תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

to twist, rack, perplex, and pervert the words and phrases here used.

Dr. T. here again insists, that the apostle speaks only of the gentiles in their heathen state, when he speaks of those that were dead in sin, and by nature children of wrath; and that though he seems to include himself among those, saying, WE were by nature children of wrath, we were dead in sins; yet he only puts himself among them because he was the apostle of the Gentiles. The gross absurdity of this may appear from what was said before. But besides the things which have been already observed, there are some things which make it peculiarly unreasonable to understand it so here. It is true, the greater part of the church of Ephesus had been heathens, and therefore the apostle often has reference to their heathen state, in this epistle. But the words in this chap. ii. 3. plainly shew, that he means himself and other Jews in distinction from the Gentiles; for the distinction is fully expressed. After he had told the Ephesians, who had been generally heathen, that they had been dead in sin, and had walked according to the course of this world, &c. (ver. 1 and 2,) he makes a distinction, and says, " among whom we also had our conversation," &c. "and were by nature children of wrath, even as others." Here first he changes the person; whereas before he had spoken in the second person, "ye were dead-ye in time past walked," &c. now he changes style, and uses the first person in a most manifest distinction, among whom WE ALSO, that is, we Jews, as well as ye Gentiles: not only changing the person, but adding a particle of distinction also; which would be nonsense, if he meant the same without distinction. And besides all this, more fully to express the distinction the apostle further adds a pronoun of distinction; we also, even as others," or we as well as others: Most evidently having respect to the notion so generally entertained by the Jews, of their being much better than the Gentiles, in being Jews by nature, children of Abraham, and children of God; when they supposed the Gentiles to be utterly cast off, as born aliens, and by nature children of wrath: In opposition to this, the apostle says, 'We Jews, after all our glorying in our distinction, were by nature children of wrath, as well as the rest of the world.' And a yet further evidence that the apostle here means to include the Jews, and even himself, is the universal term he uses, Among whom also we ALL had our conversation, &c. Though wickedness was supposed by the Jews to be the course of this world, as to the generality of mankind, yet they supposed themselves an exempt people, at least the Pharisees, and the devout observers of the law of Moses and traditions of the el- . ders; whatever might be thought of publicans and harlots. But in opposition to this, the apostle asserts that they all were

66

no etter by nature than others, but were to be reckoned among the children of disobedience, and children of wrath.

Besides, if the apostle chooses to put himself among the Gentiles, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, I would ask, why does he not do so in the 11th verse of the same chapter, where he speaks of the gentile state expressly? Remember that YE being in time past Gentiles in the flesh. Why does he here make a distinction between the Gentiles and himself? Why did he not say, Let us remember, that we being in time past Gentiles? And why does the same apostle, even universally, make the same distinction, speaking either in the second or third person, and never in the first, where he expressly speaks of the gentilism of those to whom he wrote, or of whom he speaks, with reference to their distinction from the Jews? So every where in this same epistle; as in chap. i. 12, 13. where the distinction is made just in the same manner as here, by the change of the person, and by the distinguishing particle also: That we should be to the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ, (the first believers in Christ being of the Jews, before the Gentiles were called) in whom YE ALSO trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. And in all the following part of this second chapter, as ver. 11, 17, 19, and 22. in which last verse the same distinguishing particle again is used; In whom YE ALSO are builded together for an habitation of God through the spirit.*

Though I am far from thinking our author's exposition of the viith chap. of Romans to be in any wise agreeable to the true sense of the apostle, yet it is needless here to stand particularly to examine it; because the doctrine of original sin may be argued not the less strongly, though we should allow the thing wherein he mainly differs from such as he opposes in his interpretation, viz. That the apostle does not speak in his own name, or to represent the state of a true Christian, but as representing the state of the Jews under the law. For even on this supposition, the drift of the place will prove, that every one who is under the law, and with equal reason every one of mankind, is carnal, sold under sin, in his first state, and till delivered by Christ. For it is plain, that the apostle's design is to shew the insufficiency of the law to give life to any one whatsoever. This appears by what he says when he comes to draw his conclusion, in the continuation of this discourse; chap. viii. 3. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through

*See also the following chapters, chap. iii. 6. and iv. 17. And not only in this epistle, but constantly in other epistles; as Rom. i. 12, 13, chap. xi. 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31. chap. xv. 15, 16. 1 Cor. xii. 2 Gal. iv. 8. Col. i. 27. chap. ii. 13. 1 Thess. i. 5, 6, 9. chap. ii 13, 14, 15, 16.

Dr. T. himself reckons this a part of the same discourse or paragraph, in the division he makes of the epistle, in his paraphrase, and notes upon it.

the flesh: God sending his own son, &c. Our author supposes what is here spoken of, viz. "that the law cannot give life because it is weak through the flesh," is true with respect to every one of mankind*. And when the apostle gives this reason, in that it is weak through the flesh, it is plain that by the flesh, which here he opposes to the spirit, he means the same thing which in the preceding part of the same discourse, in the foregoing chapter, he had called by the name flesh, ver. 5, 14, 18. and the law of the members, ver. 23. and the body of death, ver. 24. This is what, through this chapter, he insists on as the grand hindrance why the law could not give life; just as he does in his conclusion, chap viii. 3. Which, in his last place is given as a reason why the law cannot give life to any of mankind. And it being the same reason of the same thing, spoken of in the same discourse, in the former part of it-this last place being the conclusion, of which that former part is the premisesand inasmuch as the reason there given is being in the flesh, and being carnal, sold under sin: Therefore, taking the whole of the apostle's discourse, this is justly understood to be a reason why the law cannot give life to any of mankind; and consequently, that all mankind are in the flesh and are carnal, sold under sin, and so remain till delivered by Christ: And consequently, all mankind in their first original state are very sinful: which was the thing to be proved.

CHAP. IV.

Containing Observations on Rom. v. 12. to the End.

SECT. I.

Remarks on Dr. T.'s way of explaining this Text.

The following things are worthy of notice, concerning our author's exposition of this remarkable passage.

I. He greatly insists, that by death in this place no more is meant, than that death which we all die, when this present life is extinguished and the body returns to the dust. That no more is meant in the 12, 14, 15, and 17th verses (P. 27.) he declares as evidently, clearly, and infallibly so, because the apostle is still discoursing on the same subject; plainly implying, that infallibly the apostle means no more by death, throughout this paragraph on the subject. But as infallible as this is, if we

*See note on Rom. v. 20.

believe what Dr. T. says elsewhere, it must needs be otherwise : for, (p. 120. S.) speaking of those words in Rom. vi. 23. The wages of sin is DEATH, but the gift of God is ETERNAL LIFE, through Jesus Christ our Lord, he says, "Death in this place is widely different from the death we now die; as it stands there opposed to eternal life, which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ, it manifestly signifies eternal death, the second death, or that death which they shall hereafter die, who live after the flesh." But the death, (in the conclusion of the paragraph we are upon) that comes by Adam and the life that comes by Christ, (in the last verse of the chapter,) is opposed to eternal life just in the same manner as in the last verse of the next chapter: "That as sin has reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord." So that by our author's own argument, death in this place also, is manifestly widely different from the death we now die, as it stands here opposed to eternal life through Jesus Christ; and signifies eternal death, the second death. And yet this is a part of the same discourse, begun in the 12th verse; as reckoned by Dr. T. himself in his division of paragraphs, in his paraphrase and notes on the epistle. So that if we follow him, and admit his reasonings in the various parts of his book, here is manifest proof against infallible evidence! So that it is true, the apostle throughout this whole passage on the same subject, by death, evidently, clearly, and infallibly means no more than that death we now die, when this life is extinguished; and yet by death, in some part of this passage, is meant something widely different from the death we now die-MANIFESTLY eternal death, the second death.

66

But had our author been more consistent with himself, in laying it down as certain and infallible, that because the apostle has a special respect to temporal death in the 14th verse "Death reigned from Adam to Moses," therefore he means no more in the several consequent parts of this passage, yet he is doubtless too confident and positive in this matter. This is no more evident, clear, and infallible, than that Christ meant by perishing-in Luke xiii. 5. when he says, "I tell you, Nay, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish❞—no more than such a temporal death as came on those who died by the fall of the tower of Siloam, spoken of in the preceding words of the same speech; and no more infallible, than that by life, Christ means no more than this temporal life, in each part of that one sentence - Matth. x. 39. “He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it"-because in the first part of each clause he has respect especially to témporal life:*

There are many places parallel with these, as John xi. 25, 26. "I am the resurrection, and the life: He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall

The truth of the case, with respect to what the apostle here intends by the word death, is this, viz. The whole of that death which he, and the scripture every where, speaks of as the proper wages and punishment of sin, including death temporal, spiritual, and eternal; though in some parts of this discourse he has a more special respect to one part of this whole, in others to another, as his argument leads him; without any more variation than is quite common in the same discourse. That life which the scripture speaks of as the reward of righteousness, is a whole containing several parts, viz. The life of the body, union of soul and body, and the most perfect sensibility, activity, and felicity of both, which is the chief thing. In like manner the death which the scripture speaks of as the punishment of sin, is a whole including the death of the body and the death of the soul, and the eternal, sensible, perfect destruction and misery of both. It is this latter whole that the apostle speaks of by the name of death in this discourse, in Rom. v. though in some sentences he has a more special respect to one part, in others to another: And this, without changing the signification of the word. For having respect to several things included in the extensive signification of the word, is not the same thing as using the word in several distinct significations. As for instance, the appellative, man, or the proper name of any particular man is the name of a whole, including the different parts of soul and body. And if any one in speaking of James or John, should say, he was a wise man, and a beautiful man; in the former part of the sentence, respect would be had more especially to his soul, in the latter to his body, in the word man: But yet without any proper change of the signification of the name to distinct senses. In John xxi. 7. it is said, Peter was naked, and in the following part of the same story it is said, Peter was grieved. In the former proposition, respect is had especially to his body, in the latter to his soul: But yet here is no proper change of the meaning of the name, Peter. And as to the apostle's use of the word death in the passage now under consideration, on the supposition that he in general means the whole of that death which is the wages of sin, there is nothing but what is perfectly natural in sup

he live: And whosoever liveth, and believeth in me, shall never die." Here both the words, life and death, are used with this variation; I am the resurrection and the life, meaning spiritual and eternal life: He that believeth in me, though he were dead, having respect to temporal death, yet shall he live, with respect to spiritual life, and the restoration of the life of the body. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die, meaning a spiritual and eternal death. So in John vi. 49, 50. Your fathers did eat manna in the Wilderness, and are dead, having respect chiefly to temporal death. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die, i. e. by the loss of spiritual life, and by eternal death. (See also ver. 58.) And in the next verse, If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, have eternal life. So ver. 54. See another like instance, John v. 24-29.

« הקודםהמשך »