Chapter 9: Dr. Chauncy’s Argument from Romans 5:12

Having in the preceding chapters considered Doctor C's arguments from reason and from the divine perfections, I proceed now to consider those which are drawn from particular passages of scripture. The first of those passages which demands our attention is Romans 5:12, etc. Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men; for that all have sinned. For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed, when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned, after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one, many be dead; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded to many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offenses to justification. For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. Moreover, the law entered that grace might abound: but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin has reigned to death, even so might grace reign through righteousness to eternal life, by Jesus Christ, our Lord.

The Doctor's argument from this passage depends wholly on the supposition, that the apostle considers "Adam and Christ as the respective opposite sources of death and life to mankind universally:" Or that Christ is the source of life and eternal salvation to all men without exception, as Adam was the source of death to all men without exception. The Doctor's reasons to support this proposition are — (1) That in the 15th verse it is said, If through the offense of one many be dead, much more has the grace of God abounded to many: and as by many in the former part of this verse is meant all men, therefore he concludes that the same word is used in the same extensive sense, in the latter part of the verse: "the antithesis," he says, "will otherwise be lost." — (2) The word many, [in non-Latin alphabet], means all men, because the article is prefixed to it, [in non-Latin alphabet]. — (3) That in the 18th verse it is expressly asserted, As by the offense of one, the judgment came upon all men, [in non-Latin alphabet], to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, [in non-Latin alphabet], to justification of life. From where the Doctor concludes, that the words all men in both parts of the comparison, are used in the same extent. — (4) That the advantage by Christ exceeds, abounds beyond, the disadvantage by Adam; but this, unless all men be saved, would be so far from the truth, that the former would sink below the latter. Let us attend to these distinctly.

1. The word many in the former part of the 15th and 19th verses, means all men: therefore it means the same in the latter part of those verses: the antithesis will otherwise be lost. Now how does the truth of this proposition appear? It must certainly be supported by proper proof, to obtain credit. But in the very many instances in which the Doctor is pleased to repeat this proposition, in his long commentary on Romans 5:12, etc. I do not find one reason offered to prove it, beside that quoted above, "The antithesis will otherwise be lost." This therefore is now to be considered. In the rebellion in Great Britain, 1745, large numbers of men were engaged in the rebellion, and were led away by the Pretender. After the Pretender was defeated, large numbers, by the influence of some particular person, we will suppose, returned to their allegiance, and took the proper oaths to the King: yet not all who were drawn into the rebellion by the Pretender. Now would there be any impropriety in saying in this case, As by the Pretender many had been drawn into the rebellion, so by that other person many were brought back to their allegiance? The former many is allowed to be more extensive, than the latter; yet there is a manifest antithesis in the proposition; an antithesis as manifest as there would have been, if the men who returned to their allegiance, had been just as numerous as those who engaged in the rebellion, and had been the same individuals. Equally manifest it is, that though the many, who died in Adam, be more numerous than the many who are the subjects of saving grace by Christ: yet there is a proper antithesis in this proposition — If through the offense of one, many be dead; much more the grace of God by Jesus Christ, has abounded to many.

2. The word many, [in non-Latin alphabet], means all men, because the article is joined with it, [in non-Latin alphabet], the many. If this is evident at all, it must be evident either from the general use of the adjective [in non-Latin alphabet], when connected with the article, or from the circumstances of the particular case in which it is used in this passage, Romans 5:15 and 19. If the validity of the argument now under consideration is evident from the general use of [in non-Latin alphabet] in the plural with the article; then generally when used by good authors, and especially by the authors of the New Testament, it means a strict universality. Let us therefore attend to particular instances. Acts 26:24: "Much learning does make you mad;" [in non-Latin alphabet]. But no man will say that this expression means all learning. The use of the article however is very proper, and the expression means the much learning of which the apostle was possessed. 2 Corinthians 2:17: For we are not as many, [in non-Latin alphabet], which corrupt the word of God. If [in non-Latin alphabet] here mean all men, the apostle in direct contradiction to himself in this very expression, means that he himself, and all the other apostles, as well the rest of mankind, did corrupt the word of God. Revelation 17:1: I will show to you the judgment of the great whore, that sits upon many waters, [in non-Latin alphabet]. All waters, or all people cannot be meant, because by far the greater part of the nations of the world never were under the influence of the great whore. The only other instances in the whole New Testament, in which [in non-Latin alphabet] in the plural is used with the article, are Matthew 24:12, Romans 12:5, chapter 15:22, 1 Corinthians 10:17 and 33, which the reader may examine for himself, and it is presumed he will find that in no one of them is a strict universality clearly intended. If this is so, it is by no means evident from the general use of [in non-Latin alphabet] in the plural with the article, that [in non-Latin alphabet], many, in Romans 5:15 and 19, means all men.

Nor is this more evident from the circumstances of the particular case, in which many, [in non-Latin alphabet], is used in Romans 5:15. Let it be translated as Doctor C. chooses to translate it, thus: If through the offence of one, the many be dead, much more the grace of God, by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded to the many. Nothing appears from the expression, but that the meaning of the apostle may be, what it has generally been understood to be, that the many who were connected with Adam, and whose life or death depended on his standing or falling, became dead through his offence: and the many who are connected with Christ, and with a particular design to save whom, He died, shall be made the subjects of the abounding grace of God in their most glorious salvation. I say, nothing appears, either from the general use of [in non-Latin alphabet], or from the particular use of it in this case, but that this and this only is the real sense of it, in this instance. And for Doctor C. to wish his readers, before he has given them a reason, to give up this sense in favor of his own, is for him to come to them in the humble character of a suppliant, and not in the dignified character of a cogent reasoner.

3. In the 18th verse, it is expressly asserted, As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men, [in non-Latin alphabet], to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, [in non-Latin alphabet], to justification of life: from where Doctor C. concludes, that the words all men, in both parts of the comparison are used in the same extent; and says, It can be no other than a flat contradiction to the express words of the apostle to say, that in the latter part of this comparison not all men are meant, but believers only; that is, a few of them. It is indeed a flat contradiction to Doctor C.'s sense of the apostle's words; but that it is a contradiction to the true sense of those words, does not appear. If it should be further granted to be a contradiction to the most literal sense of those words taken by themselves, it would not from there follow, that it is a contradiction to the true and real sense of the words. The real sense of words in all authors, is in thousands of instances to be known, not from the words themselves merely, but from their connection and other circumstances.

The Doctor rightly asserts, that the words all men in verse 18th, mean the same with the many in verse 15th. And as it has been shown, that there is no evidence given by the Doctor, that the many, to whom grace abounds through Christ, mean all men; so all men in the 18th verse meaning, by his own consent, the same with the many in verse 15th, must, until we have evidence to the contrary, be understood with the same restriction. To carry on the comparison, and maintain the antithesis, there is no more necessity of understanding the words all men, when applied to the saved by Christ in the 18th verse, to mean the whole human race; than there is of understanding in that extent, the many in the latter part of verse 15th.

Besides, the meaning of those words is abundantly restricted by the context: as verse 17th, For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign by one, Jesus Christ. The 18th verse is an inference drawn from the 17th, and is introduced by [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], therefore. But the 18th verse would be no just inference at all from the 17th, unless the words all men in the latter part of the 18th verse be equally restricted as the words they which receive abundance of grace, in the 17th verse. Let us make trial of understanding those phrases in a sense differently extensive, thus; For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more true believers in this life, who are the subjects of the peculiar and abundant grace of God, shall reign in eternal life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men universally to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men universally to justification of life, whether in this world they believe or not. The whole force of this reasoning is more briefly expressed thus; Those who believe in this life, shall reign in life eternal: therefore also all men, whether they believe in this life or not, shall in like manner reign in life eternal. But who does not see, that this consequence by no means follows from the premises?

Although Dr. C. supposes "this therefore" [in verse 18th,] "is the same which began the 12th verse:" — yet he allows, it will make no essential difference in the apostle's reasoning, if we should suppose, that the 18th and 19th verses introduced by [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], are a conclusion from the three foregoing verses: And it is evident by the Doctor's own discourse, that he himself was full in the opinion, that the 18th and 19th verses, are a conclusion from the three preceding verses, though he was of the opinion that those three verses, are an INTERPOSED parenthesis. Let the reader notice the following passage; The view of the apostle in interposing these verses [the 15th, 16th, and 17th,] was that he might argue from the gift in this abounding sense, when he came to prosecute the comparison between Adam and Christ — And if the gift through Christ might be supposed to abound beyond the lapse, in the 15th, 16th, and 17th verses, why not in the 18th and 19th?

Indeed the Doctor himself allows, that the all men in the latter part of the 18th verse, is no more extensive, than they which receive abundance of grace in the 17th verse. But he supposes that the latter expression is equally extended with the former, and that the former extends to all mankind. I say, he supposes this: but his opponents in this controversy suppose the contrary; and how does it appear, but that their supposition is as good as his? If the Doctor wished that we should give the preference to his supposition, he ought to have given us some reason.

The Doctor with the help of a "learned friend" has given us a long dissertation on the 17th verse, and on the Greek verb [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], with a design to prove, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], they who receive, mean not those who receive the grace of God actively, voluntarily and with a heart to improve it; but those who are the "objects of this grace," "or the persons upon whom it is bestowed." But this is altogether immaterial in the present dispute. By the abundance of grace Dr. C. understands the abounding advantage by Christ, terminating in a reign in life. — Now it will be granted on all hands, that they on whom this grace is bestowed, will be saved. Indeed the very expression, reigning in life, implies salvation. Those therefore on whom this grace is bestowed, will as certainly and as confessedly be saved, as those who cheerfully receive and improve the grace of God. All the question is, and a very important one it is, whether this abounding grace terminating in a reign in life, be bestowed on all men. That it is preached or offered to all men, is granted. But that it is so communicated to all, as to secure their reign in life, is a different idea, and is the main subject of this controversy.

So that all the labours of Dr. C. and his ingenious friend, to settle the meaning of receive, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], contribute nothing to establish this point, That all men in the latter part of verse 18th, mean the whole human race. So long as the Doctor grants, that the words all men, verse 18th, are not more extensive than they which receive abundance of grace, verse 17th; and so long as he has not proved, that they which receive abundance of grace, so as to reign in eternal life, mean the whole human race; so long nothing is done to prove universal salvation, from the use of the words all men, verse 18th. To say, that they which receive abundance of grace mean all mankind, because that expression is equally extensive as the words all men in the 18th verse, is a mere begging of the question. It is in the first place to suppose and not to prove, that the words all men mean all mankind; and then by them to prove, that also they which receive abundance of grace, mean all mankind.

The universal term all men, verse 18th, is by the former part of the chapter limited to those who are justified by faith, who have peace with God, and who joy in God, through Christ, as having received reconciliation. Dr. C's opinion was, that the 18th verse is but the full expression of the sentence left imperfect in the 12th verse, and that the therefore in the beginning of the 18th verse is the same which began the 12th verse. The 18th verse then is an immediate conclusion from the verses preceding the 12th, especially from the 11th. Now the believers in endless punishment hold, that in all that part of the chapter, from the beginning to the 12th verse, the apostle had been speaking of the privileges of believers only, and not those privileges which belong to all mankind. And to infer from those privileges which are peculiar to believers, that all mankind will be saved, is to infer a consequence, which is by no means contained in the premises: and such reasoning ought never to be imputed to any man of Paul's sound judgment, much less to him, an inspired apostle.

To illustrate this matter, permit me to descend to particulars. Verse first, believers are said to be justified by faith and to have peace with God: verse second, to have access by faith into the grace of the gospel and to rejoice (or glory) in the hope of the glory of God: verse third, to glory in tribulations: verse fifth, to have the love of God shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost: verse eighth, it is said that God commends his love towards believers, in that Christ died for them: verse ninth, that believers are justified by Christ's blood, and saved from wrath through him: verse tenth, that believers are reconciled to God by the death of Christ and saved by his life: verse eleventh, that believers glory in God through Christ, by whom they have received the atonement or reconciliation. Now what is the consequence really following from these premises, ascribing to believers these peculiar and exclusive privileges? Is it that by the righteousness of Christ the free gift to justification of life, is come upon all mankind, believers and unbelievers? By no means: any man, without the aid of inspiration, would be ashamed to draw such a consequence from such premises. The only just consequence of these premises, is that which has been generally taken to be the meaning of the eighteenth verse; namely, that as by the offence of one, Adam, judgment to condemnation came upon all mankind who were his seed; even so by the righteousness of one, Jesus Christ, the free gift to justification of life, came upon all his seed, who are believers only, and who are the only persons of whom the apostle had been speaking in the premises. May I not now adopt the same bold language which Doctor C. often uses concerning his comments on scripture, that no other sense than this, can be put on this eighteenth verse without making the apostle argue inconclusively?

I know very well that the Doctor understood differently the whole passage from the beginning of this chapter to the twelfth verse. But as his whole argument from Romans 5:12 to the end, in the present view of it, depends on his different construction of verse 1-12; it is not sufficient to say, that the Doctor understood that passage differently, or that it is capable of a different construction. It must be shown that it is not capable of the construction which is given above; and that the Doctor's construction must be the true one. Let us therefore attend to his construction and his reasons in support of it.

The construction is, that the last verse of the preceding chapter, the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, verses, and the latter part of the eleventh verse of this chapter, are spoken of all mankind. The reasons which he assigns for such an understanding of those verses, are

(1.) That in the sixth verse Christ is said to die for the ungodly. But if we should assert, that by the ungodly here are meant those only, who afterward and during this life become godly or believers, though Christ died for them while ungodly or considering them as ungodly, Doctor C. has given no confutation of such a construction. Therefore he had no right to expect, that it would be rejected by any one who should choose to adopt it. Or if we allow, that Christ did die for all men in this sense, that he died to introduce a dispensation of grace which should offer salvation to all, and invite all to it, and to use Doctor C.'s own expression, to put all into salvable circumstances; nothing will hence follow favorable to the actual salvation of all men, or to the Doctor's argument from Romans 5:12, etc. It will not follow, that all will accept the invitations to salvation and act upon them. Still the we and us, which occur so often from the first to the twelfth verse, and particularly in verse sixth, may mean believers only.

(2.) It is a gross mistake to think, that the apostle in this ninth verse is speaking of that justification he had in the first verse connected with faith; and for this decisive reason, because — as salvation from wrath is one thing essentially included in that justification which is the result of true faith; it would be ridiculous to argue, much more being justified, meaning hereby this justification, we shall be saved from wrath. But did Doctor C. entertain the opinion, that justification and salvation are one and the same? Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness: he was then justified: but he did not then receive complete salvation. Believers being in this life justified by faith, have peace with God, according to the first verse of this chapter, as Doctor C. allows. Yet they are not in this life saved from wrath in the sense they will be, at the day of judgment. Therefore, however Doctor C. asserts it, it does not appear to be ridiculous to argue, that believers being in this life justified by faith in the blood of Christ, shall at the day of judgment, much more be saved from wrath through him. Is it ridiculous to argue, that Abraham being justified by faith here, will much more be saved from wrath hereafter?

(3) The particle [in non-Latin alphabet], now, connected with the justification here treated of, is emphatic, making it clear, that the apostle is not to be understood of justification at the great day; but of justification that had at that time been completed. No one pretends, that the apostle means a justification at the great day. It is allowed on all hands, that he means a justification, which had at that present time been completed. But what follows hence? Did Doctor C. imagine, that believers are not in a proper sense completely justified in this life? And that the justification of Abraham, Rahab, etc. was in no proper sense completed before their death, or before the great day? Concerning the former, it is expressly said, that he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness — that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, etc., and concerning the latter, was not Rahab the harlot justified, etc.? Nor is it material to the present purpose, whether this justification of Rahab mean a justification by God, or a manifestative justification, proving, that she was justified in the sight of God; because the latter, equally as the former, implies that she was then justified in the sight of God.

That believers are in this life justified in a peculiar sense, is further taught in 1 Corinthians 6:11, And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God. I presume it will be granted, that pardon or forgiveness is an essential part of justification, and that when a man is forgiven by God, he is justified by God. But that believers are forgiven in this life, is evident from the following texts, Matthew 9:2, "Son, your sins be forgiven you." See also, Mark 2:5, and Luke 5:20 — Colossians 2:13. And you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, has he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. 1 John 2:12, I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you, for his name's sake.

But why need I produce proofs of what Doctor C. grants, though it seems in his comment on the 9th verse, he had forgotten it? In his comment on the 1st verse, etc, he speaks of the justified by faith, as glorying in hope of the glory of God — and in their sufferings — because they knew that tribulation works patience, and patience experience, and experience hope. The Doctor, as the apostle did before him, evidently considers these things as taking place in this life. Indeed the contrary cannot be pretended without the grossest absurdity. He also considers these views and affections as peculiar to the justified by faith. Therefore some men are completely justified by faith in this life: at least so completely, as to render the 9th verse properly applicable to them. Therefore his argument from [in non-Latin alphabet], now, that the justification spoken of in the 9th verse, is not peculiar to believers, proves nothing.

Beside, Doctor C. could not, without the most glaring absurdity and inconsistency, understand this 9th verse of all mankind: because the persons here referred to, shall be saved from wrath. But according to the Doctor some men will not be saved from wrath, they will suffer all that wrath to which they are liable on the footing of strict justice: they will suffer according to their sins, according to their crimes, and their deserts, and so that the whole threatened penalty will be executed on them.

(4) Doctor C. argues, that because it is said in verse 10th, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God; by the we here, we must understand, not believers only, but all mankind: or because, as the Doctor paraphrases the words, while they were enemies, they were reconciled; therefore this reconciliation cannot mean the cordial reconciliation of true believers. The force of this argument wholly depends on this supposition, that the persons here intended, were reconciled, and yet after the reconciliation was effected, they still remained enemies. But what necessity of this gloss of the text? Why may it not mean this merely, that when the persons here intended were going on in their enmity, they were arrested by the grace of God, reclaimed from their enmity, and reconciled to God? There appears to be nothing absurd or unusual in this expression understood in this sense. If it should be said, When a subject was waging war against his sovereign, and was in actual battle with the troops of his sovereign, he was reconciled to him; the expression would not naturally imply, and no man would understand it to mean, that notwithstanding the reconciliation, he still continued a fixed and malicious enemy to his sovereign. No man would understand the expression in any other sense than this, that in the midst of the war and battle, he was struck with conviction of his wickedness, and became cordially reconciled to his sovereign.

If the Doctor depended on the original words [in non-Latin alphabet], to make out that the reconciliation here intended took place, while the persons spoken of remained enemies; he might as conclusively have argued, that the person mentioned in John 9:25, ([in non-Latin alphabet]) had his sight restored to him, while he remained perfectly blind; and that Saul went to Damascus, with the expectation of bringing certain persons to Jerusalem, who at the same time should still remain at Damascus, ([in non-Latin alphabet]) Acts 22:5.

At length we come to the Doctor's exposition of the 11th verse, to which his criticism, on all the preceding verses refers. He tells us, The meaning plainly and briefly is, We believers glory in God of our interest, and relation to him, as our covenant God, through Jesus Christ, by whom we were so changed in our state, while enemies — in common with the rest of mankind, as to be capable of — final justification upon the foot of faith. On this it may be remarked, That if by interest in and covenant relation to God, Doctor C. meant any thing different from that state of reconciliation, which is obtained by Christ, and which is mentioned in the latter part of this verse, it does not appear, that the text gives him any warrant to insert that interest, etc. in his comment, as a ground of rejoicing or glorying. I appeal to the reader, whether the most natural sense of the text be not this, We believers glory in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, as having by Christ received reconciliation; or for this reason, that of God's rich grace through Christ, we have obtained reconciliation with God. Otherwise, why is the circumstance of our receiving the reconciliation by Christ mentioned in this connection with our glorying in God? Beside, to glory in God as our covenant God, and to glory in him on account of our reconciliation with him, is one and the same thing.

The glorying of which the apostle speaks, is through Christ; and this implies, that it is on account of some benefit or blessing received through Christ: and what this blessing is, which the apostle had in view, and which he considered as the ground of glorying to believers, he immediately explains in these words, by whom we have received the reconciliation, that reconciliation of which he had been speaking in the 10th verse. But if the reconciliation, which the apostle makes, the great ground of rejoicing or glorying to believers, be, as Doctor C. holds, common to believers and unbelievers? Then the great ground of glorying to believers is not any blessing peculiar to believers; but something common to all mankind; and therefore unbelievers have just the same reason to glory in that blessing as believers; which is no more credible than the doctrine of universal salvation, and wants as much proof as that doctrine; and therefore cannot be admitted as any evidence of the truth of that doctrine.

I beg the reader's patience, while I make a few other remarks on Doctor C's construction of the passage from Romans 4:25, to Chapter 5:12; and I wish the reader to keep before him the passage itself, while he follows me in these remarks.

This whole passage is expressed in the first person, and is manifestly one continued discourse. Yet Doctor C. was of the opinion, that in this short passage of only twelve verses, the persons, or the we, us and our, which occur in almost every sentence, are shifted no less than four times. In the last verse of Chapter 4, it was his opinion, that all men are intended: that from the first to the sixth verse of Chapter 5, only believers are intended: that from the sixth to the eleventh verse all men are intended: that in the former part of the eleventh verse believers only are intended: that in the latter part of the eleventh verse all men are again intended. I beg leave to set down this whole passage, according to the Doctor's explanation, together with the text itself — thus: TEXT. Chapter 4:25. Who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification. Chapter 5:1. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2. By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulation works patience; 4. And patience experience; and experience hope; 5. And hope makes not ashamed, because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given to us. 6. For when we were without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: Yet perhaps for a good man some would even dare to die. 8. But God commends his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9. Much more then being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10. For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son: much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11. And not only so; but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement, [or the reconciliation.] Doctor C.'s Explanation. Who was delivered to put all men into a capacity to obtain the pardon of their offences, and was raised again to put them into a capacity of being justified at the great day. Therefore believers being justified by faith, have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. By whom also believers have access by faith into this grace wherein they stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but believers glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulation works patience; and patience experience and experience hope: and hope makes not ashamed, because the love of God is shed abroad in the hearts of believers, by the Holy Ghost, which is given to them. For when all men were without strength, in due time Christ died for them all, while they were ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man would one die: Yet perhaps for a good man, some would even dare to die. But God commends his love towards all men, in that while they were yet sinners, Christ died for them all. Much more then all men being now by the blood of Christ brought into a capacity or possibility of salvation, shall in fact be saved from wrath through Christ. For if when all men were enemies, they were by the death of Christ brought into a possibility of salvation; much more being brought into a possibility of salvation, those all men shall be actually saved by the life of Christ. And not only so; but believers also glory in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all men have received the possibility of salvation.

How strange, that in a continued discourse all in the first person plural, the we and us should be changed backward and forward four times! What torturing of the scripture is here! At this rate, what discourse in the world will be intelligible? How will it be possible for any man, and especially for the common people, for whom as well as for the learned, the scriptures were written, to understand them?

But this is not all. By this various reference of the pronouns we and us, the reasoning of the apostle is rendered utterly inconclusive, in almost every step of it. Thus the first verse of the fifth Chapter is manifestly brought in by the apostle, as a consequence drawn from the last verse of the preceding Chapter. But from the consideration, that Christ died and rose to put all men into a capacity of obtaining justification at the great day, it by no means follows, that believers are now justified by faith, and have peace with God. Verse ninth, if it be ever so true, that all men are put into a possibility of salvation, it by no means follows, that all men will be actually saved. It no more follows, than from the opportunity given all men, of obtaining salvation immediately after this life, it follows, that all will actually be saved immediately after this life: Or than from the opportunity of entering the land of Canaan, given all that generation, which came out of Egypt, it followed, that all that generation would in fact enter that land: Or than from the opportunity given any man to become rich or honorable, it follows, that he will in fact become rich or honorable. The same observation is equally applicable to the tenth verse. What was before observed concerning the eleventh verse, understood in Doctor C.'s sense, needs not to be repeated.

But what is of chief importance is, that according to the Doctor's construction, there is no argumentative connection between the eleventh and the twelfth, or which is the same thing, between the eleventh and the eighteenth verses. If the Doctor's sense of the eleventh and eighteenth verses be true, the latter is no just consequence from the former. The Doctor's sense of the eleventh verse is, that all men through Christ have received a possibility of final salvation; and his sense of the eighteenth verse is, that all men will actually be saved. But if it be ever so true, that all men have received a possibility or opportunity of final salvation, it does not follow, that all will actually be saved. Yet as the twelfth or eighteenth verse, (the intermediate verses being a parenthesis) is a deduction from the eleventh, the last of the propositions just expressed, should justly follow from the other; otherwise the apostle argues inconclusively. And as the Doctor's gloss of these two verses makes the apostle reason inconclusively, we may be sure, that he has not given the true sense of them — but according to the common understanding of these verses, the reasoning is clear and certain. For if believers have obtained through Christ a cordial reconciliation and peace with God, then certainly those same believers will, in the same way, obtain eternal life and salvation.

That the 12th, and therefore the 18th verse, is an inference from the 11th, is, I think, manifest from a careful perusal of the passage, and it is at least implicitly granted by Dr. C. He expressly says, that the therefore in the beginning of the 18th verse, is the same which began the 12th verse. The protasis or first part of the comparison was there entered upon, but left unfinished. It is here resumed, I say, therefore, as by the offence of one man, etc. And his paraphrase of the 18th verse is in these words: I say, therefore, (to resume now and pursue the comparison I began in the 12th verse) as it was by the lapse of the one man, Adam, etc. The Doctor also quotes Dr. Doddridge's assertion, that the 12th verse is an inference from the 11th, and does not contradict that assertion, though he labours through a number of pages, to affix a different sense from that of Dr. Doddridge, to the 11th verse, that thus he may evade the construction of the 18th verse, which Dr. Doddridge had given, and establish his own. But all this was needless, if indeed the 12th and 18th verses are not an inference from the 11th. Nor is there any inconsistence in the opinion, that the 18th verse may be at the same time an inference from the 11th and from the 15th, 16th and 17th verses. True and sufficient premises or reasons of the proposition of the 18th verse, may be contained in the 11th verse. Those reasons may be explained, and even others added in the 15th, 16th and 17th verses, which fall into a parenthesis; and the 18th verse may contain an inference justly deducible from either, or from both.

I am indeed sensible, that Dr. C. in his paraphrase of the 12th verse, does not consider it as an inference from the 11th; but the 11th as deducible by way of inference from the 12th, in this manner: Because sin and death came upon all men by Adam, therefore all men have obtained a possibility of salvation by Christ. His words are, For this cause or reason, we have received reconciliation by Jesus Christ, namely, because as sin entered into the world by the one man, Adam, etc. But this is as surprising as any part of Dr. C's truly surprising exposition of this chapter. In the first place, it is a mere conjecture, unsupported by any thing, but pure imagination. In the second place, to apply this paraphrase to the 18th verse, which is but the full expression of the 12th, it will stand thus: For this cause or reason all men have received a possibility of salvation, namely, that as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to actual salvation. Or more briefly thus: The reason, why all men have obtained a possibility of salvation, is, that salvation is actually come upon all men: Or to place the sentence in its proper arrangement, Salvation is actually come upon all men; therefore all men have received a possibility of salvation. On this reasoning I need make no remark. It is not however probable, that the Doctor was sensible, that his paraphrase of the 12th verse, applied to the 18th, would come to this. Nor is the reason just expressed, that which the Doctor believed to be the true one, why we have received the reconciliation. But that which in the Doctor's opinion was the true reason, he expressly declares to be, That it was in such a way, namely, by the offence of one, that judgment came upon all men to condemnation. Who is answerable for this inconsistency, I need not inform the reader.

Before I dismiss this part of Dr. C's book, I cannot but observe, that he speaks of a double justification, the one meaning absolution at the great day; the other meaning the advantageous state, or the possibility of the salvation of all mankind through Christ. It seems then that the Doctor had forgotten, that he had but a few pages before made out a threefold justification: The first kind consisting in the introduction to a capacity or possibility of salvation through Christ: The second in the justification of believers, who have peace with God while in this life; such was the justification of Abraham: The third in absolution at the great day. But when any thing is abundantly multiplied, no wonder if the author himself of that multiplication forgets the number of units contained in his own product.

Dr. C. says, It can be no other than a flat contradiction to the express words of the Apostle himself, to say that in the latter part of the comparison in the 18th verse, the words all men are not used in the same extensive sense, as in the former part of that verse. This is indeed a strong, positive assertion, but where is the reason to support it? Beside; he thought it no flat contradiction to the express words of the Apostle, to say that we in the former part of the 11th verse, is not used in the same extensive sense as in the latter part of that verse: nor any flat contradiction to the words of our Saviour, to say, that the word everlasting is not used in the same extensive sense in the former part, as in the latter part of Matthew 25:46, These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.

But it is time we should proceed to the other argument of Dr. C. to prove that universal salvation is taught in Romans 5:12, etc., namely,

4. The advantage by Christ exceeds, abounds beyond, the disadvantage by Adam. But unless all men be saved, the former "sinks below" the latter. It is granted, that the advantage by Christ, to those who obtain salvation by Christ, exceeds, and abounds beyond, the disadvantage by Adam. But the question is, whether this saving advantage extend to all those, to whom the disadvantage by Adam extended. That it does extend to all the same subjects to whom the disadvantage by Adam extended, is held by Dr. C. But how does he prove it? By no other arguments than those which we have already particularly considered; and whether they be conclusive, is submitted to the reader. Dr. C. did not imagine, that the advantage by Christ was more extensive, or extended to a greater number of persons, than the disadvantage by Adam. He believed, that they both extended to all mankind. Therefore, the super-abounding, the excess, or surplusage of the advantage by Christ, does not consist in the extent of it, but in something else, and that something else may exist, though the extent as to the number of persons be the same, or even less than the extent of the disadvantage by Adam.

If the glory of God, and the happiness of the created system, be more advanced by the salvation of a part of the human race, and by the rejection of the rest, than they would have been, if Adam had never fallen; then surely the advantage by Christ on the general scale, does not "sink below" the disadvantage by Adam: and to assert, that the divine glory and the happiness of the created system would be most advanced by the salvation of all men, is to beg material points in question. But if Doctor C. mean, that if all be not saved by Christ, then the advantage by Christ to those who shall be finally miserable, "sinks below" the disadvantage by Adam to the same persons; I grant it, and apprehend no disadvantage to my cause by the concession. For it is granting no more than is implied in the very proposition, which I endeavour to defend, that all men will not be saved.

I have now finished my remarks on Doctor C's argument from Romans 5:12, etc. If the reader think I have been prolix in these remarks, I hope he will remember how prolix the Doctor was in his argument from this passage; and I presume he will not think it unreasonable to take up nineteen pages in answering sixty-nine.

It is now left to the reader to judge, whether it be certain, that because the word many in the former part of the fifteenth and nineteenth verses means all men, it means the same in the latter part of those verses — whether it be certain, that the word many means all men, because the article is joined with it, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], the many — whether because the words all men in the former part of the eighteenth verse, mean all mankind, they certainly mean the same in the latter part of that verse — whether because the advantage by Christ exceeds the disadvantage by Adam, it certainly follows, that the advantage to every individual man, will exceed the disadvantage to that man.