the declaration that we are "justified by his blood." Now such an interpretation is not only allowable, but is even, I may say, suggested by the Apostle himself in another passage, in which, speaking of Christ's death, he uses the very corresponding word to (vaкоn) "obedience" in this place: Christ, he says, "became obedient (výkoos) to death, even the death of the cross." His death, indeed, is more than once referred to in this point of view; namely, as a part, and as the great and consummating act of that submissive and entire obedience which he rendered throughout to his Father's will. For instance, in our Lord's own words just before He suffered, "not my will, but thine be done :" Lo, I come to do thy will, O God;” “when He suffered He threatened not, but submitted Himself to Him that judgeth righteously."

66

Then, with respect to the imputation of Adam's sin to his descendants, it might, as I have said, be expected that, if true, it would be frequently and fully set forth. But at any rate it could hardly fail to be mentioned on those occasions where the Apostle is occupied in proving and insisting on the universal necessity of a Redeemer,

and the inevitable ruin of mankind without an atoning sacrifice. Now this plainly is his object in the opening of this very Epistle, (to the Romans) which is generally regarded as the most systematic of all that he wrote. What then is Paul's procedure? He dwells at large on the actual sins of men; he gives a copious and shocking detail of the enormities of the Gentile world, into which they had plunged in defiance of their own natural conscience; and then expatiates on the sins of which the Jews had been guilty, in violation of the law in which they trusted. How needless would all this have been for one who maintained the doctrine of

imputed sin! No one, indeed, denies that men do commit actual sin; but the hypothesis I have been speaking of would have cut the argument short: on that supposition it would have been sufficient to say at once, that Adam's transgression being imputed to all his posterity, so that they are all regarded as guilty of his act, they must be, in consequence, whether sinful or innocent,-whether more or less sinful,-in their own persons, doomed to eternal perdition, unless redeemed from this imputed guilt. Nor does

the passage I have appealed to, stand alone in this respect. Numerous as are the denunciations of divine judgment against sin, all concur in making the reference not to the imputed sin of our first parents, but to the actual sins of men: none of them warrants the conclusion that any one is liable to punishment (I mean in the next world) for any one's sins but his own.

§ 3. It should be observed also, that there is an especial reason for interpreting that part of the Epistle I have been alluding toe by reference to other parts of Scripture: which is, that it is not the Apostle's object, in this place, to declare or establish the doctrine of original sin, and of our deliverance from its consequences by Christ our Saviour. It is plain from the context that these points are established only incidentally; the main drift of his argument being to set forth the universality of the redemption, as being co-extensive with the evil introduced at the Fall, which it was designed to remedy. The Jewish converts to whom he seems to be principally

e Rom. v. 19.

addressing himself, were disposed, by their ancient national prejudices, to limit the benefits of the Messiah's advent to their own people. The great and revolting mystery to them, was, "that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs :" in opposition to which exclusive spirit he infers the universal redemption accomplished by Christ from the universality of that loss and corruption which He undertook to repair: "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive :" "as by one man's disobedience many (the many, i. e. all) were made (or constituted, Kaтeσтálŋσav,) sinners, even so by the obedience of the one shall the many," (i. e. not the Jews only, but the whole race of mankind, as many as believe) "be made righteous."

Now there is no doubt that such an oblique allusion to any doctrine does not only establish it, but establish it even more decidedly than an express assertion: since it implies that it is a known and undisputed truth; but still the difference between the two cases is not the less important: we are not to look for the same full and clear exposition of any point of faith in those passages where it is merely alluded to inciden

tally, as in those wherein the object is to declare and explain it. And some passage, in which it is the direct object to reveal and inculcate the doctrine now in question, would doubtless have been appealed to by its advocates, had any such passage existed. But fundamentally important as this truth must be, if it be a truth, no portion of Scripture can be found that can even be represented as having for its immediate and primary design to declare it. The sinfulness of human nature is, indeed, abundantly set forth; but not the imputation to one man of the actual transgression committed by another; our salvation through Christ is earnestly dwelt on; but it is "through faith in his blood." Nay, there is mention made of imputation and non-imputation; but not of one man's act or desert to another. God is spoken of as "not imputing to men their trespasses," (which, by the way, would amount to nothing, if He still imputed to them the trespasses of another); and we are told, "faith (our own) shall be imputed to us for righteousness."

And this should teach us how to interpret the passages in which we are said to be made