are sinners, which is altogether at variance with the context, with tlie meaning of v. 12, with the scope of the passage and drift of the argu- ment. Or we must adopt the interpretation of those who confine the word death to mean the dissolution of the body, and who make the apos- tle argue that men do not incur this particular evil for their own sins, but for the sin of Adam. Or we are driven to some other unsatisfactory view of the passage. In short, these verses, when the clause in question is thus explained, present insuperable difficulties.
Others understand the difference between Adam and those intended to be described in this clause, to be, that Adam sinned personally and actu- ally, the others not. In favour of this view it may be argued, 1. That the words evidently admit of this interpretation as naturally as of the other. Paul simply says the persons referred to did not sin as Adam did. Whether he means that they did not sin at all, that they were not sinners in the ordinary sense of that term; or that they had not sinned against the same kind of law, depends on the context, and is not deter- mined by the mere form of expression. 2. If v. 12 teaches that men are subject to death on account of the sin of Adam, if this is the doctrine of the whole passage, and if, as is admitted, vs. 13, 14 are designed to prove the assertion of v. 12, then is it necessary that the apostle should show that death comes on those who have no personal and actual sins to answer for. This he does. ' Death reigns not only over those who have never broken any positive law, but even over those who have never sinned as Adam did ; that is, who have never in their own persons vio- lated any law, by which their exposure to death can be accounted for.' All the arguments, therefore, which go to establish the interpretation given above of v. 12, or the correctness of the exhibition of the course of the apostle's argument, and design of the whole passage, bear with all their force in support of the view here given of this clause. Almost all the objections to this interpretation, being founded on misapprehen- sion, are answered by the mere statement-of the case. The simple doc- trine and argument of the apostle is, that there are penal evils which
COME UPON MEN ANTECEDENTLY TO ANY TRANSGRESSIONS OF THEIR OWN, AND AS THE INFLICTION OF THESE EVILS IMPLIES A VIOLATION OF LAW, IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY ARE REGARDED AND TREATED AS SINNERS ON THE GROUND OF THE DISOBEDIENCE OF ANOTHER. In Other WOrds, that
it was by the offence of one man that judgment came on all men to con- demnation. It is of course not implied in this statement or argument that men are not now, or were not from Adam to Moses, punishable for their own sins, but simply that they are subject to penal evils which can- not be accounted for on the ground of their personal transgressions. This statement, which contains the whole doctrine of imputation, is so obviously contained in the argument of the apostle, and stands out so conspicuously in the Bible, and is so fully esta]?lished by the history of the world, that it is frequently and freely admitted by the great majority of commentators.