understood in the same sense throughout this paragraph; yea, that it is evidently, clearly, and infallibly so, inasmuch as the apostle is still discoursing on the same subject; yet can, without the least difficulty, suppose the word sin, to be used so differently in the very same passage, wherein the apostle is discoursing on the same thing. Let us take that one instance in verse 12. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Here by sin, implied in the word sinned, in the end of the sentence, our author understands something perfectly and altogether diverse from what is meant by the word sin, not only in the same discourse on the same subject, but twice in the former part of the very same sentence, of which this latter part is not only the conclusion, but the explication; and also entirely different from the use of the word twice in the next sentence, wherein the apostle is still most plainly discoursing on the same subject, as is not denied: And in the next sentence to that (verse 14) the apostle uses the very same verb sinned, and as signifying the committing of moral evil, as our author himself understands it. Afterwards (verse 19) the apostle uses the word sinners, which our author supposes to be in somewhat of a different sense still. So that here is the utmost violence of the kind that can be conceived of, to make out a scheme against the plainest evidence, in changing the meaning of a word backward and forward, in one paragraph, all about one thing, and in different parts of the same sentences, coming over and over in quick repetitions, with a variety of other synonymous words to fix its signification; besides the continued use of the word in the former part of this chapter, and in all the preceding part of this epistle, and the continu ed use of it in the next chapter, and in the next to that,and the 8th chapter following that, and to the end of the epistle;

in none of which places it is pretended, but that the word is used in the proper sense, by our author in his paraphrase and notes on the whole epistle.*

But indeed we need go no further than that one, verse 12. What the apostle means by sin, in the latter part of the verse, is evident with the utmost plainness, by comparing it with the former part; one part answering to another, and the last clause exegetical of the former. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that (or, unto which) all have sinned." Here sin and death are spoken of in the former part, and sin and death are spoken of in the latter part; the two parts of the sentence so answering one another, that the same things are apparently meant by sin and death in both parts.

And besides, to interpret sinning, here, of falling under the suffering of death, is yet the more violent and unreasonable, because the apostle in this very place does once and again distinguish between sin and death; plainly speaking of one as the effect, and the other the cause. So in the 21st verse, "That as sin hath reigned unto death;" and in the 12th verse, "Sin entered into the world, and death by sin." And this plain distinction holds through all the discourse, as between death and the offence, ver. 15, and ver. 17, and between the offence and condemnation, ver. 18.

4. Though we should omit the consideration of the manner in which the apostle uses the words, sin, sinned, &c. in

* Agreeably to this manner, our author, in explaining the 7th chapter of Romans, understands the pronoun 1, or me, used by the apostle in that one continued discourse, in no less than six different senses. He takes it in the 1st verse to signify the Apostle Paul himself. In the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th verses, for the people of the Jews, through all ages, both before and after Moses, especially the carnal, ungodly part of them. In the 13th verse for an objecting Jew, entering into a dialogue with the apostle. In the 15th, 16th, 17th, 20th, and latter part of the 25th verse, it is understood in two different senses, for two 's in the same person; one, a man's reason; and the other, his passions and carnal appetites. And in the 7th and former part of the last verse, for us Christians in general; or, for all that enjoy the word of God, the law and the gospel: And these different senses, the most of them strange. ly intermixed and interchanged backwards and forwards.