Notes on the Old and New Testaments

Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the * atonement.

12 Wherefore, as ^ by one man sin entered into the world,

our Lord Jesus, who has revealed the true character of God, and by whom we have been reconciled to him. t The atonement. Margin, or reconciliation. This is the only instance in which our translators have used the word atonement in the New Testament. The word frequently occurs in the Old. Ex. xxix. 33. 36, 37; xxx. 10. 15, 16. &c. &c. As it is nov/ used by us, it commonly means the ransom, or the sacrifice, by means of which reconciliation is effected between God and man. But in this place it has a different sense. It means the reconciliation itself between God and man; not the means by which reconciliation is effected. It denotes not that we have received a ransom, or an offering by which reconciliation might be effected; but that in fact rje have become reconciled through him. This was the ancient meaning of the English word atonement — at one mznt — being at one, or reconciled.

brothers.— Shakspeare. The Greek word which denotes the expiatory offering by which a reconciliation is effected, is different from the one here. See Note, ch. iii. 25. The word used here {x.jirx^.K-xy)i) is never used to denote such an offering, but denotes the reconciliation itself.

12 — 21. This passage has been usually regarded as the most difficult part of the New Testament. It is not the design of these Notes to enter into a minute criticism of contested points like this. They who wish to see a full discussion of the passage, may find it in the professedly critical commentaries; and especially in the commentaries of Tholuck and of Professor Stuart on the Romans. The meaning of the pa*.

sage in its general bearing is not difficult; and probably the whole passage would have been found /ar /ess difficult if it had not been attached to a philosol)hical theory on the subject of man's sin, and if a strenuous and indefatigable effort had not been made to prove that it teaches what it was never designed to teach. The plain and obvious design of the passage is this, to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification by faith. The apostle had shown, (1.) That that doctrine produced peace, ver. 1. (2.) That it produces joy in the prospect of future glory, ver. 2. (3.) 'J'hat it sustained the soul in afflictions; (a) by the regular tendency of afflictions under the gospel, ver. 3, 4; and {h) by the fact that the Holy Ghost was imparted to the believer. (4.) That this doctrine rendered it certain that we should be saved, because Christ had died for us, ver. 6; because this was the highest expression of love, ver. 7, 8; and because if we had been reconciled when thus alienated, we should be saved now that we are the friends of God, ver. 9, 10. (5.) That it led us to rejoice in God himself; produced joy in his presence, and in all his attributes. He now proceeds to show the bearing on that great mass of evil which had been introduced into the world by sin, and to prove that the benefits of the atonement were far greater than the evils which had been introduced by the acknowledged effects of the sin of Adam. " The design is to exalt our views of the work of Christ, and of the plan of justification through him, by comparing them with the evil consequences of the sin of our first father, and by showing that the blessings in question not only extend to the removal of these evils, but far beyond this, 60 that the grace of the gospel has not only abounded, but snpoaboundcd.'" {Prof Smart.) In doing this, the apostle admits, as an undoubted and well-understood fact, —

1. That sin came into the world by one man, and death as the consequence, ver. 12.

2. That death had passed on all; even on those who had not the light of revelation, and the express commands of God. ver. 13, 14.

3. That Adam was the figure, the type of him that was to come; that there was some sort of analogy or resemblance between the results of his act and the results of the work of Christ. That analogy consisted in the fact that the effects of his doings did not terminate on himself, but extended to numberless other persons, and that it was thus with the work of Christ, ver. 14. But he shows,

4. That there were very material and important differences m the two cases. There was not a perfect parallelism. The effects of the work of Christ were far more than simply to counteract the evil introduced by the sin of Adam. The differences between the effect of his act and the work of Christ are these. (I.) The sin of Adam led to condemnation. The work of Christ has an opposite tendency, ver. 15. (2.) The condemnation which came from the sin of Adam was the result of one offence. The work of Christ was to deliver from 7nany offences, ver. 16. (3.) The work of Christ was far more abundant and overflowing in its influence. It extended deeper and farther. It was more than a compensation for the evils of the fall. ver. 17.

5. As the act of Adam threw its influence over all men to secure their condemnation, so the work of Christ was fitted to aflect all men, Jews and Gentiles, in bringing them into a state by which thoy might be delivered from the fall, and restored to the favour of God. It was in itself adapted to produce far more and greater benefits than the crime of Adam had done evil; and was thus a glorious plan, just fitted to meet the actual condition of a world of sin; and to repair the evils which apostasy had introduced. It had thus the evidence that it originated in the benevolence of God, and that it v?as adapted to the human condition, ver. 18—2].

12. Wherefore (Sia rouro). On this account. This is not an inference from what has gone before, but a continuance of the design of the apostle to show the advantages of the plan of justification by faith; as if he had said, ' The advantages of that plan have been seen in our comfort and peace, and in its sustaining power in afflictions. Further, the advantages of the plan are seen in regard to this, that it is applicable to the condition of man in a world where the sin of one man has produced so much wo and death. On this account also it is a matter of joy. It meets the ills of a fallen race; and it is therefore a plan adapted to man.' Thus understood, the connexion and design of the passage is easily explained. In respect to the state of things into which man is fallen, the benefits of this plan may be seen, as adapted to heal the maladies, and to be commensurate with the evils which the apostasy of one man brought upon the world. This explanation is not that which is usually given to this place, but it is that which eeems to me to be demanded by the strain of the apostle's reasoning. The passage is elliptical, and there is a necessity of supplying something to make out the sense. ^ As (Z-.tts^). This is the form of a comparison. But the other part of the comparison is deferred to ver. 18. The connexion evidently requires us to understand the other part of the comparison of the work of Christ. In the rapid train of ideas in the mind of the apostle, this was deferred to make room for explanations (ver. 13 — 17). 'As by one man sin entered into the world, &c., so by the work of Christ a remedy has been provided, commensurate with the evils. As the sin of one man had such an influence, so the work of the Redeemer has an influence to meet and to counteract those evils.' The passage in ver. k2

13 — 17 is therefore to be regarded as a parenthesis thrown in for the purpose of making explanations, and to show how the cases of Adam and of Christ differed from each other. \ By one man, &c. By means of one man; by the crime of one man. His act was the occasion of the introduction of all sin into all the world. The apostle here refers to the well known historical fact (Gen. iii. 6, 7), without any explanation of the?}iode or cause of this. He adduced it as a fact that was well known; and evidently meant to speak of it not for the purpose of explaining the mode, or even of making this the leading or prominent topic in the discussion. His mai7i design is not to speak of the manner of the introduction of sin, but to show how the work of Christ meets and removes well-known and extensive evils. His explanations, therefore, are chiefly confined to the work of Christ. He speaks of the introduction, the spread, and the eflfects of sin, not as having any theory to defend on that subject, not as designing to enter into a minute description of the case, but as it was manifest on the face of things, as it stood on the historical record, and as it was understood and admitted by mankind. Great perplexity has been introduced by forgetting the scope of the apostle's argument here, and by supposing that he was defending a peculiar theory on the subject of the introduction of sin; whereas, nothing is more foreign to his design. He is showing how the plan of justification meets luell understood and ackjiowledged universal evils. Those evils he refers to just as they were seen, and admitted to exist. All men see them, and feel them, and practically understand them. The truth is, that the doctrine of the fall of man, and the prevalence of sin and death, do not belong peculiarly to Christianity any more than the introduction and spread of disease does to the science of the healing art. Christianity did not introduce sin; nor is it responsible for it. The existence of sin and wo belongs to the race; appertains equally to all systems of religion, and is a part of the melancholy history of man, whether Christianity be true or fiilse. The existence and extent of sin and death are not affected if the infidel could show that Christianity was an imposition. They would still remain. The Christian religion is just 07ie mode of proposing- a remedy for -well-knoivn and desolating evils; just as the science of medicine proposes a remedy for diseases which it did not introduce, and which could not be stayed in their desolations, or modified, if it could be shown that the whole science of healing was pretension and quackery. Keeping this design of the apostle in view, therefore, and remembering that he is not defending or stating a theory about the introduction of sin, but that he is explaining the way in which the work of (Christ delivers /rom a deep-felt universal evil, we shall find the explanation of this passage disencumbered of many of the difficulties with which it has been thought usually to be invested. ^ Jiy one inan. By Adam. See ver. 14. It is true that sin was literally introduced by Eve, who was first in the transgression. Gen. iii. 6. 1 Tim. ii. 14. But the apostle evidently is not explaining the precise mode in which sin was introduced, or making this his leading point. He therefore speaks of the introduction of sin in a popular sense, as it was generally understood. The following reasons may be suggested why the man is mentioned rather than tlie woman as the cause of the introduction of sin: (1.) ^^ was the natural and usual way of expressing such an event. We say that 7?2an sinned, that man is redeemed, man dies, &c. We do not pause to indicate the sex in such expressions. 8o in this, he undoubtedly meant to say that it was introduced by the parentage of the human race. (2.) The name Adam in Scripture was given to the created pair, the parents of the human family, a name designating their earthly origin. Gen, v. 1, 2, " In the day that (iod rreatetl man, in the likencHS of God made he him; male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam." The name Adam, therefore, used in this connexion (ver. 14), would suggest the mated parentage of the human family. (3.) In transactions where man and woman are mutually concerned, it is usual to speak of the man first, on account of his being constituted superior in rank and authority. (4.) The comparison on the one side, in the apostle's argument, is of the man Christ Jesus; and to secure the fitness, the congruity {Stuart) of the comparison, he speaks of the ma7i only in the previous transaction. (5.) The sin of the woman was not complete in its effects without the concurrence of the man. It was their uniting in it which was the cause of the evil. Hence the man is especially mentioned as having rendered the offence -what it was; as having completed it, and entailed its curses on the race. — From these remarks it is clear that the apostle does not refer to the man here from any idea that there was any particular covenant transaction with hirn, but that he means to speak of it in the usual, popular sense; referring to him as being the fountain of all the woes that sin has introduced into the world. ^ Si7i ottered into the -ivorld. He was the first sinner of the race. The word sin here evidently means the violation of the law of God. He was the first sinner among men, and in consequence all others became sinners. The apostle dues not here refer to Satan, the tempter, though he was the stiggester of evil; for his design was to discuss the ellect of the plan of salvation in meeting the sins and calamities of our race. This design, therefore, did not require him to introduce the sin of another order of beings. He says, therefore, that Adam was the first sinner of the race, and that death was the consequence. 1 Into the world. Among mankind. John i. 10; iii. 10, 17. The term world is often thus used to denote human beings, the race, the human family. The apostle here evidently is not discussing the doctrine of original sin ■ but he is stating a simple fact, intelligible to all: ' The first man violated the law of God, and in this way sin was introduced among men.' In this fact — this general, simple declaration — there is no mystery, t -^nd death by sin. Death was the consequence of sin; or was introduced because man sinned. This is a simple statement of an obvious and well-known fact. It is repeating simply what is said in Gen. iii. 19, " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return into the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." The threatening was (Gen. ii. 17), " Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." If an inquiry be made here, how Jldam would understand this; I reply, that we have no reason to think he would understand it as referring to any thing more than the loss of life as an expression of the displeasure of God. Moses does not intimate that he was learned in the nature of laws and penalties; and his narrative would lead us to suppose that this was all that would occur to Adam. And indeed, there is the highest evidence that the case admits of, that this was his understanding of it. For in the account of the uijliction of the penalty after the law was violated; in God's own interpretation of it, in Gen. iii. 19, there is still no reference to any thing further. " Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Now it is incredible that Adam should have understood this as referring to what has been called " spiritual death," and to " eternal death," when neither in the threatening, nor in the account of the infliction of the sentence, is there the slightest recorded reference to it. Men have done great injury in the cause of correct interpretation by carrying their notions of doctrinal subjects to the explanation of words and phrases in the Old Testament. They have usually described Adam as endowed with all the refinement, and possessed of all the knowledge, and adorned with all the metaphysical acumen and subtilty of a modern theologian. They have deemed him qualified, in the very infancy of the world, to understand and discuss questions, which, under all the light of the Christian revelation, still perplex and embarrass the human mind. After these accounts of the endowments of Adam, which occupy so large a space in books of theology, one is surprised, on opening the Bible, to find how unlike all this, is the simple statement in Genesis. And the wonder cannot be suppressed that men should describe the obvious infancy of the race as superior to its highest advancement; or that the first man, just created, just looking upon a world of wonders, unacquainted with law, and moral relations, and the effects of transgression, should be represented as endowed with knowledge which four thousand years afterwards it required the advent of the Son of God to communicate! The account in Moses is simple. Created man was told not to violate a simple law, on pain of death. He did it; and God announced to him that the sentence would be inflicted, and that he should return to the dust whence he was taken. What else this might involve; what other consequences sin might introduce, might be the subject of future developements and revelations. It is absurd to suppose that all the consequences of the violation of a law can be foreseen, or must necessarily be foreseen, in order to make the law and the penalty just. It is sufllicient that the law be known; that its violation be forbidden; and what the consequences of that violation will be, must be left in great part to future developements. Even we, yet know not half the results of violating the law of God. The murderer knows not the results fully of taking a man's life. He breaks a just law, and exposes himself to the numberless unseen woes which may flow from it.

We may ask, therefore, what light subsequent revelations have cast on the character and result of the first sin 1 and whether the apostle here meant to state that the consequences of sin were i}i fact as limited as they must have appeared to the mind of Adami or had subsequent dcvelopements and revelations, through four thousand years, greatly extended the rij^ht understanding of the penalty of the lav?? This can he answered only by inquiring in what sense the apostle Paul here uses the word death. The passage before us shows in what sense he intended here to use the word. Iq his argument it stands opposed to " the grace of God, and the gift by grace" (ver. 15); to "justification" by the forgiveness of "many offences" (ver. 16); to the reign of the redeemed in eternal life (ver. 17); and to "justification of life" (ver. 18). To all these, the words "death" (ver. 12. 17) and "judgment" (ver. 16. 18) stand opposed. 'I'hese are the benefits which result from the work of Christ; and these benefits stand opposed to the evils which sin has introduced; and as it cannot be supposed that these benefits relate to temporal life, or solely to the resurrection of the body, so it cannot be that the evils involved in the words " death," "judgment," &c. relate simply to temporal death. The evident meaning is, that the word " death," as here used by the apostle, refers to the train of evils which have been introduced by sin. It does not mean simply temporal death; but that group and collection of woes, including temporal death, condemnation, and exposure to eternal death, which is the consequence of transgression. The apostle often uses the word death, and to die, in this wide sense. Itom. i. 32; vi. 16.31; vii. 5. 10. 13. 24; viii. 2. 6. 13. 2 Cor. ii. 16; vii. 10. Hcb. ii. 14. In the same sense the word is often used elsewhere. John viii,.')1; xi. 26. 1.luhn V. 16, 17. Hcv. ii. 11; xx. 6, (fee. &r. In contrasting with this the results of i the work of Christ, he detrribes not the i resurrection merely, nor deliverance [ from temporal death, but etrviial life I in heaven; and it therefore follows j that he here intends by death that I gloomy and sad train of woes which sin has introduced into the world. The consequences of sin are, besides, elsewhere specified to be far more than temporal death. Ezek. xviii. 4. Rom. ii. 8, 9. 12. Though therefore Adam might not have foreseen all the evils which were to come upon the race as the consequence of his sin, yet these evils might nevertheless follow. And the apostle, four thousand years after the reign of sin had commenced, and under the guidance of inspiration, had full opportunity to see and describe that train of ivoes which he comprehends under the name of death. That train included evidently temporal death, condemnation for sin, remorse of conscience, and exposure to eternal death, as the penalty of transgression. ^ ^i7id so. Thus. In this way it is to be accounted for that death has passed upon all men, to ivit. because all men have sinned. As death followed sin in the first transgression, so it has in all; for all have sinned. There is a connexion between death and sin which existed in the case of Adam, and which subsists in regard to all who sin. And as all have sinned, so death has passed on all men. t JJeuth passed upon (^t»KB-iv). Passed through; pervaded; spread over the whole race, as pestilence passes through, or pervades a nation. Thus death, with its train of woes, with its withering and blighting influence, has passed through the world, laying prostrate all before it. H Upon all men. Upon the race; all die. \ For that {i<p' u>). This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously translated, Eisner renders it, " on account of whom." Doddridge, " unto which all have sinned." The Latin Vulgate renders it, " in whom [Adam] all have sinned." The same rendering has been given by Augustine, Beza, (fee. But it has never yet been shown that our trans-lators have rendered the expression improperly. The old 8)riac and the Arabic agree with the Knglish translation in this interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, &c. And this rcn-

13 (For until the law, sin was in the world: but sin is

dering is sustained also by many other considerations. (1.) If « be a relative pronoun here, it would refer naturally to death, as its antecedent, and not to man. But this would not make sense. (2.) If this had been its meaning, the preposition h would have been used. See Note of Erasmus on the place. (3.) It comports with the apostle's argument to state a cause -why all died, and not to state that men sinned m Adam. He was inquiring into the cause -why death was in the world; and it would not account for that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additioiial statement to see how that could be a cause. (4.) The expression " in tvhom all have sinned" conveys no intelligible idea. As men had not an existence then in any sense, they could not then sin. What idea is conveyed to men of common understanding by the expression ' they sinned i>- himV The meaning of the expression, therefore, clearly is, becmise all have sinned, all die. ^ All have sinned. To sin is to transgress the law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all men have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all men are sinners. He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact — that all men experience calamity, condemnatioii., death. How is this to be accounted for! The answer is, " All have sinned." This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that men sin in their oivn persons, sin themselves — as, indeed, how can they sin in any other way? — and that therefore they die. If men maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference 1

13. For mitil the laiv, &c. This verse, with the following verses to the 17th, is usually regarded as a parenthesis. The /aw here evidently means the law given by Moses. * Until the commencement of that administration, or state of things under the law.' To see the reason why he referred to this period betiveeyi Adam and the law, we should recall the design of the apostle, which is, to show the exceeding grace of God in the gospel, abounding, and superabounding, as a complete remedy for all the evils introduced by sin. For this purpose he introduces three leading conditions, or states, where men sinned, and where the effects of sin were seen; in regard to each and all of which the grace of the gospel superabounded. The first was that of Adam, with its attendant train of ills (ver. 12), which ills were all met by the death of Christ, ver. 15—18. The second period or condition was that long interval in which men had only the light of nature, that period occurring between Adam and Moses. This was a fair representation of the condition of the world without revelation, and without law. ver. 13, 14. Sin then reigned — reigned every where

14 Nevertheless death reigned * from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned

where there was no law. But the grace of the gospel abounded over the evils of this state of man. The third was under the law. ver. 20. The law entered, and sin was increased, and its evils abounded. But the gospel of Christ abounded even over this, and grace triumphantly reigned. So that the plan of justification met all the evils of sin, and was adapted to remove them; sin and its consequences as flowing from Adam; sin and its consequences v/hen there was no written revelation; and sin and its consequences under the light and terrors of the law. ^ Sin ~v(is in the world. Men sinned. They did that which was evil. "J Jjut sin is not imputed. Is not charged on men, or they are not held guilty of it where there is no law. This is a self-evident proposition, for sin is a violation of law; and if there is no law. there can be no wrong. Assuming this as a selfevident proposition, the connexion is, that there must have been a law of eonic kind; a " law written on their hearts," since sin was in the world, and men could not be charged with sin, or treated as sinners, unless there was some law. The passage here states a great and important principle, that men will not be held to be guilty un- Ie.ss there is a law which binds them of which they are appri/.ed, and which they voluntarily transgress. See Note, ch. iv. l.'i. This verse, therefore, meets an objection that might be started from what had been said in ch. iv. 15. The apostle had alFiniied tliat " where no law is there is no transgression." lie here stated that all were sinners. It might be objected, that as during lliis i long period of time thty had no | law, they could not be sinners. 'I'o meet this, ho says that men were then in fact sinners, and were treated as nucij, which showed that there must have l>een a law.

that sin is not imputed where there is no law, yet death reigned, t Death reigned. Men died; they were under the dominion of death in its various melancholy influences. The expression "death reigned" is one that is very striking. It is a representation of death as a monarch; having dominion over all that period, and over all those generations. Under his dark and withering reign men sank down to the grave. We have a similar expression when w^e represent death as " the king of terrors." It is a striking and affecting personification, for, (1.) His reign is absolute. He strikes down whom he pleases, and when he pleases. (2.) There is no escape. All must bow to his sceptre, and be humbled beneath his hand. (3.) It is universal. Old and young alike are the subjects of hia gloomy empire. (4.) It would be an eternal reign if it were not for the gospel. It would shed unmitigated woes upon the earth; and the silent tread of this terrific king would produce only desolation and tears for ev^jr. ^ From..idam to JMoses. From the time when God gave one revealed law to Adam, to the time when another revealed law was given to Moses. This was a period of 2500 years; no inconsiderable portion of the history of the world. Whether men were regarded and treated as sinners then, was a very material inquiry in the argument of the apostle, 'i'he fact that they died is alleged by him as full proof that they were sinners; and that sin had therefore scattesed extensive and appalling woes among men. ^ Even over them. Over all those generations. The point or emphasis of the remark here is, that it reigned over those that had sinned under a different economy from that of Adam. This was that which rendered it so remarkable; and which showed that the witb.eiing curso of sin hail been felt in all dispensations, and in all times. ^ lifter the simili tude, &c. In the same way; in like manner. The expression "after the similitude" is an Hebraism, denoting in like manner, or as. The difference between their case and that of Adam was plainly that Adam had a revealed and positive law. They had not. They had only the law of nature, or of tradition. The giving of a law to Adam, and again to the world by Moses, were two great epochs between which no such event had occurred. The race wandered without revelation. The difference contemplated is not that Adam was an actual sinner, and that they had sinned only by imputation. For, (1.) The expression 'to sin by imputation' is unintelligible, and conveys no idea. (2.) The apostle makes no such distinction, and conveys no such idea. (3.) His very object is different. It is to show that they rjere actual sinners; that they transgressed law; and the proof of this is that they died. (4.) It is utterly absurd to suppose that men from the time of Adam to Moses were sinners only by imputation. All history is against it; nor is there the slightest ground of plausibility in such a supposition, t Of Adam\^ transgression. When he broke a plain, positive, revealed law. This transgression was the open violation of a positive precept; theirs the violation of the laws communicated in a different way; by tradition, reason, conscience, &c. Many commentators have supposed that infants are particularly referred to here. Augustine first suggested this, and he has been followed by many others. But probably in the whole compass of the expositions of the Bible, tiiere is not to be found a more unnatural and forced construction than this. For, (1.) The apostle makes no mention of infants. He does does not in the remotest form allude to them by name, or give any intimation that he had reference to them. (2.) The scope of his argument is against it. Did infants only die 1 Were they the only persons that lived in this long period] His argument is complete without supposing that he referred to them. The question in regard to this long interval was, whether men were sinners'? Yes, says the apostle. They died. Death reigned; and this proves that they were sinners. If it should be said that the death of infants would prove that tJiey were sinners also, I answer, (a) That this was an inference which the apostle does not draw, and for which he is not responsible. It is not affirmed by him. {b) If it did refer to infants, what would it prove 1 Not that the sin of Adam was imputed, but that they were personally guilty, and transgressors. For this is the only point to which the argument tends. The apostle here says not one ivord about imputation. He does not even refer to infants by name; nor does he here introduce at all the doctrine of imputation. All this is mere philosophy introduced to explain difHculties; but wliether true or false, whether the theory explains or embarrasses the subjectit is not needful here to inquire. (3.) The very expression here is against the supposition that infants are intended, and that the sin of Adam is imputed to them. The doctrine of imputation has been that infants were personally guilty of Adam's sin; that ^Aej/ " sinned in him;" that there was a personal identity constituted between them and Adam (see Edwards on original sin); and that therefore his sin was theirs, as really and truly as if committed by themselves. Yet here the apostle says that those of whom he was speaking had not sinned " after the similitude of Adam's transgression." But if the doctrine of imputation be true, it is certain that they had not only had sinned after the similitude of his transgression, but had sinned the very identical sin. It was precisely like him;.t was the very thing itself; and they were answerable for that very sin as their own. This doctrine, therefore, cannot be intended here. (4.) The same explanation of the passage is given by interpreters who nevertheless held to' the doctrine of imputation. Thus C ALT IX says on this passage,

" Ahhough this passage is understood

commonly of infants, who, being guilty of no actual sin, perish by original depravity, yet I prefer that it should be interpreted generally of those who have not the law. For this sentiment is connected with the preceding words, where it is said that sin is not imputed where there is no law. For they had not sinned according to the similitude of Adam's transgression, because they had not as he had the will of God revealed. For the Lord forbid Adam to touch the fruit [of the tree] of the knowledge of good and evil; but to them he gave no command but the testimony of con-

science." Calvin, however, supposes that infants are included in the " universal catalogue" here referred to. Turretine also remarks that the discussion here pertains to all the adults between Adam and Moses. Indeed, it is perfectly manifest that the apostle here has no particular reference to infants; nor would it have ever been supposed, but for the purpose of giving support to the mere philosophy of a theological system. ^ JVho is the figure (j-j-ro;). 'i"5f/f. This word occurs sixteen times in the New Testament. John xx. 25 (twice). Acts vii. 43, 44; xxiii. 25. Rom. V. 14; vi. 17. 1 Cor. x. 6. 11. Phil. iii. 17. 1 Thess. i. 7. 2 Thcss. iii. 9. 1 Tim. iv. 12. Titus ii. 7. Heb. viii. 5. 1 Pet. V. 3. It properly means, (1.) Any impression, note, or mark which is made by percussion, or in any way. John xx. 25, " the print {type) of the nails." (2.) An ofligy or image whicli is made or formed by any rule; a model, i)attern. Acts vii. 43, " Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Rcmphan, figures (types) which ye had made." 44, " 'I'hat he should make it [the tabernacle] according to the fashion (type) which he had seen." Heb. viii, 5. (3.) A brief argument, or summary. Acts xxiii. 25. (^.) A rule of doctrine, or a law or form of doctrine. Rom. vi. 17. (f^.) An example or model to be imitated; an example of what we ought to be (Phil. iii. 17. 1 Thcss. i. 7. 2 Thess. iii. D. 1 Tim. iv. 12. Titus ii. 7. 1 IVt. v. 3); or an example which is to be avoided, an example to 7varn Jis. 1 Cor. x. 6. 11. In this place it is evidently applied to the Messiah. The expression " he who was to come" is often used to denote the Messiah. As applied to him, it means that there was in some respects a similarity between the results of the conduct of Adam and the eflects of the woik of Christ. It does not mean that Adam was constituted or appointed a type of Christ, which would convey no intelligible idea; but that a resf mblance may be traced between the effects of Adam's conduct and the work of Christ. It does not mean that the person of Adam was typical of Christ; but that between the results of his conduct and the work of Christ there may be instituted a comparison, there may be traced some resemblance. What that is, is stated in the following verses. It is mainly by way of contrast that the comparison is instituted, and may be stated as consisting in the following points of resemblance or contrast. (1.) Contrast, (a) By the crime of one, many are dead; by the work of the other, grace will much more abound, ver. 15. (b) In regard to the acts of the two. In the case of Adam, one ofi'ence led on the train of woes; in the case of Christ, his work led to the remission of 7nany offences, ver. 16. (c) In regard to the eflects. Death reigned by the one; but life innch more over the other. (2.) Resemblance. By the disobedience of one, many were made sinners; by the obedience of the other, many shall be made righteous, ver. 18, I'J. It is clear, therefore, that the comparison which is instituted is rather by way of antithc' sis, or contrast, than by direct resemblance. The main design is to sho-w that greater benefits have resulted from the work of' Christ than evils from the fall of.i dam. A comparison is also instituted between Adam and Christ in 1 Cur. xv. '^2. 45. The reason is, nut that Adam was the representative or federal head of the human race, about which the apostle says nothing, and which is not even im-

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead; much more the

plied, but that he was the first of the race; he was the fountain, the head, the father; and the consequences of that first act introducing sin into the world, could be seen every where. The words representative and federal head are never applied to Adam in the Bible. The reason is, that the word representative implies an idea which could not have existed in the case — tlie consent of those who are represented. Besides, the Bible does not teach that they acted in him, or by him; or that he acted for thera. No passage has ever yet been found that stated this doctrine. The apostle argued on great and acknowledged facts — that Adam was the first sinner, and that from him, as a fountain, sin and death had flowed through the world. Since the consequences of that sin had been so disastrous and wide-spread, his design is to show that from the Messiah, effects had flowed more beneficent than the former were ruinous.

In him the tribes of Adam Iwast More blessings than iheir father lost.

15. But not as the offence. This is the first point of contrast between the effect of the sin of Adam and of the work of Christ. The word offence means properly a fall, where we stumble over any thing lying in our way. It then means sin in general, or crime. Matt. vi. 14, 15; xviii. 35. Here it means the fall, or first sin of Adam. We use the word fall as applied to Adam, to denote his first offence, as being that act by which he fell from an elevated state of obedience and happiness into one of sin and condemnation. \ So also. The gift is not in its nature and effects like the offence. •J The free ^-ift. The favour, benefit, or good bestowed gratuitously on us. It refers to the favours bestowed in the grace " of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.* gospel by Christ. These are free, i. e. without merit on our part, and bestowed on the undeserving, t For if, &c. The apostle does not labour to prove that this is so. This is not the point of his argument. He assumes that as what was seen and known every where. His main point is to show that greater benefits have resulted from the work of the Messiah than evils from the fall of Adam. *il Through the offence of one. By the fall of one. This simply concedes the fact that it is so. The apostle does not attempt an explanation of the mode or manner in which it happened. He neither says that it is by imputation, nor by inherent depravitij, nor by imitation. Whichever of these modes may be the proper one of accounting for the fact, it is certain that the apostle states neither. His object was, not to explain the manner in which it was done, but to argue from the acknowledged existence of the fact. All that is certainly established from this passage is, that as a certain fact resulting from the transgression of Adam, " many" were " dead." This simple fact is all that can be proved from this passage. Whether it is to be explained by the doctrine of imputation, is to be a subject of inquiry independent of this passage. Nor have we a right to assume that this teaches the doctrine of the imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity. For, (1.) The apostle says nothing of it. (2.) That doctrine is nothing but an effort to explain the manner of an event which the apostle Paul did not think it proper to attempt to explain. (3.) That doctrine is m fact no explanation. It is introducing an additional difficulty. For to say that I am guilty of the sin of another in which I had no agency, is no explanation, but is involving me in an additional difiiculty still more perplex- ing, to ascertain how such a doctrine can possibly be just. The way of wisdom would be, doubtless, to rest satisfied with the simple statement of a fact which the apostle has assumed, without attempting to explain it by a philosophical theory. Calvin accords with the above interpretation. " For we do not so perish by his [Adam's] crime, as if we were ourselves innocent; but Paul ascribes our ruin to him becanss his sin is the cause of our sin." t Many. Greek, The many. Evidently meaning all; the whole race; Jews and Gentiles. That it means all here is proved in ver. 18. If the inquiry be, why the apostle used the word " jna7iy" rather than all, we may reply, that the design was to express an antithesis, or contrast to the cause — one offence. One stands opposed to many, rather than to all. U Be dead. See Note on the word death, ver. 12. The race is under the dark and gloomy reign of death. This is a simple fact which the apostle assumes, and which no man.an deny. 11 Much more. The reason of this " much more" is to be found in the abounding mercy and goodness of God. If a wise, merciful, and good Being has suffered such a train of woes to be introduced by the offence of one, have we not much more reason to expect that his grace will superabound ] \ The grace of God. The favour or kindness of God. We have reason to expect under the admiristration of God mere extensive benefiis, than we have ills, flowing from a constitution of things which is the result of his appointment. \ And the ^ft by grace. The gracious gift; thft benefits flowing from that grace. Tks refers to the blessings of salvation. U Which is by one man. Standing in contrast with Adam. His appointment was the result of grace; and as he was constituted to bestow favours, we have reason to ex »cct that they will superabound. ^ Ifatli abounded. Has been al)undant, or ample; will be more thun a counterbalance for the ills which have been introduced by the sin of Adam. 1 f/n/o many.

Greek, Unto the many. The obvious interpretation of this is, that it is as unlimited as " the many" who are dead. Some have supposed that Adam represented the -whole of the human race, and Christ a part, and that " the many" in the two members of the verse refer to the -whole of those who were thus represented. But this is to do violence to the passage; and to introduce a theological doctrine to meet a supposed difficulty in the text. The obvious meaning is — one from which we cannot depart without doing violence to the proper laws of interpretation — that " the many" in the two cases are coextensive; and that as the sin of Adam has involved the race — the many — in death; so the grace of Christ has abounded in reference to the many, to the race. If asked how this can be possible,.since all have not been, and will not be savingly benefited by the work of Christ, we may reply, (1.) That it cannot mean that the benefits of the work of Christ should be literally co-extensive with the results of Adam's sin, since it is a fact that men liave suffered, and do suffer, from the effects of that fall. In order that the Universalist may draw an argument from this, he must show that it was the design of Christ to destroy all the effects of the sin of Adam. But this has 710/ been in fact. Though the favours of that work have abounded, yet men have suflercd and died. And though it may still abound to the many, yet some may suffer here, and sufler on the same principle for ever. (2.) The saving effects of the work of Christ are not enjoyed by any unless they Income connected with him by faith; that is, unless they avail themselves of the ort'er of salvation. There are general inlluences, indeed, which flow from that work even on unl>elievers, without any participation of their own; as, e. g. by that work all the race was saved from being at once cut ofl"; the sentence was suspended; men are enlightened, A:c. In like manner, though men are indubitably allected by the sin of Adam, as, e. g. by being born with a

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to

corrupt disposition; with loss of righteousness; with subjection to pain and wo; yet there is no evidence that they participate in the direct and peculiar effect of sin, in eternal death, without being personal transgressors. There is no reason to believe that they are condemned to eternal death, or held to be guilty of his sin, without participation of their own, or without personal sin, any more than there is that they are approved by the work of Christ, or held to be personally deserving, without embracing his offer, and receiving him as a Saviour. The effect of the one, therefore, may be as co-extensive as the other. The grace of Christ may abound unto many. (3.) The intervention of the plan of atonement by the Messiah, prevented the immediate execution of the penalty of the law, and produced all the benefits to all the race, resulting from the sparing mercy of God. In this respect it was co-extensive with the fall. (4.) He died for all the race. Heb. ii. 9. 2 Cor. V. 14, 15. 1 John ii. 2. Thus his death, in its adaptation to a great and glorious result, was as extensive as the ruins of the fall. (5.) The offer of salvation is made to all. Rev. xxii. 17. John vii. 37. Matt. xi. 28, 29. Mark xvi. 15. Thus his grace has extended unto the many — to all the race. Provision has been made to meet the evils of the fall; a provision as extensive in its applicability as was the ruin. (6.) More ■will probably be actually saved by the work of Christ, than will be finally ruined by the fall of Adam. The number of those who shall be saved from all the human race, it is to be believed, will yet be many more than those who shall be lost. The gospel is to spread throughout the world. It is to be evangelized. The millennial glory is to rise upon the earth; and the Saviour is to reign with undivided empire. Taking the race as a whole, there is no reason

condemnation; but the free gift is of many * offences unto justification.

to think that the number of those who shall be lost, compared with the immense multitudes that shall be saved by the work of Christ, will be more than are the prisoners in a community now, compared with the number of peaceful and virtuous citizens. A medicine may be discovered that shall be said to triumph over disease, though it may have been the fact that thousands have died since its discovery, and thousands yet -will 7iot avail themselves of it; yet the medicine shall have the properties of universal triumph; it is adapted to the many; it might be applied by the many; where it is applied, it completely answers the end. Vaccination is adapted to meet the evils of the small-pox every where; and when applied, saves men from the ravages of this terrible disease, though thousands may die to whom it is not applied. It is a triumphant remedy. So of the plan of salvation. Thus, though all shall not be saved, yet the sin of Adam shall be counteracted; and grace abounds unto the many. All this fulness of grace the apostle says we have reason to expect from the abounding mercy of God.

16. And not, &c. This is the second point in which the eflects of the work of Christ differ from the sin of Adam. The first part (ver. 15) was, that the evil consequences flowed from the sin of one max, Adam; and that the benefits flowed from the work of one MAN, Jesus Christ. The point m this verse is, that the evil consequences flowed from one crime, one act of guilt; but that the favours had respect to mant ACTS of guilt. The effects of Adam's sin, whatever they were, pertained to the one sin; the effects of the work of Christ, to many sins. 1 By one that sinned {Si IvU u/iAA^Tiia-ctvToc). By means o{ one [man] sinning'; evidently meaning by 07ie offence, or by one act of sin. So the Vulgate, and many MSS. And

17 For if ^ by one man's of- 1 fence death reigned by one; much more they which receive

the connexion shows that this is the 6cnse. *| The' gift. The benefits resulting from the work of Christ. ^ The judgment. The sentence; the declared penalty. The word expresses properly the sentence which is passed by a judge. Here it means the sentence which God passed, as a judge, on Adam for the one offence, involving himself and his posterity in ruin. Gen. ii. 17; iii. 17 — 19. ^ IVas by one. By one offence; or one act of sin. \ Unto condemnation. Producing condemnation; or involving in condemnation. It is proved by this, that the effect of the sin of Adam was to involve the race in condemnation, or to secure this as a result that all mankind would be under the condemning sentence of the law, and be transgressors. But in -what ivai/ it would have this effect, the apostle does not state. He does not intimate that his sin would be imputed to them; or that they would be held to be personally guilty for it. He speaks of a broad, every where perceptible fact, that the effect of that sin had been somehow to whelm the race in condemnation. In what mode this was done is a fair subject of inquiry; but the apostle does not attempt to explain it. ^ The free [rift. The unmerited favour, by the work of Christ, "j Li of manii offences. In relation to many sins. It differs thus from the condemnation. That had respect to one offence; this has respect to many crimes. Grace therefore abounds. \ Unto Justification. Note, ch. iii. 24. The work of Christ is designed to have reference to many offences, so as to produce pardon or justification in regard to them all. But the apostle here does not intimate how this is done. He simply states tlie fact, without attempting in tliis place to explain it; and as we know that that work does not produce its t'fr«'rl to Justifif without sonje act on the part of the individual, are we nut hence led to

abundance <• of grace, and of the gift ^ of righteousness sliall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ:)

conclude the same respecting the condemnation for the sin of Adam? As the work of (^hrist does not benefit the race unless it is embraced, so does not the reasoning of the apostle lead us to the conclusion that the deed of Adam does not condemn unless there be some voluntary act on the part of each individual? However this may be, it is certain that the apostle has in neither case here explained the mode in which it is done. He has simply stated \.\\efact, a fact wliich he did not seem to consider himself called on to explain. Neither has he affirmed that in the two cases the mode is the same. On the contrary, it is strongly implied that it is iiot the same, for the leading object here is to present, not an entire resemblance, but a strong contrast between the effects of the sin of Adam and the work of Christ.

17. For if. This verse contains the same idea as before presented, but in a varied form. It is condensing the the whole subject, and presenting it in a single view. \ By one man s offence. Or, by one offence. Margin. The reading of the text is the more correct. * If, under the administration of a just and merciful being, it has occurred, that by the offence of one, death has exerted so wide a dominion; we have reason much more to expect under that administration, that they who are brought under his plan of saving mercy shall bo brought under a dispensation of life.' TI Death reigned. Note, ver. 14. \By one. By means of one man. ^ JFuch more. We have much more reason to expect it. It evidently accords much more with the administration of a Being of infinite goodness. ^ 'They which rcct'ix'f abundance of grace. The abundant favour; the mercy that shall counterlialance and surpass the evils int.roiluced by the sin of Adam. That favour shall be more than Bulficient to counterbalance all

18 Therefore, as * by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;

those evils. This is particularly true of the redeemed, of whom the apostle in this verse is speaking. The evils which they suffer in consequence of the sin of Adam bear no comparison with the mercies of eternal life that shall flow to them from the work of the Saviour. ^ The gift of righteous7iess. This stands opposed to the evils introduced by Adam. As the effect of his sin was to produce condemnation, so here the gift of righteousness refers to the opposite, to pardon, to justification, to acceptance with God. To show that men were thus justified by the gospel, was the leading design of the apostle; and the argument here is, that if by one man's sin, death reigned over those who were under condemnation in consequence of it, we have much more reason to suppose that they who are delivered from sin by the death of Christ, and accepted of God, shall reign with him in life. ^ Shall reign. The word reign is often applied to the condition of saints in heaven. 2 Tim. ii. 12, "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him." Rev. v. 10; xx. 6; xxii. 5. It means that they shall be exalted to a glorious state of happiness in heaven; that they shall be triumphant over all their enemies; shall gain an ultimate victory; and shall partake with the captain of their salvation in the splendours of his dominion above. Rev. iii. 21. Luke xxii. 30. t In life. This stands opposed to the death that reigned as the consequence of the sin of Adam. It denotes complete freedom from condemnation; from temporal death; from sickness, pain, and sin. It is the usual expression to denote the complete bliss of the saints in glory. Note, John iii. 36. \ By one, Jesus Christ. As the consequence of his work. The apostle here does not state the rnode or manner in which this was done; nor does he say that it was perfectly parallel in the mode with the

even so ^ by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all " men unto justification of life.

effects of the sin of Adam. He is comparing the results or consequences of the sin of the one and of the work of the other. There is a similarity in the consequences. The way in which the work of Christ had contributed to this he had stated in ch. iii. 24. 28.

18. Therefore. Wherefore ("A^a cvv). This is properly a summing iip, a recapitulation of what had been stated in the previous verses. The apostle resumes the statement or proposition made in ver. 12, and after the intermediate explanation in the parenthesis (ver. 13 — 17), in this verse and the following sums up the whole subject. The explanation, therefore, of the previous verses is designed to convey the real meaning of ver. 18 and 19. t ^s by the offence of one. Admitting this as an undisputed and every where apparent fact, a fact which no one can call in question. \ Judgment came. This is not in the Greek, but it is evidently implied, and is stated in ver. 16. The meaning is, that all have been brought under the reign of death by one man. 1 Upon all men. The whole race. This explains what is meant by "the many" in ver. 15. ^ To condemnation. veT. 16. f Even so. In the manner explained in the previous verses. With the same certainty, and to the same extent. The apostle does not explain the mode in which it was done, but simply states ih.e fact. ^ By the righteousness of one. This stands opposed to the 07ie offence of Adam, and must mean, therefore, the holiness, obedience, purity of the Redeemer. The sin of one man involved men in ruin; the obedierice Jinto death of the other (Phil. ii. 8) restored them to the favour of God. t Came upon all men (sif TTaVTc av9^wTcy?). Was with reference to all men; had a bearing upon all men; was originally adapted to the race. As the sin of Adam was of such a nature in the relation in which

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sin-

ners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

he stood as to affect all the race, so the work of Christ in the relation in whicli he stood was adapted also to all the race. As the tendency of the one was to involve the race in condemnation, so the tendency of the other was to restore them to acceptance with God. There was an orig-inal applicability in the work of Christ to ail men — a richness, a fulness of the atonement fitted to meet the sins of the entire world, and restore the race to favour. ^ Unto justification of life. With reference to that justification which is connected with eternal life. That is, his work is adapted to produce acceptance with God, to the same extent as the crime of Adam has affected the race hy involving them in sin and misery. The apostle does not affirm that in fact as many loill be affected by the one as by the other; but that it is fitted to meet all the consequences of the full; to be as wide-spread in its effects; and to be as salutary as that had been ruinous. This is all that the argument requires. Perhaps there could not 1)6 found a more striking declaration any where, that the work of Christ had an original apfAicahility to all men; or that it is in its own nature iUted to save all. The course of argument here leads inevitably to this; nor is it possible to avoid it without doing violence to the obvious and fair course of the discussion. It does not prove that all will in fact be saved, but that the plan is fitted to meet all the evils of the fall. A certain kind of medicine may have an original applicability to heal all persons under the same disease; and may be abundant and certain, and yet in fact be a[)plied to f»;w. 'I'he sun is fitted to give lii^ht to all, yet many may be blind, or may voluntarily close their eyes. Water is adapted to the wants of all men, and the supply may be ample for the human fiiinily, yet in fact, from various causes, many may be deprived of it. So of the provisions of the plan of redemption. 'I'hey are adapted to all; they are ample, and yet in fact, from causes which this is not the place to explain, the benefits, like those of medicine, water, science, &c. may never be enjoyed by all the race. Calvin conrurH in this interpretation, and thus shows that it is one which commends itself even to the most strenuous advocates of the system which is called by his name. He says, " He [the apostle] makes the grace common to all, because it is offered to all, not because it is in fact applied to all. For although Christ suffered for the sins of the whole WORLD (nam etsi passus est Christus pro peccatis totius mundi), and it is offered to all without distinction (indifferenter), yet all do not embrace it." See Cal. Comm. on this place.

19. For, &c. This verse is not a 7nere repetition of the former, but it is an explanation. By the former statements it might perhaps be inferred that men were condemned without any guilt or blame of theirs. The apostle in this verse guards against this, and affirms that they are in fact sinners. He affirms that those who are sinners are condemned, and that the sufferings brought in on account of the sin of Adam, are introduced because many were made siiiners. (Jalvin says, " Lest any one should arrogate to him.-elf innocence, [the apostle] adds, that each one is condemned because he is a siu- 7/pr." 1 Jii/ one man^s disobedience. By me;ms of the sin of Adam. This affirms simply the fact that such a result followed from the sin of Adam. 'J'he word by (Si i) is used in the Scriptures as it is in ail books and in all languages. It may denote the elficient cause; the instrumental cause; the princi[);il cause'; the meritorious cause; or the diief occasion by which a thing occurred. (Sec Schiousner.) It does not express one mode, and one only, in which a thing is done but that one thing is the result of another. When we say that a young man is ruined in his character by another, we do not express the 7node, but the fact. When we say that thousands have been made infidels by the writings of Paine and Voltaire, we make no affirmation about the mode, but about the fact. In each of these, and in all other cases, we should deem it most inconclusive reasoning to attempt to determine the mode by the preposition by; and still more absurd if it were argued from the use of that preposition that the sins of the seducer were imputed to the young man; or the opinions of Paine and Voltaire imputed to infidels. ^ JMany. Greek, The many. ver. 15. *i Were made (KAn^rra^-.^c-itv). The verb here used, occurs in the New Testament in the following places: Matt. xxiv. 4.5. 47; XXV. 21. 23. Luke xii. 14. 42. 44. Acts vi. 3; vii. 10. 27. 35; xvii. 15. Rom. V. 19. Titus i. 5. Heb. ii. 7; v.

2 Pet. i. 8. It usually means to constitute, set, or appoint. In the New Testament it has two leading significations. (1.) To appoint to an office, to set over others (Matt. xxiv. 45. 47. Luke xii. 42, &cc.); and (2.) It means to become, to be in fact, &c..Tames iii. 6, " So is the tongue among our members," &c. That is, it becomes such. James iv. 4, " The friendship of the world is enmity with God;" it becomes such; it is in fact thus, and is thus to be regarded. The word is in no instance used to express the idea of imputing that to one Tvhich belongs to another. It here either means that this was by a constitution of divine appointment that they in fact became sinners, or simply declares that they tvere so in fact. There is not the elightest intimation that it was by imputation. The v/hole scope of the argument is, moreover, against this: for the object of the apostle is not to show that they were charged with the sin of another, but that they were in fact sinners themselves. If it means that they were condemned for his act, without any concurrence of their own will, then the correspondent part will be true, that all are constituted righteous in the same way; and thus the doctrine of universal salvation will be inevitable. But as none are constituted righteous who do not voluntarily avail themselves of the provisions of mercy, so it follows that those who are condemned, are not condemned for the sin of another without their own concurrence, nor unless they personally deserve it. ^ Sinners. Transgressors; those who deserve to be punished. It does not mean those who are condemned for the sin of another; but those who are violators of the law of God. All who are condemned are sinners. They are not innocent persons condemned for the crime of another. Men may be involved in the consequences of the sins of others without being to blame. The consequences of the crimes of a murderer, a drunkard, a pirate, may pass over from them, and affect thousands, and whelm them in ruin. But this does not prove that they are blameworthy. In the divine administration none are regarded as guilty who are not guilty; none are condemned who do not deserve to be condemned. All who sink to hell are sinners, t By the obedience of one. Of Christ. This stands opposed to the disobedience of Adam, and evidently includes the entire work of the Redeemer which has a bearing on the became obedient unto death." ^ Shall many. Greek, The many; corresponding to the term in the former part of the verse, and evidently commensurate with it; for there is no reason for limiting it to a part in this member, any more than there is in the former. ^ Be made. The same Greek word as before— be appointed, or become. The apostle has explained the mode in which this is done. ch. i. 17; iii. 24 — 26; iv. 1 — 5, That explanation is to limit the meaning here. No more are considered righteous than become so in that -way. And as all do not become righteous thus, the passage cannot be adduced to prove the doctrine of universal salvation. The sense of the verse is this: * As in consequence of the sin of one, the many became sinners, without explaining the mode in which it is done; so the many may become righteous in the mode and on the terms which are explained.' If Righteous. Justified. Free from condemnation. Note ch. i. 17; iii. 24 — 26. In regard to this important and muchcontested passage of the New Testament, we may make the following remarks. (1.) Nothing is said here of the doctrine of representation. It is not affirmed that Adam was the representative of his race, nor is that language used in regard to him in the Bible. { nothing. The difiiculty still remains. (2.) Nothing is said of a covenant It is certainly as difficult to see how, with him. Nowhere in the Scriptures ' in a just administration, the sins of i^ the term covenant applied to any the guilty should be charged on the transaction with Adam. (3.) All that innocent, as to contemplate simply the is established here is the simple fact j universal fact that the conduct of one that Adam sinned, and that this made man may involve his family in the con- of the race; that he was a covenant head, and that his sin was imputed to his posterity, and that they were held liable to punishment for it as if they had committed it themselves. But to this, there are great and insuperable objections. (1.) There is not one word of it in the Bible. Neither the terms representative, covenant, or impute are ever applied to the transaction in the sacred Scriptures. (2.) It is a mere philosophical theory; an introduction of a speculation into theology, with an attempt to explain what the Bible has left unexplained. (3.) It explains it certain that all his posterity would be sinners. Beyond this, the language of the apostle does not go; and all else that has been said of this, is the result of mere philosophical speculation. (4.) This fact is one that is apparent; and that accords with all the analogy in the sequences. (4.) It adds another difficulty to the subject. It not only ex' plains nothing, removes no perplexity, but it compels us at once to aSk the question how can this be just ] How can it be right to charge the sins of the guilty on those who had no par- moral government of God. The drunk- licipation in them 7 How conld milard secures commonly as a result that! lions be responsible for the sins of one his family will be reduced to beggary, want, and wo. His sin is commonly the certain occasion of their being sinners; and the immediate cause of their loss of property and comfort, and of their being overwhelmed in wretchedness and grief A murderer will entail who acted long before they had an existence, and of whose act they had no consciousness, and in which they had no participation? This attempt, therefore, to e.rplain the subject, only involves us in additional dilliculty; and impresses on us deeply the propriety disgrace and shame on his family; a of not attempting to be wise above man of fraud, or piracy, or a traitor, j what is written. (5.) It is an unscripwill whelm, not himself only, but his \ tural use of the word impute. That is family in shame and ruin. 8uch is the never used to denote the charging of fact; the great law or constitution on an act on a man which does not bewhich society is organized; and such | long to him. God reckons, or imputes being 7iow the universal fact, we are not to be surprised that the same thing occurred in the primarii organization of society with Adam at its head, and that we see there the first and the most striking exemplification of the great law on which society is formed.

Various attemi)t.s have been made to exjilain this. The most common has I'ecn that Adam was the representative things as theif are, not as they are not..See Note, ch. iv. 3. ((5.) The doctrine should be left, therefore, simply as it is in the Scriptures, It is there the simple statement of a fact, without any attempt at explanation, 'i'hat fact accords with all that we see and feel. It is a great principle in the constitution of things, that the conduct of one man may pass over in its effects on others,

20 Moreover, * the law enter ed, that the ofFence might abound

and have an influence on their happiness. The simple fact in regard to Adam is, that he sinned; and that such is the organization of the great society of which he was the head and father, that his sin has secured as a certain result that all the race will be sinners also. Hoio this is, the Bible has not explained. It is a part of a great system of things. That it is iwjust no man can prove, for none can show that any sinner suffers more than he deserves. That it is -wise is apparent, for it is attended with numberless blessings. It is connected with all the advantages that grow out of the social organization. The race might have been composed ofindependeni individuals^ where the conduct of an individual, good or evil, might have affected no one but himself. But then fiodei^ would have been impossible. All the benefits of organization into families, and communities, and nations would have been ur'^nown. Man would have lived alone; wept alone; rejoiced alone; died alone. There would have been no sympathy; no compassion; no mutual aid. God has therefore grouped the race into separate communities. He has organized society. He has constituted families, tribes, clans, nations; and though on the general principle the conduct of one inay whelm another in misery, yet the union, the grouping, the constitution, is the source of most of the blessings which man enjoys in this life, and may be of numberless mercies in regard to that which is to come. If it was the organization on which the race might be plunged into sin, it is also the organization on which it may be raised to life eternal. If, on the one hand, it may be abused to produce misery, it may, on the other, be improved to the advancement of peace, sympathy, friendship, prosperity, salvation. At all events, such is the organization in common life and in religion, and it becomes man not to murmur, but to act on it, and to endeavour, by

But where sin abounded, grace did much more '' abound; the tender mercy of God, to turn it to his welfare here and hereafter. As by this organization, through Adam, he has been plunged into sin, so by the same organization, he shall, through "the second Adam," rise to life, and ascend to the skies.

20. Moreover. But. "What is said in this verse and the following, seems designed to meet the Jew, who might pretend that the law of Moses was intended to meet the evils of sin introduced by Adaju, and therefore that the scheme deferJed by the apostle was unnecessary. He therefore shows them that the effect of the law of Moses was to increase rather than to diminish the sins which had been introduced into the world. And if snch was the fact, it could not be plead that it was adapted to overcome the acknowledged evils of the apostasy. ^ The law. The Mosaic laws and institutions. The word seems to be used here to denote all the laws which were given in the Old Testament, t Entered. This word usually means to enter secretly or snrreptitionsly. But it appears to be used here simply in the sense that the law came in, or was given. It came in addition to, or it supervened the state before Moses, when men were living without a revelation. ^ That sin, &c. The word " that" (hu.) in this place does not mean that it was the design of giving the law that sin might abound or be increased, but that such was in fact the effect. It had this tendency, not to restrain or subdue sin, but to excite and increase it. That the word has this sense may be seen in the lexicons. The way in which the law produces this effect is stated more fully by the apostle in ch. vii. 7 — 11. The law expresses the duty of man; it is spiritual and holy; it is opposed to the guilty passions and pleasures of the world; and it thus excites opposition, provokes to anger, and is the occasion by which sin is called into

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace "

^iieircise, and shows itself in the heart. Ai\ law, where there is a disposition to do wrong, has this tendency. A command given to a child that is disposed to indulge his passions, only tends to excite anger and opposition. If the heart was holy, and there was a disposition to do right, law would have no such tendency. See this subject further illustrated in the Notes on ch. vii. 7 — 11. t The offence. The offence which had been introduced by Adam; i.e. sin. Corap. ver. 15. ^Might abound. Might increase; that is, would be more apparent, more violent, more extensive. The introduction of the Mosaic law, instead of diminishing the sins of men, only increases them. ^ But rvhere siji abounded. Alike in all dispensations — before the law, and under the law. In all conditions of the human family before the gospel, it was the characteristic that sin was prevalent. 1 Grace. Favour; mercy. •[ Did much more abound. Superabounded. The word is used nowhere else in the New Testament, except in 2 Cor. vii. 4. It means that the pardoning mercy of the gospel greatly triumphed over sin, even over the sins of the.lews, though those sins were greatly aggravated by the light which they enjoyed under the advantages of divine revelation.

21. That as sin hath reigned. Note, ver. 14. 1 Unto death. Producing or causing death. ^ Even so. In like manner, also. The provisions of redemption are in themselves ample to meet all the ruins of the fall. ^ Might srrace reign. Might mercy be triumphant. Sec John i. 17, " Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." \ Through righteousness. Through, or by means of, God's plan of justification. Note, ch. i. 17. T Unto eternal life. This Htands opposed to " death" in the former part of the verse, and shows that there the apostle had reference to eternal death. The result of God's plan

reign through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord.

of justification shall be to produce eternal life. The triumphs of the gospel here celebrated cannot refer to the number of the subjects, for it has not actually freed all men from the dominion of sin. But the apostle refers to the fact that the gospel is able to overcome sin of the most malignant form, of the most aggravated character, of the longest duration. Sin in all dispensations and states of things can be thus overcome; and the gospel is more than sufficient to meet all the evils of the apostasy, and to raise up the race to heaven.

This chapter is a most precious portion of divine revelation. It brings into view the amazing evils which have resulted from the apostasy. The apostle does not attempt to deny or palliate those evils; he admits them fully; admits them in their deepest, widest, most melancholy extent; just as the physician admits the extent and ravages of the disease which he hopes to cure. At the same time, Christianity is not responsible for those evils. It did not introduce them. It finds them in existence, as a matter of sober and melancholy fact pertaining to all the race. Christianit)'^ is no more answerable for the introduction and extent of sin, than the science of medicine is responsible for the introduction and extent of disease. Like that science, it finds a state of wide-spread evils m existence; and like that science, it is strictly a remedial system. And whether true or false, still the evils of sin exist, just as the evils of disease exist, whether the science of medicine be well-founded or not. Nor docs it make any diflerence in the existence of these evils, whether Christianity be true or false. If the Bible could be proved to be an imposition, it would not prove that men are not sinners. If the whole work of (yhrist could be shown to be imposture, still it would annihilate no sin, nor would it prove that man has not

"Yy^HAT shall we say then? Shall « we continue in sin, that gi*ace may abound?

fallen. The fact would still remain — a fact certainly quite as universal, and quite as melancholy, as it is under the admitted truth of the Christian revelation— and a fact w^hich the infidel is just as much concerned to account for as is the Christian. Christianity proposes a remedy; and it is permitted to the Christian to rejoice that that remedy is ample to meet all the evils; that it is just fitted to recover our alienated world; and that it is destined yet to raise the race up to life, and peace, and heaven. In the provisions of that scheme we may and should triumph; and on the same principle as we may rejoice in the triumph of medicine over disease, so may we triumph in the ascendency of the Christian plan over all the evils of the fall. And while Christians thus rejoice, the infidel, the deist, the pagan, and the scolTer shall contend with these evils which their systems cannot alleviate or remove, and sink under the chilly reign of sin and death; just as men pant, and struggle, and expire under the visitations of disease, because they xvill not apply the proper remedies of medicine, but choose rather to leave themselves to its unchecked ravages, or to use all the nostrums of quackery in a vain attempt to arrest evils which are coming upon them.

The argument commenced in this chapter is continued through the two following. The general design is the same — to show that tlie scheme of justification -which God had adopted does not lead men to sin, but on the contrary to holiness. This is introduced by answering an objection, ch.

chapter, the argument is mainly drawn from the following sources: (1.) From the baptism of Christians, by which they have professed to be dead to sin, and to be bound to live to God. ver. 2 — 13, (2.) From the fact that they were now the servants of God, and under obligation, by the laws of servitude, to obey him. ver. 15—20. (3.) From their former experience of the evil of sin, from its tendency to produce misery and death, and from the fact that by the gospel they had been made ashamed of those things, and had now given themselves to the pure service of God. By these various considerations, he repels the charge that the tendency of the doctrine was to produce licentiousness, but afiirms that it was a system of purity and peace. The argument is continued in the two following chapters, showing still further the purifying tendency of the gospel.

1. What shall ive say then P This is a mode of presenting an objection. The objection refers to what the apostle had said in ch. v. 20. What shall we say to such a sentiment as that where sin abounded grace did much more abound I t Shall ive contimie in sin.? &c. If sin has been the occasion of grace and favour, ought we not to continue in it, and commit as much as possible, in order that grace might abound ] This objection the apostle proceeds to answer. He shows that the consequence does nt>t follow; and proves that the doctrine of justification does not lead to it.

2. God forbid. By no means. Greek, It may not be. Note, ch. iii. 4. The expression is a strong denial of

VI. 1. The apostle pursues this subject what is implied in the objection in ver. by various arguments and illustrations, 1. \ Hoxv shall ive, &c. This conall tending to show that the design and tains a reaso?i of the implied statement bearing of the scheme of justification was to produce the hatred of sin, and the love and practice of holiness.

of the apostle, that we should not continue in sin. The reason is drawn In this from the fact that we are dead in fact

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were ^ baptized into Je-

to sin. It is impossible for those who are dead to act as if they were alive. It is just as absurd to suppose that a Christian should desire to live in sin as that a dead man should put forth the actions of life. ^ That are dead to sin. Thut is, all Christians. To be dead to a thing is a strong expression denoting that it has no influence over us. A man that is dead is uninfluenced and unallected by the affairs of this life. He is insensible to sounds, and tastes, and pleasures; to the hum of business, to the voice of friendship, and to all the scenes of commerce, gayety, and ambition. When it is said, therefore, that a Christian is dead to sin, the sense is, that it has lost its influence over him; he is not subject to it; he is in regard to that, as the man in the grave is to the busy scenes and cares of this life. The expression is not infrequent in the New Testament. Gal. ii. 19, " For I am dead to the law.*' Col. iii. 3,

'* For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." 1 Pet. ii. 24, " Who....bare our sins....that we, being dead to sin," &c. The apostle does not here attempt to prove that Christians are thus dead, nor to state in what way they become so. He assumes the fact without argument. All Christians are thus in fact dead to t;in. They do not live to sin; nor has.sin dominion over them. The expression used here by the apostle is common in all languages. We familiarly speak of a man's being dead to sensual {)leasures, to ambition, &c. to denote that they have lost their influence over him. ^ Live any loncfer therein. How shall we, who have become sensible of the evil of sin, and who have renounced it by solemn profession, continue to practise itl It is therefore abhorrent to' the very nature of the (Christian [)rofession. It is remarkable that the apostle did not attempt to ar^ut; the (juestion on nietaphysical prijiciples. He did not attempt to show by abstruse argument that this consequence did not follow; but he appeals at once to Christian feeling, and shows that the supposition is abhorrent to that. To convince the great mass of men, such an appeal is far betler than laboured metaphysical argumentation. All Christians can understand that; but few would comprehend an abstruse speculation. The best way to silence objections is, sometimes, to show that they violate the feelings of all Christians, and that therefore the objection must be wrong.

3. Knov) ije not. This is a further appeal to the Christian profession, and the principles involved in it, in answer to the objection. The simple argument in this verse and the two following is, that by our very profession made in baptism, we have renounced sin, and have pledged ourselves to live to God. 11 So many of vs, &c. All who were baptized; i. e. all professing Christians. As this renunciation of sin had been thus m;ule by all who professed religion, so the objection could not have reference to Christianity in any manner. ^ Were baptized. The act of baptism denotes dedication to the service of him in whose name we are baptized. One of its designs is to dedicate or consecrate us to the service of Christ. Thus (I Cor. x. 2) the Israelites are said to have been " baptiijd unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" i. e. they became consecrated, or dedicated, or bound to him as their leader and lawgiver. In the place before us, the argument of the apostle is evidently drawn from the supposition that wc have been solemnly consecrated by baptism to the service of Christ; and that to sin IS therefore a violation of the very nature of our Christian i>roiession. ^ Into (fie). This is the word which is used in.Matt, xxviii. 19, "Teach all nations, baptizing them into (i/c) the name of the Father," &c. It means, being baptized unto his service; receiving him as the Saviour and guide, de-

4 Therefore we are buried " with him by baptism into death; that like ^ as Christ was raised

voting all imto him and his cause. ^ JVere baptized mito Ids death. We were baptized with special reference to his death. Our baptism had a strong resemblance to his death. By that he became insensible to the things of the world; by baptism we in like manner become dead to sin. Farther, we are baptized with particular reference to the design of his death, the great leading feature and purpose of his work. That was, to expiate sin; to free men from its power; to make them pure. We have professed our devotion to the same cause; and have solemnly consecrated ourselves to the same design — to put a period to the dominion of iniquity.

4. Therefore ive are buried, &c. It is altogether probable that the apostle in this place had allusion to the custom of baptizing by immersion. This cannot, indeed, be proved, so as to be liable to no objection; but I presume that this is the idea which would strike the great mass of unprejudiced readers. But while this is admitted, it is also certain that his main scope and intention was not to describe the mode of baptism; nor to affirm that that mode was to be universal. The design was very different. It was to show that by the solemn profession made at our baptism, ive had becoine dead to sin, as Christ ivas dead to the living ■world around him ivhen he ivas buried; and that as he was raised up to life, so ive should also rise to a new life. A similar expression occurs in Col. ii. 12, "Buried with him in baptism," &c. 5 Into death (si;). Unto death; i.e. with a solemn purpose to be dead to sin and to the world. Grotius and Doddridge, however, understand this as referring to the death of Christ — in order to represent the death of Christ— or to bring us into a kind of fellowship with his death. 1 Tliat like as. In a similar manner. Christ rose from death M

up from the dead by " the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness ^ of life.

in the sepulchre; and so we are bound by our vows at baptism to rise to a holy life. ^ By the glory of the Father. Perhaps this means, amidst the glory, the majesty and wonders evinced by the Father when he raised him up. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3. Or possibly the word glory is here used to denote simply his power, as the resurrection was a signal and glorious display of his omnipotence. \ Even so. As he rose to new life, so should we. As he rose from death, so we, being made dead to sin and the world by that religion whose profession is expressed by baptism, should rise to a new life, a life of holiness. 1 Should ivalk. Should hve, or conduct. The word walk is often used to express the course of a man's life, or the tenor of his conduct. Note, ch. iv. 12; viii. 1. 1 Cor. v. 7; X. 3. Eph. ii. 10; iv. 1, &c. t In newness of life. This is a Hebraism to denote new life. We should rise with Christ to a new life; and having been made dead to sin, as he was dead in the grave, so should we rise to a holy life, as he rose from the grave. The argument in this verse is, therefore, drawn from the nature of the Christian profession. By our very baptism, by our very profession, we have become dead to sin, as Christ became dead; and being devoted to him by that baptism, we are bound to rise as he did to a new life.

While it is admitted that the allusion here was probably to the custom of immersion in baptism, yet the passage cannot be adduced as an argument that that is the only mode, or that it is binding on all Christians in all places and ages, for the following reasons: (1.) The scope or design of the apostle is not to discuss the mode of baptism, or to state any doctrine on the subject. It is an incidental allusion in the course of an argument, without stating or implying that this was the universal mode

5 For if" we have been planted together in the likeness of his

death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

even then, still less that it was the only possible mode. His maiji design was to state the obligation of Christians to be holy, from the nature of their profession at baptism — an obligation just as impressive, and as forcible, from the application of water in any other mode as by immersion. It arises from the fact of baptism, not from the mode. It is just as true that they who are baptized by affusion, or by sprinkling, are baptized into his death; become professedly dead to sin and the world, and under obligations to live to God, as those who are immersed. It results from the nature of the ordinance, not from the mode. (2.) If this was the mode commonly, it does not follow that it was the only mode, nor that it was to be universally observed. There is no command that this should he the only mode. And the simple fact that it was usually practised in a warm climate, where ablutions were common, does not prove that it is to be observed amidst polar snows and ice, and in infancy, and age, and feebleness, and sickness. See Note on Acts viii. 38, 39. (3.) If this is to be pressed literally as a matter of obligation, why should not also the following expression, " If we have been planted together,'' &c. be pressed literally, and it be demanded that Christians should somehow be " planted" as well as " buried"1 Such an interpretation only shows the absurdity of insisting on a literal interpretation of the Scriptures in cases of simple allusion, or where the main scope is illustration by figurative language.

5. For if we have been planted together. The word here used {a-jy.- <puToc), does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It properly means 80wn or planted at the same time; that which sprouts or springs up together; and is applied to plants and trees that are planted at the same time, and that sprout and grow together. Thus the name would be given to a field of grain that was sown at the same time, and where the grain sprung up and grew simultaneously. Hence it means i7itimately connected, or joined together. And here it denotes that Christians and the Saviour have been united intimately in regard to death; as he died and was laid in the grave, so have they by profession died to sin. And it is therefore natural to expect, that, like grain sown at the same time, they should grow up in a similar manner, and resemble each other, t ^^e shall be also. We shall be also fdlow-plants; i. e. we shall resemble him in regard to the resurrection. As he rose from the grave, so shall we rise from sin. As he lived a new life, being raised up, so shall we live a new life. The propriety of this figure is drawn from the doctrine often referred to in the New Testament, of a union between Christ and his people. See this explained in the Notes on John xv. 1 — 10. The sentiment here inferred is but an illustration of what was said by the Saviour (John xiv. 19), "Because I live, ye shall live also." There is perhaps not to be found a more beautiful illustration than that employed here by the apostle — of seed sown together in the earth, sprouting together, growing together, and ripening together for the harvest. Thus the Saviour and his people are united together in his death, start up to life together in his resurrection, and are preparing together for the same harvest of glory in the heavens, t In the likeness o/"his resurrection. This does not mean that we shall resemble him when we are raised up at the last day — which may be, however, true — but that our rising from sin will resemble his resurrection from the grave. As he rose from the tomb and hved, so shall we rise from sin and live a new Ufc.

G Knowing- this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body " of sin might be de-

6. Kno~iving this. We all knowing this. All Christians are supposed to know this. This is a new illustration drawn from the fact that by his crucifixion our corrupt nature has been crucified also, or put to death; and that thus we should be free from the servitude of sin. 1 Our old man. This expression occurs also in Eph. iv. 22, *' That ye put oft"....the old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts." Col. iii. 9, " Lie not to one another, seeing that ye have put oft' the old man with his deeds." From these passages it is evident that Paul uses the expression to denote our sinful and corrupt nature; the passions and evil propensities that exist before the heart is renewed. It refers to the love of sin, the indulgence of sinful propensities, in opposition to the new disposition which exists after the soul is converted, and which is called " the new man." 1 Is crucified. Is put to death, as if on a cross. In this expression there is a personification of the corrupt propensities of our nature represented as " our old man," our native disposition, &c. The figure is here carried out, and this old man, this corrupt nature, is represented as having been put to death in an agonizing and torturing manner. The pains of crucifixion were perhaps the most torturing of any that the human frame could bear. Death in this manner was most lingering and distressing. And the apostle here by the expression " is crucified" doubtless refers to the painful and protracted struggle which every one goes through when his evil propensities are subdued; when his corrupt nature is slain; and when, a converted sinner, he gives himself up to God, Sin dies within him, and he becomes dead to the world, and to sin; " lor as by the cross death is most lingering and severe, so that corrupt nature is not subdued but by anguish." {Grotins.) All who have been born again can enter into this description. They remember " the wormwood and the gall." They remember the anguish of conviction; the struggle of corrupt passion for the ascendency; the dying convulsions of sin in the heart; the long and lingering conflict before it was subdued, and the soul became submissive to God. Nothing will better express this than the lingering agony of crucifixion: and the argument of the apostle is, that as sin has produced such an effect, and as the Christian is now free from its embrace and its power, he will live to God. ^ With him. The word " with" (a-vv) here is joined to the verb " is crucified," and means " is crucified as he was." | That the body of sin. This expression doubtless means the same as that which he had just used, " our old man." But why the term bodi/ is used, has been a subject in which interpreters have not been agreed. Some say that is a Hebraism, denoting mere intensity or emphasis. Some, that it means the same as fiesh, i. e. denoting our sinful propensities and lusts. Grotius thinks that the term " body" is elegantly attributed to si7i because the body of man is made up of many members joined together compactly, and sin also consists of numerous vices and evil propensities joined compactly, as it were, in one body. But the expression is evidently merely another form of conveying the idea contained in the phrase " our old man" — a personification of sin as if it had a living form, and as if it had been put to death on a cross. It refers to the moral destruction of the power of sin in the heart by the gospel, and not to any physical change in the nature or faculties of the soul. Compare Col. ii. 11. t J\Tight be destroyed. Might be put to death; might become inoperative and powerless. Sin becomes enervated, weakened, and finally annihilated, by the work of the cross. ^ We should

7 For " he that is dead is * freed from sin.

8 Now if we be dead with

not serve. Should not be the slave of sin (JiuXiyyv). That we should not be subject to its control. The sense is, that before this we were slaves of sin (comp. ver. 17), but that now we arc made free from this bondage, because the moral death of sin has freed us from it. 1 Sin. Sin is here personified as a master that had dominion over us, but is now dead.

7. For he that is dead. This is evidently an expression having a proverbial aspect, designed to illustrate the sentiment just expressed. The Kabbins had an expression similar to this, " When one is dead he is free from commands." {Gvotins.) So says Paul, when a man dies he is exempt from the power and dominionof his master,of him who reigned over him. The Christian had been subject to sin before his conversion. But he has now become dead to it. And as when a servant dies, he ceases to be subject to the control of his master, so the Christian being now dead to sin, on the same principle, is released from the control of his former master, sin. The idea is connected with ver. 6, where it is said tliat we should not be the slaves of sin any more. The reason of this, is assigned here where it is said that we arc freed from it as a slave is freed when he dies. Of course, the apostle here is saying nothing of the future -world. His whole argument has respect to the state of the (Jhristiaii here; to his being; freed from the bondage of sin. It is ■ evident that he who is not freed from this bondage here, will not be in the future world. But the argument of the apostle has no bearing on that point. ^ Is freed, (irerk, Is jxistified. The word here is used clearly in the sense of settintf at liherttj, or destroijinc^ the power or ilomini'iit. The wt)r(l is often used in this sense, (^omp. Acts xiii.:3>S, 39. Comp, a similar rx|>rcssion in j 1 Pet. iv. 1, "He that hath suffered I

Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: in the flesh hath ceased from sin." 'J'he design of the apostle is not to say that the (christian is perfect, but that sin has ceased to have dominioji over him, as a master ceases to have power over a slave when he is dead. That dominion may be broken, so that the Christian may not be a slave to sin, and yet he may be conscious of many failings and of much imperfection. See ch. vii.

8 — 11. This passage is a confirmation and illustration of what the apostle hiid said before, ver. 5 — 7. The argument is, that as Christ was once dead but now lives to God, and will no more die, so we, being dead to sin, but living unto God, should not obey sin, but should live only to God.

8. J\'oiv if we be dead with Christ. If we be dead in a manner similar to what he was; if we are made dead to sin by his work, as he was dead in the grave. See Note, ver. 4. % M'e believe. All Christians. It is an article of our faith. This docs not refer to the future v/orld so much as to the present. It becomes an article of our belief that we are to live with Christ. H That we shall also live with him. This does not refer primarily to the resurrection, and to the future slate, but to the present, ff'e hold it as an article of our faith, that we shall be alive with Christ. As he was raised up from death, so we shall be raised from the death of sin. As he lives, so we shall live in holiness. We are in fact raised uj) here, and, as it were, made alive to him. This is not confined, however, to the present life, but as Christ lives for ever, so the apostle goes on to show that we shall.

9. Knowiiiir. As we all know. This is assumed as an undoubted article of belief. * Dieth no more. Will never die again. He will have occasion to make no other atonement for sin; for that whiih he has made is sufficient

ing raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

10 For in that he died, he (lied " unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

for all. He is beyond the dominion of death, and will live for ever. Rev. i. 18, " I am he that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore." This is not only a consolation to the Christian, but it is an argument why he should be holy. % JVo more dominion. No rule; no lordship; no power. He is free from its influence; and the king of terrors cannot reach his throne. Comp. Heb. ix. 25—28; x. 12.

10. For in that he died. For in respect to the design of his death. ^ He died 7into sin. His death had respect to si?i. The design of his death was to destroy sin; to make an atonement for it, and thus to put it away. As his death was designed to effect this, so it follows that Christians being baptized into his death, and having it as their object to destroy sin, should not indulge in it. The whole force of the motive, therefore, drawn from the death of Christ, is to induce Christians to forsake sin. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 15, "And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them and rose again." 1 Once (icpciTT-jL^). Once only; once for all. This is an adverb denying a repetition {Scldensner), and implies that it will not be done again. Comp. Heb. vii.?1; ix. 12; x. 10. The argument of the apostle rests much on this, that his death was once for all; that it would not be repeated, t In that he liveth. The object, the design of his living. He aims with his living power to promote the glory of God. | Unto God. He seeks to promote his glory. The argument of Paul is this: Christians by their profession are united to him. They are bound to imitate him. As M 2