Romans 5:12

Romans 5:12-14 12. Wherefore, 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: 12. Quamobrem sicut per unum hominem peccatmn in mundum introiit, et per peccatum mors; atque ita in omnes homines mors pervagata est. quandoquidem omnes peccaverunt: 13. (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 13. (Nam usque ad legem peccatum erat in mundo; peccatum autem non imputatur, quum non est lex: 14. 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. 14. Sed regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Mosen, etiam in eos qui non peccaverunt ad similitudinem pr?vericationis Adam, qui est figura futuri. 12 Wherefore as, etc. He now begins to enlarge on the same doctrine, by comparing with it what is of an opposite character. For since Christ came to redeem us from the calamity into which Adam had fallen, and had precipitated all his posterity with him, we cannot see with so much clearness what we have in Christ, as by having what we have lost in Adam set before us, though all things on both sides are not similar: hence Paul subjoins an exception, which we shall notice in its place; and we shall also point out any other difference that may occur. The incompleteness of the sentence sometimes renders it obscure, as when the second clause, which answers to the former, is not expressed. But we shall endeavor to make both plain when we come to those parts. [163] Sin entered into the world, etc. Observe the order which he keeps here; for he says, that sin preceded, and that from sin death followed. There are indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam's sin, as though we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he had sinned for us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to all who suffer its punishment: and this he afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of death; and it is even this -- because we have all, he says, sinned. But to sin in this case, is to become corrupt and vicious; for the natural depravity which we bring, from our mother's womb, though it brings not forth immediately its own fruits, is yet sin before God, and deserves his vengeance: and this is that sin which they call original. For as Adam at his creation had received for us as well as for himself the gifts of God's favor, so by falling away from the Lord, he in himself corrupted, vitiated, depraved, and ruined our nature; for having been divested of God's likeness, he could not have generated seed but what was like himself. Hence we have all sinned; for we are all imbued with natural corruption, and so are become sinful and wicked. Frivolous then was the gloss, by which formerly the Pelagians endeavored to elude the words of Paul, and held, that sin descended by imitation from Adam to the whole human race; for Christ would in this case become only the exemplar and not the cause of righteousness. Besides, we may easily conclude, that he speaks not here of actual sin; for if everyone for himself contracted guilt, why did Paul form a comparison between Adam and Christ? It then follows that our innate and hereditary depravity is what is here referred to. [164] 13. For until the law, etc. This parenthesis anticipates an objection: for as there seems to be no transgression without the law, it might have been doubted whether there were before the law any sin: that there was after the law admitted of no doubt. The question only refers to the time preceding the law. To this then he gives this answer, -- that though God had not as yet denounced judgment by a written law, yet mankind were under a curse, and that from the womb; and hence that they who led a wicked and vicious life before the promulgation of the law, were by no means exempt from the condemnation of sin; for there had always been some notion of a God, to whom honor was due, and there had ever been some rule of righteousness. This view is so plain and so clear, that of itself it disproves every opposite notion. But sin is not imputed, etc. Without the law reproving us, we in a manner sleep in our sins; and though we are not ignorant that we do evil, we yet suppress as much as we can the knowledge of evil offered to us, at least we obliterate it by quickly forgetting it. While the law reproves and chides us, it awakens us as it were by its stimulating power, that we may return to the consideration of God's judgment. The Apostle then intimates that men continue in their perverseness when not roused by the law, and that when the difference between good and evil is laid aside, they securely and joyfully indulge themselves, as if there was no judgment to come. But that before the law iniquities were by God imputed to men is evident from the punishment of Cain, from the deluge by which the whole world was destroyed, from the fate of Sodom, and from the plagues inflicted on Pharaoh and Abimelech on account of Abraham, and also from the plagues brought on the Egyptians. That men also imputed sin to one another, is clear from the many complaints and expostulations by which they charged one another with iniquity, and also from the defenses by which they labored to clear themselves from accusations of doing wrong. There are indeed many examples which prove that every man was of himself conscious of what was evil and of what was good: but that for the most part they connived at their own evil deeds, so that they imputed nothing as a sin to themselves unless they were constrained. When therefore he denies that sin without the law is imputed, he speaks comparatively; for when men are not pricked by the goads of the law, they become sunk in carelessness. [165] But Paul wisely introduced this sentence, in order that the Jews might hence more clearly learn how grievously they offended, inasmuch as the law openly condemned them; for if they were not exempted from punishment whom God had never summoned as guilty before his tribunal, what would become of the Jews to whom the law, like a herald, had proclaimed their guilt, yea, on whom it denounced judgment? There may be also another reason adduced why he expressly says, that sin reigned before the law, but was not imputed, and that is, that we may know that the cause of death proceeds not from the law, but is only made known by it. Hence he declares, that all became miserably lost immediately after the fall of Adam, though their destruction was only made manifest by the law. If you translate this adversative de, though, the text would run better; for the meaning is, that though men may indulge themselves, they cannot yet escape God's judgment, even when there is no law to reprove them. Death reigned from Adam, etc. He explains more clearly that it availed men nothing that from Adam to the time when the law was promulgated, they led a licentious and careless life, while the difference between good and evil was willfully rejected, and thus, without the warning of the law, the remembrance of sin was buried; yea, that this availed them nothing, because sin did yet issue in their condemnation. It hence appears, that death even then reigned; for the blindness and obduracy of men could not stifle the judgment of God. 14. Even over them, etc. Though this passage is commonly understood of infants, who being guilty of no actual sin, die through original sin, I yet prefer to regard it as referring to all those who sinned without the law; for this verse is to be connected with the preceding clause, which says, that those who were without the law did not impute sin to themselves. Hence they sinned not after the similitude of Adam's transgression; for they had not, like him, the will of God made known to them by a certain oracle: for the Lord had forbidden Adam to touch the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; but to them he had given no command besides the testimony of conscience. The Apostle then intended to imply, that it did not happen through the difference between Adam and his posterity that they were exempt from condemnation. Infants are at the same time included in their number. Who is a type of him who was to come. This sentence is put instead of a second clause; for we see that one part only of the comparison is expressed, the other is omitted -- an instance of what is called anacoluthon [166] You are then to take the meaning as though it was said, "as by one man sin entered into the whole world, and death through sin, so by one man righteousness returned, and life through righteousness." But in saying that Adam bore a resemblance to Christ, there is nothing incongruous; for some likeness often appears in things wholly contrary. As then we are all lost through Adam's sin, so we are restored through Christ's righteousness: hence he calls Adam not inaptly the type of Christ. But observe, that Adam is not, said to be the type of sin, nor Christ the type of righteousness, as though they led the way only by their example, but that the one is contrasted with the other. Observe this, lest you should foolishly go astray with Origen, and be involved in a pernicious error; for he reasoned philosophically and profanely on the corruption of mankind, and not only diminished the grace of Christ, but nearly obliterated it altogether. The less excusable is Erasmus, who labors much in palliating a notion so grossly delirious. Footnotes: [163] The beginning of this verse has occasioned a vast number of conjectures, both as to the connection and as to the corresponding clause to the first sentence. Most agree in the main with Calvin on these two points. Hodge announces a similar view as to the connection in these words, -- "The idea of men being regarded and treated, not according to their own merits, but the merit of another, is contrary to the common mode of thinking among men. The Apostle illustrates and enforces it by an appeal to the great analogous fact in the history of the world." As to the corresponding clause, that it is found in the 18^th verse, there is a common consent, -- Pareus, Willet, Grotius, Doddridge, Scott, Stuart, Chalmers, etc.; the intervening verses are viewed as parenthetic. The phrase, dia touto, and also dio and oun, are sometimes used anticipatively as well as retrospectively, as their corresponding particles are often in Hebrew. See [3]note on Romans 2:1 . That Paul uses dia touto in this way appears evident from Romans 4:16 ; Romans 13:6 ; 1 Corinthians 11:10 . It anticipates here, as I think, what is afterwards expressed by eph ho, as in Romans 4:16 , by hina, in Romans 13:6 , by gar, and in 1 Corinthians 11:10 , by dia before angels. Then the meaning of the verse would be conveyed by the following rendering, -- 12. For this reason -- as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, even so death came on all men, because all have sinned. According to this view, the corresponding clause is in the verse itself. The sentiment of the passage is this, -- through one man sin entered and death followed; and death followed as to all mankind, because all had sinned. Then, according to his usual manner, the Apostle takes up the last subject, "sin," issuing in the death of all; and at the end of the Romans 5:14 he goes back to "the one man," Adam, who he says was a type of another: and this sentence is made the text of what follows till the end of the Romans 5:19 . Having before referred to the state of things before the "law," in the two remaining verses he refers to the bearing of the law on his subject, and shows that there is in Christ an abundant provision for the increase of sin occasioned by the law. So abundant is grace that it is fully sufficient to remove original sin, actual sins -- its fruits, and the sins discovered by the law, and by its means increased and enhanced. Hence superabundance is ascribed to it. -- Ed. [164] The particles eph o, at the end of this verse, have been variously rendered, without much change in the meaning. "In quo -- in which," i.e., sin, Augustine; "in quo -- in whom," i.e., man, Chrysostom and Beza; "per quem -- by or through whom," Grotius; "propterea quod," vel, "quia," vel, "quoniam -- because," Luther, Pareus, and Raphelius; which is the same with that of Calvin See Matthew 26:50 ; 2 Corinthians 5:4 ; Philippians 3:12 Wolfius quotes a singular passage from a Jewish Rabbi, Moses Tranensis, "In the sin which the first man sinned, the whole world through him (or in him, vv) sinned: for he was every man, or all mankind -- ky zh kl 'dm." The idea is exactly the same with that of the Apostle. "There are three things," says Pareus, "which are to be considered in Adam's sin, -- the sinful act, the penalty of the law, and the depravity of nature; or in other words, the transgression of the command, the punishment of death, and natural corruption, which was the loss of God's image, and in its stead came deformity and disorder. From none of these his posterity are free, but all these have descended to them; there is a participation of the transgression, an imputation of guilt, and the propagation of natural depravity. There is a participation of the sin; for all his posterity were seminally in his loins, so that all sinned in his sin, as Levi paid tithes in the loins of Abraham; and as children are a part of their parents, so children are in a manner partakers of their parents' sin. There is also an imputation of guilt, for the first man so stood in favor, that when he sinned, not only he, but also all his posterity fell with him, and became with him subject to eternal death. And lastly, there is the propagation or the generation of a dreadful deformity of nature; for such as Adam became after the fall, such were the children he begat, being after his own image, and not after the image of God. Genesis 5:1 . All these things, as to the first sin, apply to the parent and also to the children, with only this difference -- that Adam sinning first transgressed, first contracted guilt, and first depraved his nature, -- and that all these things belong to his posterity by participation, imputation, and propagation." Both Stuart and Barnes stumble here; and though they denounce theorizing, and advocate adherence to the language of Scripture, they do yet theorize and attempt to evade the plain and obvious meaning of this passage. But in trying to avoid one difficulty, they make for themselves another still greater. The penalty, or the imputation of guilt, they admit; which is indeed undeniable, as facts, as well as Scripture, most clearly prove: but the participation they deny, though words could hardly be framed to express it more distinctly than the words of this verse; and thus, according to their view, a punishment is inflicted without a previous implication in an offense; while the Scriptural account of the matter is, according to what Calvin states, that "sin extends to all who suffer its punishment," though he afterwards explains this in a way that is not altogether consistent. -- Ed. [165] This verse, as bearing on the argument, maybe viewed rather differently. This and the following verse contain an explanation or an illustration of the last, Romans 5:12 . He states in this verse two things: a fact and a general principle; the fact is, that sin, the first sin in its evident effects, (for he speaks throughout of no other sin, as to Adam, or as producing death,) was in the world before the law of Moses was given; and the general principle he avows is, that no sin is imputed where there is no law. Having made this last admission, he proceeds in the Romans 5:14 to say, that "nevertheless," or notwithstanding, death, the effect of sin, prevailed in the world, and prevailed even as to those who did not actually or personally sin as Adam did. He takes no account of personal sins, for his object was to show the effects of the first sin. And then he says, that in is respect Adam was a kind of type, a figure, a representative of Christ who was to come; and in the three verses which follow, Romans 5:15 , 16, and 17, he traces the similitude between the two, pointing out at the same time the difference, which in every instance is in favor of the last Adam. That tupos signifies here likeness and not identity, is quite certain, whatever may be its common meaning because its import is exemplified and illustrated in the verses which follow. -- Ed. [166] Anakolouthon, not consequent: a figure in grammar when a word or a clause, required by a former one, is not put down. -- Ed.

{10} Wherefore, as by {l} one man {m} sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, {n} for that all have sinned: (10) From Adam, in whom all have sinned, both guiltiness and death (which is the punishment of the guiltiness) came upon all. (l) By Adam, who is compared with Christ, and similar to him in this, that both of them make those who are theirs partakers of that which they have: but they are not the same in this, that Adam derives sin into them that are his, even into their very nature, and that to death: but Christ makes them that are his partakers of his righteousness by grace, and that to life. (m) By sin is meant that disease which is ours by inheritance, and men commonly call it original sin: for so he calls that sin in the singular number, whereas if he speaks of the fruits of it, he uses the plural number, calling them sins. (n) That is, in Adam.

Wherefore, 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: As by one man — Yet Anabaptists deny original sin, as did also the Pelagians of old, confuted by Augustine. Egranus, a German preacher, said (as Melancthon reporteth) that original sin is a mere fiction of Augustine and other divines; and that, because there was no such word found in the Scriptures. (Joh. Manl.) Papists say that original sin is the smallest of all sins, not deserving any more of God’s wrath, than only a want of his beatifical presence; and that, too, without any pain or sorrow of mind from the apprehension of so great a loss. There have been among us that have said, that original sin is not forbidden by the law. Directly, indeed, and immediately it is not; but forbidden it is, because cursed and condemned by the law. In original sin is a tacit consent (eminently) to all actual sin. And some understand this text of all sin, both original and actual. And so death, passed upon all men — As a sentence of death on a condemned malefactor; or, as those diseases that are called by physicians corruptio totius substantiae; or as the rot overrunneth the whole flock, διηλθεν .

From this verse to the end of the chapter, the apostle makes a large comparison between the first and Second Adam, which he joins to what he had said by the causal particle wherefore: q.d. Seeing things are as I have already said, it is evident, that what was lost by Adam is restored by Christ. This verse seems to be lame and imperfect; the reddition is wanting in the comparison; for unto this, as by one man sin entered into the world, there should be added, so by Christ, &c. But the reddition, or second part of the comparison, is suspended, by reason of a long parenthesis intervening to Romans 5:18 ,19 , where the apostle sets down both parts of the comparison. By one man: viz. Adam. Objection. Eve first sinned, 1 Timothy 2:14 . Answer. He is not showing the order how sin first entered into the world, but how it was propagated to mankind. Therefore he mentions the man, because he is the head of the woman, and the covenant was made with him: or, man may be used collectively, both for man and woman; as when God said: Let us make man, & c. Sin; it is to be understood of our first parents’ actual sin, in eating the forbidden fruit; this alone was it that affected their posterity, and made them sinners, Romans 5:19 . Entered into the world; understand the inhabitants of the world; the thing containing, by a usual metonomy, is put for the thing contained. And death by sin; as the due reward thereof. Death here may be taken in its full latitude, for temporal, spiritual, and eternal death. And so death passed upon all men; seized upon all, of all sorts, infants as well as others. For that all have sinned; others read it thus, in which all have sinned, i.e. in which one man; and so it is a full proof that Adam was a public person, and that in him all his posterity sinned and fell. He was our representative, and we were all in him, as a town or county in a parliament man; and although we chose him not, yet God chose for us. The words ef’ w are rendered in which, in other places, and the preposition epi is put for en; see Mark 2:4 Hebrews 9:10 : and if our translation be retained, it is much to the same sense; for if such die as never committed any actual sin themselves, (as infants do), then it will follow that they sinned in this one man, in whose loins they were: as Levi is said to have paid tithes in Abraham’s loins, Hebrews 7:9 .

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world,.... The design of these words, and of the following, is to show how men came to be in the condition before described, as "ungodly", Romans 5:6 , "sinners", Romans 5:8 , and "enemies", Romans 5:10 ; and to express the love of Christ in the redemption of them; and the largeness of God's grace to all sorts of men: the connection of them is with Romans 5:11 , by which it appears that the saints have not only an expiation of sin by the blood of Christ, but a perfect righteousness, by which they are justified in the sight of God; and the manner how they came at it, or this becomes theirs, together with the necessity of their having such an one, are here declared: by the "one man" is meant Adam the first man, and parent of mankind, who is mentioned by name in Romans 5:14 ; sin which came by him designs a single sin, and not many, even the first sin of Adam, which goes by different names, as "sin" here, "transgression", Romans 5:14 , the "offence" or "fall", Romans 5:15 , "disobedience", Romans 5:19 , and whatever was the first step or motive to it, which led to it, whether pride, unbelief, or concupiscence, it was finished by eating the forbidden fruit; and is called sin emphatically, because it contained all sin in it, was attended with aggravating circumstances, and followed with dismal consequences. Hence may be learnt the origin of moral evil among men, which comes not from God, but man; of this it is said, that it "entered into the world"; not the world above, there sin entered by the devil; but the world below, and it first entered into paradise, and then passed through the whole world; it entered into men by the snares of Satan, and by him it enters into all the inhabitants of the world; into all men that descend from him by ordinary generation, and that so powerfully that there is no stopping of it. It has entered by him, not by imitation, for it has entered into such as never sinned after the similitude of his transgression, infants, or otherwise death could not have entered into them, and into such who never heard of it, as the Heathens; besides, sin entered as death did, which was not by imitation but imputation, for all men are reckoned dead in Adam, being accounted sinners in him; add to this, that in the same way Christ's righteousness comes upon us, which is by imputation, Adam's sin enters into us, or becomes ours; upon which death follows, and death by sin; that is, death has entered into the world of men by sin, by the first sin of the first man; not only corporeal death, but a spiritual or moral one, man, in consequence of this, becoming "dead in sin", deprived of righteousness, and averse, and impotent to all that is good; and also an eternal death, to which he is liable; for "the wages of sin is death", Romans 6:23 ; even eternal death: all mankind are in a legal sense dead, the sentence of condemnation and death immediately passed on Adam as soon as he had sinned, and upon all his posterity; and so death passed upon all men; the reason of which was, for that, or because "in him" all have sinned: all men were naturally and seminally in him; as he was the common parent of mankind, he had all human nature in him, and was also the covenant head, and representative of all his posterity; so that they were in him both naturally and federally, and so "sinned in him"; and fell with him by his first transgression into condemnation and death. The ancient Jews, and some of the modern ones, have said many things agreeably to the apostle's doctrine of original sin; they own the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin to his posterity to condemnation and death; "through the sin of the first man (say they (g)) , "thou art dead"; for he brought death into the world:'' nothing is more frequently said by them than that Adam and Eve, through the evil counsel of the serpent, , "were the cause of death to themselves and to all the world" (h); and that through the eating of the fruit of the tree, , "all the inhabitants of the earth became guilty of death" (i): and that this was not merely a corporeal death, they gather from the doubling of the word in the threatening, "in dying thou shalt die", Genesis 2:17 (margin); "this doubled death, say they (k), without doubt is the punishment of their body by itself, , and also of the "soul by itself".'' They speak of some righteous persons who died, not for any sin of their own, but purely on the account of Adam's sin; as Benjamin the son of Jacob, Amram the father of Moses, and Jesse the father of David, and Chileab the son of David (l), to these may be added Joshua the son of Nun, and Zelophehad and Levi: the corruption and pollution of human nature through the sin of Adam is clearly expressed by them; "when Adam sinned, (say they (m),) he "drew upon him a defiled power, , "and defiled himself and all the people of the "world".'' Again (n), "this vitiosity which comes from the sin and infection of our first parents, has invaded both faculties of the rational soul, the understanding by which we apprehend, and the will by which we desire.'' This corruption of nature they call , "the evil imagination", which, they say (o), is planted in a man's heart at the time of his birth; and others say (p) that it is in him before he is born: hence Philo the Jew says (q), that , "to sin is connatural", to every man that is born, even though a good man; and talks (r) of , "evil that is born with us", and of (s) , "spots that are of necessity born with" every mortal man. And so his countrymen (t) often speak of it as natural and inseparable to men; yea, they represent Adam as the root and head of mankind, in whom the whole world and all human nature sinned: descanting on those words, "as one that lieth upon the top of a mast", Proverbs 23:34 ; "this (say they (u)) is the first man who was "an head to all the children of men": for by means of wine death was inflicted on him, and he was the cause of bringing the sorrows of death into the world.'' continued...

The design of what follows is plain. It is to exalt our views respecting the blessings Christ has procured for us, by comparing them with the evil which followed upon the fall of our first father; and by showing that these blessings not only extend to the removal of these evils, but far beyond. Adam sinning, his nature became guilty and corrupted, and so came to his children. Thus in him all have sinned. And death is by sin; for death is the wages of sin. Then entered all that misery which is the due desert of sin; temporal, spiritual, eternal death. If Adam had not sinned, he had not died; but a sentence of death was passed, as upon a criminal; it passed through all men, as an infectious disease that none escape. In proof of our union with Adam, and our part in his first transgression, observe, that sin prevailed in the world, for many ages before the giving of the law by Moses. And death reigned in that long time, not only over adults who wilfully sinned, but also over multitudes of infants, which shows that they had fallen in Adam under condemnation, and that the sin of Adam extended to all his posterity. He was a figure or type of Him that was to come as Surety of a new covenant, for all who are related to Him.

Ro 5:12-21. Comparison and Contrast between Adam and Christ in Their Relation to the Human Family. (This profound and most weighty section has occasioned an immense deal of critical and theological discussion, in which every point, and almost every clause, has been contested. We can here but set down what appears to us to be the only tenable view of it as a whole and of its successive clauses, with some slight indication of the grounds of our judgment). 12. Wherefore—that is, Things being so; referring back to the whole preceding argument. as by one man—Adam. sin—considered here in its guilt, criminality, penal desert. entered into the world, and death by sin—as the penalty of sin. and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned—rather, "all sinned," that is, in that one man's first sin. Thus death reaches every individual of the human family, as the penalty due to himself. (So, in substance, Bengel, Hodge, Philippi). Here we should have expected the apostle to finish his sentence, in some such way as this: "Even so, by one man righteousness has entered into the world, and life by righteousness." But, instead of this, we have a digression, extending to five verses, to illustrate the important statement of Ro 5:12; and it is only at Ro 5:18 that the comparison is resumed and finished.

Romans 5:12-21 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 passage in its general bearing is not difficult; and probably the whole passage would have been found far less difficult if it had not been attached to a philosophical 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, Romans 5:1 . (2) That it produces joy in the prospect of future glory, Romans 5:2 . (3) That it sustained the soul in afflictions; (a) by the regular tendency of afflictions under the gospel, Romans 5:3-4 ; and, (b) by the fact that the Holy Spirit was imparted to the believer. (4) That this doctrine rendered it certain that we should be saved, because Christ had died for us, Romans 5:6 ; because this was the highest expression of love, Romans 5:7-8 ; and because if we had been reconciled when thus alienated, we should be saved now that we are the friends of God, Romans 5:9-10 . (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, so that the grace of the gospel has not only abounded, but superabounded." (Prof. Stuart.) 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. Romans 5:12 . 2. That death had passed on all; even on those who had not the light of revelation, and the express commands of God, Romans 5:13-14 . 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, Romans 5:14 . But he shows, 4. That there were very material and important differences in 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. (1) The sin of Adam led to condemnation. The work of Christ has an opposite tendency, Romans 5:15 . continued...

Romans 5:12-21 I. Scope of the passage . The design of this section is the illustration of the doctrine of the justification of sinners on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, by a reference to the condemnation of men for the sin of Adam. That such is its design is evident, 1. From the context. Paul has been engaged from the beginning of the Epistle in inculcating one main idea, viz., that the ground of the sinner’s acceptance with God is not in himself, but the merit of Christ. And in the preceding verses he had said, “we are justified by his blood,” Romans 5:9 ; by his death we are restored to the divine favor, Romans 5:10 ; and through him, i.e., by one man, we have received reconciliation, that is, are pardoned and justified, Romans 5:11 . As this idea of men’s being regarded and treated, not according to their own merit, but the merit of another, is contrary to the common mode of thinking among men, and especially contrary to their self-righteous efforts to obtain the divine favor, the apostle illustrates and enforces it by an appeal to the great analogous fact in the history of the world. 2. From an inspection of Romans 5:12 , Romans 5:18 , Romans 5:19 , which contain the whole point and substance of the comparison, Romans 5:13-17 are virtually a parenthesis; and Romans 5:20 , Romans 5:21 , contain two remarks, merely incidental to the discussion. Romans 5:12 , Romans 5:18 , Romans 5:19 , must therefore contain the main idea of the passage. In the 12th, only one side of the comparison is stated; but in Romans 5:18 , Romans 5:19 , it is resumed and carried out: ‘As by the offense of one all are condemned, so by the righteousness of one all are justified.’ This, almost in the words of the apostle, is the simple meaning of Romans 5:18 , Romans 5:19 , and makes the point of the comparison and scope of the passage perfectly clear. 3. The design of the passage must be that on which all its parts bear, the point towards which they all converge. The course of the argument, as will appear in the sequel, bears so uniformly and lucidly on the point just stated, that the attempt to make it bear on any other involves the whole passage in confusion. All that the apostle says tends to the illustration of his declaration, ‘As we are condemned on account of what Adam did, we are justified on account of what Christ did.’ The illustration of this point, therefore, must be the design and scope of the whole. It is frequently and confidently said that the design of the passage is to exalt our views of the blessings procured by Christ, by showing that they are greater than the evils occasioned by the fall. But this is not only improbable, but impossible. 1. Because the superabounding of the grace of the gospel is not expressly stated until Romans 5:20 . That is, not until the whole discussion is ended; and it is introduced there merely incidentally, as involved in the apostle’s answer to an objection to his argument, implied in the question, ‘For what purpose did the law enter?’ Is it possible that the main design of a passage should be disclosed only in the reply to an incidental objection? The pith and point of the discussion would be just what they are now, had no such objection been suggested or answered; yet, if this view of the subject is correct, had the objection not been presented, the main design of the passage would have been unexpressed and undiscoverable. 2. The idea of the superiority of the blessings procured by Christ to the evils occasioned by Adam, although first expressly stated in Romans 5:20 , is alluded to and implied in Romans 5:16 , Romans 5:17 . But these verses, it is admitted, belong to a parenthesis. It is conceded on all hands, that Romans 5:13 , Romans 5:14 , are designed to confirm the statement of Romans 5:12 , and that Romans 5:15-17 , are subordinate to the last clause of Romans 5:14 , and contain an illustration of its meaning. It is therefore not only admitted, but frequently and freely asserted, that Romans 5:12 , Romans 5:18 , Romans 5:19 , contain the point and substance of the whole passage, Romans 5:13-17 being a parenthesis. Yet, in Romans 5:12 , Romans 5:18 , Romans 5:19 , the super abounding of the grace Christ is not even hinted. Can the main design of a passage be contained in a parenthesis, and not in the passage itself? The very nature of a parenthesis is, that it contains something which may be left out of a passage, and leave the sense entire. But can the main design and scope of an author be left out, and his meaning be left complete! If not, it is impossible that an idea, contained only in a parenthesis should be the main design of the passage. The idea is in itself true and important, but the mistake consists in exalting a corollary into the scope and object of the whole discussion. The confusion and mistake in the exposition of a passage, consequent on an entire misapprehension of its design, may be readily imagined. II. The connection . The design of the passage being the illustration of the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ, previously established, the connection is natural and obvious: ‘ Wherefore , as by one man we have been brought under condemnation, so by one man we are brought into a state of justification and life.’ The wherefore ( διὰ τοῦτο ) is consequently to be taken as illative, or marking an inference from the whole of the previous part of the epistle, and especially from the preceding verses. ‘ Wherefore we are justified by the righteousness of one man, even as we were brought into condemnation by the sin of one man.’ It would seem that only a misapprehension of the design of the passage, or an unwillingness to admit it, could have led to the numerous forced and unauthorized explanations of these words. Some render them moreover ; others, in respect to this , etc. III. The course of the argument . As the point to be illustrated is the justification of sinners on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, and the source of illustration is the fall of all men in Adam, the passage begins with a statement of this latter truth: ‘As on account of one man, death has passed on all men; so on account of one,’ etc., Romans 5:12 . Before carrying out the comparison, however, the apostle stops to establish his position that all men are condemned on account of the sin of Adam. His proof is this: The infliction of a penalty implies the transgression of a law, since sin is not imputed where there is no law, Romans 5:13 . All mankind are subject to death or penal evils; therefore all men are regarded as transgressors of a law, Romans 5:13 . This law or covenant, which brings death on all men, is not the law of Moses, because multitudes died before that was given, Romans 5:14 . Nor is it the law of nature written upon the heart, since multitudes die who have never violated even that law, Romans 5:14 . Therefore, as neither of these laws is sufficiently extensive to embrace all the subjects of the penalty, we must conclude that men are subject to death on account of Adam; that is, it is for the offense of one that many die, Romans 5:13 , Romans 5:14 . Adam is, therefore, a type of Christ. As to this important point, there is a striking analogy between the fall and redemption. We are condemned in Adam, and we are justified in Christ. But the cases are not completely parallel. In the first place, the former dispensation is much more mysterious than the latter; for if by the offense of one many die, much more by the righteousness of one shall many live, Romans 5:15 . In the second place, the benefits of the one dispensation far exceed the evils of the other. For the condemnation was for one offense; the justification is from many. Christ saves us from much more than the guilt of Adam’s sin, Romans 5:16 . In the third place, Christ not only saves us from death, that is, not only frees us from the evils consequent on our own and Adam’s sin, but introduces us into a state of positive and eternal blessedness, Romans 5:17 . Or this verse may be considered as an amplification of the sentiment of Romans 5:15 . Having thus limited and illustrated the analogy between Adam and Christ, the apostle resumes and carries the comparison fully out: ‘ Therefore , as on account of one man all men are condemned; so on account of one, all are justified,’ Romans 5:18 . ‘For, as through the disobedience of one, many are regarded and treated as sinners; so through the righteousness of one many are regarded and treated as righteous,’ Romans 5:19 . This then is the sense of the passage — men are condemned for the sin of one man, and justified for the righteousness of another. If men are thus justified by the obedience of Christ, for what purpose is the law? ‘It entered that sin might abound,’ i.e. that men might see how much it abounded; since by the law is the knowledge of sin. The law has its use, although men are not justified by their own obedience to it, Romans 5:20 . As the law discloses, and even aggravates the dreadful triumphs of sin reigning, in union with death, over the human family, the gospel displays the far more effectual and extensive triumphs of grace through Jesus Christ our Lord, Romans 5:21 . According to this view of the passage it consists of five parts. The first, contained in Romans 5:12 , presents the first member of the comparison between Christ and Adam. The second contains the proof of the position assumed in Romans 5:12 , and embraces Romans 5:13 , Romans 5:14 , which are therefore subordinate to Romans 5:12 . Adam, therefore, is a type of Christ . The third, embracing Romans 5:15-17 , is a commentary on this declaration, by which it is at once illustrated and limited. The fourth, in Romans 5:18 , Romans 5:19 , resumes and carries out the comparison commenced in Romans 5:12 . The fifth forms the conclusion of the chapter, and contains a statement of the design and effect of the law, and of the results of the gospel, suggested by the preceding comparison, Romans 5:20 , Romans 5:21 . Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, etc. The force of διὰ τοῦτο , wherefore , has already been pointed out, when speaking of the connection of this passage with the preceding: ‘It follows, from what has been said of the method of justification that as by one man all became sinners so by one are all constituted righteous.’ This passage, therefore, is the summation of all that has gone before. As ( ὥσπερ ) , obviously indicates a comparison or parallel. There is however no corresponding clause beginning with so , to complete the sentence. Examples of similar incomplete comparisons may be found in Matthew 25:14 , with ὥσπερ , and in 1 Timothy 1:3 , with καθώς . It is however so obvious that the illustration begun in this verse is resumed, and fully stated in Romans 5:18 , Romans 5:19 , that the vast majority of commentators agree that we must seek in those verses the clause which answers to this verse. The other explanations are unnecessary or unsatisfactory. 1. Some say that this verse is complete in itself, ‘ As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so also death passed on all men, because all sinned.’ The two insuperable objections to this explanation are, first, that it does violence to the words. It makes the apostle say what he does not say. It makes καὶ οὕτως , and so , to mean the same with οὕτω καί , so also , which is impossible. And secondly, it is inconsistent with the whole design and argument of the passage. Instead of having a comparison between Christ and Adam, the comparison would be between Adam and other men: ‘ As he sinned and died, so they sinned and died.’ 2. Others say, that we find in the last clause of Romans 5:14 , in substance, although not in form, the apodosis of this clause: ‘ As by one man sin entered into the world, so Adam is the type of Christ.’ But this is obviously inconsistent with the wording and connection of the clause in Romans 5:18 . 3. De Wette proposes, after Cocceius, Elsner, and a few others, to make the ὥσπερ of this verse introduce not the first, but the second member of the comparison, the first being to be supplied in thought, or borrowed from what precedes: ‘ We receive righteousness and life through Christ , as by one man sin entered into the world;’ or, ‘Wherefore Christ stands in a relation to mankind analogous to that of Adam, as by one man,’ etc. But it is plain that no reader could imagine that Paul intended so essential a member of the comparison to be conjectured or framed from the preceding discussion. He does not leave his readers to supply one half of a sentence; he himself completes it in Romans 5:18 . By one man sin entered into the world , δι ̓ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου , κ . τ . λ . These words clearly declare a causal relation between the one man, Adam, and the entrance of sin into the world. Benecke, who has revived the doctrine of the preexistence of souls, supposes that Adam was the leader of the spirits who in the preexistent state sinned, and were condemned to be born as men. Adam was therefore the cause of sin entering into the world, because he was the author of this ante-mundane apostasy. The Pelagian theory is, that Adam was the mere occasional cause of men becoming sinners. He was the first sinner, and others followed his example. Or, according to another form of the same general idea, his sin was the occasion of God’s giving men up to sin. There was no real connection, either natural or judicial, between Adam’s sin and the sinfulness of his posterity; but God determined that if the first man sinned, all other men should. This was a divine constitution, without there being any causal connection between the two events. Others again say that Adam was the efficient cause of the sinfulness of his race. He deteriorated either physically or morally the nature which he transmitted to his posterity. He was therefore, in the same sense, the cause of the sinfulness of the race, that a father who impairs his constitution is the cause of the feebleness of his children. Others push this idea one step farther, and say that Adam was the race. He was not only a man, but man. The whole race was in him, so that his act was the act of humanity. It was as much and as truly ours as his. Others say that the causal relation expressed by these words is that which exists between sin and punishment. It was the judicial cause or reason. All these views must come up at every step in the interpretation of this whole passage, for the explanation of each particular clause must be determined by the nature of the relation which is assumed to exist between Adam and his posterity. All that need be said here is, that the choice between these several explanations is not determined by the mere meaning of the words. All they assert is, that Adam was the cause of all men becoming sinners; but whether he was the occasional, the efficient, or, so to speak, the judicial cause, can only be determined by the nature of the case, the analogy of Scripture, and the context. One thing is clear — Adam was the cause of sin in a sense analogous to that in which Christ is the cause of righteousness. Sin entered into the world . It is hardly necessary to remark, that κόσμος does not here mean the universe. Sin existed before the fall of Adam. It can only mean the world of mankind. Sin entered the world; it invaded the race. There is a personification here of sin, as afterwards of death. Both are represented as hostile and evil powers, which obtained dominion over man. By the words εἰσῆλθε εἰς τὸν κόσμον , much more is meant than that sin began to be in the world. It means that the world, κόσμος , mankind, became sinners; because this clause is explained by saying, all sinned . The entrance of sin is made the ground of the universality of death, and therefore all were involved in the sin whose entrance is mentioned. The word ἁμαρτία means, 1. Actual sin ( ἁμάρτημας ), an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God. In the plural form especially, ἁμαρτία means actual sin. Hence the expressions, “this sin,” “respect of persons is sin,” etc. 2. Sinful principle or disposition; an immanent state of the mind, as in Romans 7:8 , Romans 7:9 , Romans 7:17 , Romans 7:23 . 3. Both ideas are united, as when it is said, “the sting of death is sin,” “an offering for sin.” This comprehensive sense of the word is perhaps the most common. 4. It often means the guilt of sin as distinguished from sin itself, as when it is said, “he shall bear his sin,” or, “the son shall not bear the sin of his father;” or when Christ is said “to bear our sin,” and, “to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” etc. In this passage, when it is said “sin entered into the world,” the meaning may be, actual sin commenced its course, men began to sin. Or the meaning is, depravity, corruption of nature invaded the world, men became corrupt. This is the interpretation given to the words by a large class of commentators, ancient and modern. So Calvin, “Istud peccare est corruptos esse et vitiatos. Illa enim naturalis pravitas, quam e matris utero afferimus, tametsi non ita cito fructus suos edit, peccatum est coram Deo, ejus ultionem meretur. Atque hoc est peccatum quod vocant originale.” So also Olshausen, who says it means habitus peccandi , that inward principle of which individual sins are the expression or manifestation. Tholuck gives the same interpretation: a new, abiding, corrupting element, he says, was introduced into the organism of the world. De Wette’s explanation amounts to the same thing: “ Sünde als herrschende Macht (sin as a ruling power entered the world), partly as a principle or disposition, which, according to Romans 7:8 , slumbers in every man’s breast, and reveals itself in the general conduct of men, and partly as a sinful condition, such as Paul had described in the opening chapters of this epistle.” Rückert, Köllner, Bretschneider, and most moderns, unite with the older expositors in this interpretation. Or ἁμαρτία may here have the third signification mentioned above, and “sin entered into the world,” mean that men became guilty, i.e. exposed to condemnation. The objection to these several interpretations is, that each by itself is too limited. All three, taken collectively, are correct. “Sin entered into the world,” means “men became sinners,” or, as the apostle expresses it in Romans 5:19 , “they were constituted sinners.” This includes guilt, depravity, and actual transgression. “The sinfulness of that estate into which man fell (that is, the sin which Adam brought upon the world), consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.” And death by sin; that is, death entered the world, men became subject to death, διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας by means of sin . Sin was the cause of death; not the mere occasional cause, not the efficient cause, but the ground or reason of its infliction. This passage, therefore, teaches that death is a penal evil, and not a consequence of the original constitution of man. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:40-50 , appears to teach a contrary doctrine, for he there says that Adam’s body, as formed from the earth, was earthy, and therefore corruptible. It was flesh and blood, which cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It must be changed, so that this corruptible put on in corruption, before we can be fitted for immortality. These representations, however, are not inconsistent. It is clear, from Genesis 2:17 ; Genesis 3:19 , that had Adam never sinned, he would never have died; but it does not follow that he would never have been changed. Paul says of believers, “we shall not all die, but we shall all be changed,” 1 Corinthians 15:51 . The penal character of death, therefore, which is so prominently presented in Scripture, or that death in the case of every moral creature is assumed to be evidence of sin, is perfectly consistent with what the apostle says of the σῶμα ψυχικόν (the natural body), and of its unsuitableness for an immortal existence. It is plain that θάνατος here includes the idea of natural death, as it does in the original threatening made to our first parents. In neither case, however, is this its whole meaning. This is admitted by a majority of the modern commentators — not only by such writers as Tholuck, Olshausen, and Philippi, but by others of a different class, as De Wette, Köllner, and Rückert. That the death here spoken of includes all penal evil, death spiritual and eternal, as well as the dissolution of the body, is evident, 1. From the consideration that it is said to be the consequence of sin. It must, therefore, mean that death which the Scriptures elsewhere speak of as the consequence and punishment of transgression. 2. Because this is the common and favorite term with the sacred writers, from first to last, for the penal consequences of sin. Genesis 2:17 , “In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die,” i.e. thou shalt become subject to the punishment due to sin; Ezekiel 18:4 , “The soul that sinneth, it shall die;” Romans 6:23 , “The wages of sin is death;” Romans 8:13 , “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die.” Such passages are altogether too numerous to be quoted, or even referred to; see as further examples, Romans 1:32 ; Romans 7:5 ; James 1:15 ; Revelation 20:14 , etc. 3. From the constant opposition between the terms life and death , throughout the Scriptures; the former standing for the rewards of the righteous, the latter for the punishment of the wicked. Thus, in Genesis 2:17 , life was promised to our first parents as the reward of obedience; and death threatened as the punishment of disobedience. See Deuteronomy 30:15 , “I have set before thee life and death;” Jeremiah 21:8 ; Proverbs 11:19 ; Psalms 36:9 ; Matthew 25:46 : John 3:15 ; 2 Corinthians 2:16 , etc. 4. From the opposition in this passage between the life which is by Christ, and the death which is by Adam, Romans 5:15 , Romans 5:17 , Romans 5:21 , ‘Sin reigns unto death, grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life.’ As, however, natural death is a part, and the most obvious part of the penal evils of sin, it no doubt was prominent in the apostle’s mind, as appears from Romans 5:13 , Romans 5:14 . Death, therefore, in this passage, means the evil, and any evil which is inflicted in punishment of sin. And so death passed on all men. That is, as death is the necessary consequence of sin, death ( διῆλθε ) passed through, reached to all men, because all sinned. Death is universal, because sin is universal. As Adam brought sin on all men, he brought death on all. That this is the true interpretation of this clause, or that καὶ οὕτως ; means demzufolge , consequently , hence it happens , is admitted by almost all modern commentators. As already remarked, the interpretation which assumes that καὶ οὕτως is to be rendered so also , is entirely inadmissible, 1. Because it is inconsistent with their meaning. As it is impossible that and so should mean so also , it is no less impossible that was καὶ οὕτως ; should mean the same as οὕτω καί . Compare Romans 5:18 , Romans 5:19 ; 1 Corinthians 11:12 ; 1 Corinthians 12:12 ; 1 Corinthians 15:22 . This interpretation, therefore, does violence to the language. 2. It is no less inconsistent with the context. It is not Paul’s design to teach the inseparable connection between sin and death, by saying, ‘ As Adam sinned, and therefore died, so also all die, because all sin.’ His purpose is to teach the connection between Adam’s sin and the death of all men: ‘It was by one man that men became sinners, and hence all men die.’ As all were involved in his sin, all are involved in his death. 3. The comparison carried through this whole paragraph is not between Adam and his posterity, but between Adam and Christ; and therefore καὶ οὕτως cannot possibly refer to the ὥσπερ at the beginning of the verse, as has been already shown. For that all have sinned, ἐφ ̓ ῷ πάντες ἣμαρτον . The words ἐφ ̓ ᾧ are rendered in the Vulgate, in quo (in whom), and are so understood by many of the older interpreters, not only in the Romish Church, where the Vulgate is of authority, but also by many Calvinists and Arminians. The objections to this interpretation are, 1. It is not in accordance with the meaning of the words as used elsewhere. It is inconsistent with the proper force of ἐπί ( on , upon ,) which is not equivalent with ἐν ( in ,) and no less inconsistent with the use of ἐφ ̓ ᾧ in combination, which, in 2 Corinthians 5:4 , means, as here, because; in Philippians 3:12 , for which cause; and in Philippians 4:10 , for which . In other places where it occurs, it means on which , as a bed, Mark 2:4 ; Luke 5:25 ; or as a place, Acts 7:33 . 2. The proper meaning of the words is, ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὃτι , on account of this , or that . 3. The structure of the sentence is opposed to this explanation. The antecedent ἀνθρώπου is too far separated from the relative ᾧ ; almost the whole verse intervenes between them. 4. This interpretation is altogether unnecessary. The ordinary and natural force of the words expresses a perfectly good sense: ‘All men die, because all sinned.’ So Calvin, quadoquidem , Luther, dieweil , and all the moderns, except a few of the Romanists. “Sin brought death, death has come on all, because sin came on all; ἐφ ̓ ᾧ must therefore necessarily be taken as a conjunction.” Philippi. As to the important words πάντες ἣμαρτον , rendered in our version all have sinned, we find that several interpretations already referred to as growing out of the different views of the nature of man and of the plan of salvation. First, on the assumption that all sin consists in the voluntary transgression of known law, and on the further assumption that one man cannot, in any legitimate sense, be said to sin in another, a large class of commentators, from Pelagius down, say these words can only mean that all have sinned in their own persons. Death has passed on all men, because all have actually sinned personally. This interpretation, although consistent with the signification of the verb ἁμαρτάνω , is, by the almost unanimous judgment of the Church, utterly inadmissible. 1. It is inconsistent with the force of the tense. The aorist ( ἥμαρτον ) does not mean do sin, nor have sinned, nor are accustomed to sin. It is the simple historical tense, expressing momentary action in past time. All sinned, i.e., sinned in Adam, sinned through or by one man. “Omnes peccârunt, peccante Adamo.” This is the literal, simple force of the words. 2. It is also incompatible with the design of this verse, to make ἣμαρτον refer to the personal sins of men. As so often remarked, the design is to show that Adam’s sin, not our own, is the cause of death. 3. Romans 5:13 , Romans 5:14 , are intended to prove what is asserted in Romans 5:12 ; but they do not prove that all men personally sin, but the very reverse. 4. This interpretation destroys the analogy between Adam and Christ. It would make the apostle teach, that as all men die because they personally sin, so all men live because they are personally and inherently righteous. This is contrary not only to this whole passage, but to all Paul’s teaching, and to the whole gospel. 5. This interpretation is not only thus inconsistent with the force of the tense in which the verb ἁμαρτάνω is here used, with the design of the verse, with the apostle’s argument, and the analogy between Christ and Adam, but it makes the apostle assert what is not true. It is not true that all die because all personally sin; death is more extensive than personal transgression. This is a fact of experience, and is asserted by the apostle in what follows. This interpretation, therefore, brings the sacred writer into conflict with the truth. Candid expositors admit this. They say Paul’s argument is founded on a false assumption, and proves nothing. Even Meyer, one of the most dignified and able of the modern German commentators, who often defends the sacred writers from the aspersions of irreverent expositors, is obliged to admit that in this case Paul forgot himself, and teaches what is not true. “The question,” he says, “how Paul could write ἐφ ̓ ᾧ πάντες ἣμαρτον ( since all sinned ,) when children die, although they have not sinned, can only be answered by admitting that he did not think of this necessary exception. For, on the one hand, πάντες must have the same extent of meaning as the previous εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους , and on the other hand, the death of innocent children is proof positive that death is not in all men the consequence of individual sin; and hence, moreover, the whole doctrine that death is by divine constitution due to sin, is overthrown.” An interpretation which makes the apostle teach what is not true, needs no further refutation. A second large class of commentators, as they make ἁμαρτία , in the former clause of the verse, to mean corruption , translate ἐφ ̓ ᾧ πάντες ἣμαρτον , because all are corrupt . Adam having defiled his own nature by sin, that depraved nature was transmitted to all his posterity, and therefore all die because they are thus inherently corrupt. We have already seen that this is Calvin’s interpretation of these words: “Nempe, inquit, quoniam omnes peccavimus. Porro istud peccare est corruptos esse et vitiatos.” In this view several of the modern commentators concur. According to this interpretation, the doctrine of the apostle is, that the inherent, hereditary corruption of nature derived from Adam, is the ground or reason why all die. This is what is called mediate imputation; or the doctrine that not the sin of Adam, but inherent depravity derived from him, is the ground of the condemnation of his race. Although Calvin gives this interpretation of the passage on which this theory is founded, it is not to be inferred that he was an advocate of that theory. He frequently and clearly discriminates between inherent depravity as a ground of condemnation and the sin of Adam as distinct, and says that we are exposed to death, not solely for the one, but also for the other. He lived in a day when the imputation of Adam’s sin was made, by the theologians of the Romish Church, so prominent as to leave inherent depravity almost entirely out of view. The whole tendency of the Reformers, therefore, was to go to the opposite extreme. Every theology is a gradual growth. It cost the Church ages of controversy, before the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ were wrought out and definitively settled. In like manner, the Theology of the Reformation was a growth. It was not the reproduction of the theology of any class of the school men, nor of Augustine as a whole. It was the gathering up and systematizing of the teachings of the Scriptures, and of the faith of the Church as founded on Scripture. That this should be done without any admixture of foreign elements, or as perfectly at the first attempt, as in the course of successive subsequent efforts, would have been a miracle. That it was done as ‘perfectly as it was, is due, under God, to the fact that the Reformers were men endowed with minds of the very highest order, and filled with the Spirit of Christ. Still it is only in obedience to an established law, that the theology of the Reformation appears in a purer form in the writers of the seventeenth, than in those of the sixteenth century. We need not then be surprised that inconsistencies appear in the writings of Luther and Calvin, which are not reproduced in those of Hutter or Turrettin. In opposition to the interpretation which makes πάντες ἣμαρτον mean all became corrupt , it is obvious to object, 1. That it is contrary to the simple meaning of the words. In no case has ἁμαρτάνω the sense here assigned to it. 2. It supposes that the corresponding phrase, “sin entered into the world,” means “men became depraved,” which, as we have seen, is not the true or adequate meaning. 3. It is inconsistent with the apostle’s argument. Romans 5:13 , Romans 5:14 , are designed to prove, and do prove, that all men sinned in Adam; but do not prove, and cannot be made to prove, that all men are inherently corrupt. 4. It vitiates the whole analogy between Christ and Adam, and therefore saps the very foundation of the gospel. That doctrine on which the hope of God’s people, either implicitly or explicitly, has ever been founded is, that the righteousness of Ch