reason why by the “dead,” in the end of the former of these places, should be meant such as were naturally or corporally dead, viz. because such only are to be buried with that kind of burial, whereof our Saviour had occasion to speak, as appears from the former verse. Again, why by “the dead” in the beginning of the said passage, should be meant those that are spiritually dead, and not those that are corporally dead, there is this reason, every whit as plain as the former, viz. because those that are naturally or corporally dead, are not capable of burying those that are dead, either with one kind of burial or other. So why the word “water,” in the latter of the passages mentioned, should in the first place signify material or elementary water; in the latter, spiritual water or the Holy Ghost, reasons are obvious and near at hand; we shall not need to name them. But why the words, pantas anthrōpous, all men, in the place of the apostle under debate, being twice used, should be conceived so far to vary in their significations as in the former clause, to signify all men without exception; in the latter, very few men, no like reason, nor indeed any competent, can be given.
3. Though “all men” doth in some places signify only a greater number of men, not all men simply or universally, yet it never signifieth a small number of men, either in opposition to or in comparison with a greater, least of all with the greatest number that is, as they must make it signify in the Scripture in hand, who will have no more signified by it, in the latter of the two clauses where it is used, than only those who come in time to be actually saved by Christ. For these are a very small number, “Few there be,” saith Christ, “that find it,” speaking of the strait gate which leadeth unto life, in comparison of those upon whom condemnation came by Adam.
4. If condemnation should come upon all men simply by the offence of Adam, and righteousness only upon some men, and these but a few neither, comparatively, by the obedience and gift of Christ, then where sin abounded, grace should not much more abound, as the apostle saith it did; nay, sin should much more abound, and grace be confined to a narrow compass, comparatively. To say that the superabounding of grace above sin here spoken of, is to be considered in the intensiveness of it, i.e. in its prevalency over sin where it is vouchsafed, not in the extensiveness of it, as if it extended to more persons, is thus far acknowledged for a saying of truth. Grace doth not extend to more persons than sin, at least not to more persons of men, because sin extendeth unto all, and grace cannot extend to more than all. But if we shall straiten and limit grace in respect of the extent of it, to a small number of persons, the glory of the greater abounding of grace above sin in respect of the prevalency of it, where it is in such a sense given, will be fully matched or rather overcome and swallowed up by the prevailing extensiveness of sin above grace. We must searcheth for a better interpretation.
5. The apostle, both before and after, Romans 5: 15 and 19, speaks of the condemned ones of Adam and the justified ones of Christ, by one and the same numerical expression. He tells us in both places of many dead by Adam, and of no fewer than many justified and redeemed by Christ. Now what the Holy Ghost makes equal for men to disequalize, especially to such a proportion or degree that the one number shall be inconsiderable, and as nothing in comparison of the other, is to lift up themselves above their line, and so take hold of vanity instead of truth. The apostle’s expression, verse 15, is somewhat more emphatical, “For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.”
If it shall be supposed that many more millions of men are dead through the offence of Adam, than are justified or made alive by the grace of God in Christ, Paul’s glorying over the grace of God in Christ, as much more abounding to the justification of many, must fall to the ground. For, if by the offence of Adam all became dead, and a few only be made alive by the gift of the grace of God in Christ, who will not judge but that the offence of one much more abounded to the death of many, than the grace of God to the justification or life of many? The apostle is therefore referring to something more; an objective justification for all men (and a full justification for those who receive it) that broke the power of the devil and of Adam’s sin.
6. And lastly, the apostle having said, verse 20, that “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound;” he adds, verse 21, “that as sin hath reigned unto death, so did grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Now, evident it is from verses 12 and 14, that sin reigned over all men, without exception, unto death; therefore, grace must have a proportionable reign unto life, i. e. must by a strong and overruling hand put all men into a capacity for life and salvation. If so, it undeniably follows that Christ died for all men, without exception for any, because otherwise all men could not be put into an estate of grace or salvation by Him.
Nor was this interpretation counted either heretical or erroneous by the most orthodox expositors of old. Chrysostom himself commenting upon the place, makes the apostle to speak thus, “If all men were punished through the offence,” (or his offence, meaning Adam’s) “they” (i. e. these all men) “may doubtless be justified from hence;” (i. e. by that overabundance of grace and righteousness as he there speaketh, which is given in Christ.) The former part of his commentary is more full and pregnant to this purpose, but because the transcription would be somewhat long, I leave it to be read in the author himself. Nor are there wanting amongst our late reformed divines, surnamed orthodox, men of eminent learning, piety and worth, who subscribe the said interpretation. “That our reparation,” (restauration) saith Mr. Bucer upon the place, “is made by Christ, and that it is more efficacious than the sin of Adam, and that it is of larger extent, is that which the apostle argueth in this and the following section.”
Again, upon those words, “Sed non ut paraptōma,” and thus: “The apostle here meaneth, that the grace of Christ did more profit mankind, than the sin of Adam damnified it.” Doubtless, if all men, without exception, were brought into a condition of misery by the sin of Adam, and but a handful only, in comparison, made happy by the grace of Christ; the grace of Christ cannot be said to have profited mankind more than the sin of Adam damnified it. Yet again, upon verse 16, “For whereas the world was lost” (or undone) “by the one sin of Adam, the grace of Christ did not only abolish this sin, and that death which it brought,” (upon the world) “but likewise took away an infinite number of other sins, which we, the rest of men, added to that first sin.”
The commensurableness of the grace of Christ with the sin of Adam, in respect of the number of persons gratified by the one, and damnified by the other, cannot lightly be asserted in terms more significant. Nor do the words following import anything contrary hereunto, wherein the author addeth, “that the said grace of Christ bringeth all that are of Christ into a full or plenary justification.” For by a full or plenary justification, it is evident that he means an actual justification, yea, (as he explains himself a little after) that justification which shall be awarded unto the saints at the great day of the resurrection; to the obtaining of which, it is acknowledged, that men must receive a new being from Christ by faith. In what sense Christ abolished the sin of Adam, together with that death which it brought into the world; and so in what sense he is said to have brought righteousness, justification, and salvation unto all men, remains to be unfolded in due place. Upon the 17th verse the aforesaid author yet more clearly attests the substance of our interpretation, where he gives an account how the grace of Christ may be said to be of larger extent than the sin of Adam, notwithstanding it be true that this grace took away nothing but what, in a sense, was the fruit and effect of sin.
“If we consider,” saith he, “that every particular man by his transgressions increaseth the misery of mankind, and that whosoever sinneth, doth no less hurt his posterity than Adam did all men; it is a plain case, that the grace of Christ hath removed more evils from men than the sins of Adam brought upon them. For though there be no sin committed in all the world which hath not its original from that first sin of Adam, yet all particular men who sin, as they sin voluntarily and freely, so do they make an addition of their own proper guilt and misery. All which evils, since the alone benefit of Christ hath taken away, it must needs be that it hath taken away the sins of many, and not of one only. Manifest, therefore, is it, that more evils have been removed by Christ, than were brought in by Adam.”
And yet more plainly and expressly to the point in hand (if more may be)