this. But indeed nothing can be certainly argued concerning the nature of the thing intended, from its being expressed in such a manner. For it is evident, that such repetitions of a word in the Hebrew language, are no more than an emphasis upon a word in the more modern languages, to signify the great degree of a thing, the importance or certainty of it, &c. When we would signify and impress these, we commonly put an emphasis on our words. Instead of this, the Hebrews, when they would express a thing strongly, repeated or doubled the word, the more to impress the mind of the hearer; as may be plain to every one in the least conversant with the Hebrew bible. The repetition in the threatening to Adam, therefore, only implies the solemnity and importance of the threatening. But God may denounce either eternal or temporal death with peremptoriness and solemnity, and nothing can certainly be inferred concerning the nature of the thing threatened because it is threatened with emphasis, more than this, that the threatening is much to be regarded. Though it be true, that it might in an especial manner be expected that a threatening of eternal death would be denounced with great emphasis, such a threatening being infinitely important, and to be regarded above all others.

SECT. III.

Wherein it is inquired, whether there be any thing in the History of the three first Chapters of Genesis which should lead us to suppose that God, in his Constitution with Adam dealt with ankind in general, as included in their first Father, and that the Threatening of Death, in Case he should eat the forbidden Fruit, had respect not only to him, but his Posterity?

Dr. T. rehearsing that threatening to Adam, Thou shalt surely die, and giving us his paraphrase of it, (p. 7, 8.) concludes thus: Observe, here is not one word relating to Adam's posterity." But it may be observed, in opposition to this, that there is scarcely one word that we have an account of, which God ever said to Adam or Eve, but what does manifestly include their posterity in the meaning and design of it. There is as much of a word said about Adam's posterity in that threatening, as there is in those words of God to Adam and Eve, Gen. i. 28. Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and as much in events, to lead us to suppose Adam's posterity to be included. There is as much of a word of his posterity in that threatening, as in those words, (ver. 29.) Behold, I have given you every herb bearing

seed, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed, &c. Even when God was about to create Adam, what he said on that occasion had not respect only to Adam, but to his posterity. Gen. i. 26. Let us make man in our image, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, &c. And, what is more remarkable, there is as much of a word said about Adam's posterity in the threatening of death, as there is in that sentence, (Gen. iii. 19,) Unto dust shalt thou return. Which Dr. T. himself supposes to be a sentence pronounced for the execution of that very threatening, Thou shalt surely die. This sentence he himself also often speaks of as includ ing Adam's posterity: And, what is much more remarkable still, is a sentence which Dr. T. himself often speaks of, as including his posterity, as a SENTENCE OF CONDEMNATION, as a JUDICIAL sentence, and a sentence which God pronounced with regard to Adam's POSTERITY, ACTING THE PART OF A JUDGE, and as such condemning them to temporal death.Though he is therein utterly inconsistent with himself, inasmuch as he at the same time abundantly insists, that death is not brought on Adam's posterity in consequence of his sin, at all as a punishment; but merely by the gracious disposal of a father, bestowing a benefit of the highest nature upon him.*

But I shall shew that I do not in any of these things falsely charge or misrepresent Dr. T.-He speaks of the sentence in chap. iii. 19. as pronounced in pursuance of the threatening in the former chapter, in these words, (p. 17, 18.) "The sentence upon the man, ver. 17, 18, 19. first affects the earth upon which he was to subsist: The ground should be incumbered with many noxious weeds, and the tillage of it more toilsome: Which would oblige the man to procure a sustenance by hard labour, till he should die, and drop into the ground from whence he was taken. Thus death entered by sin into the world, and man became mortal, ACCORDING TO THE THREATENING IN THE FORMER CHAPTER.' Now, if mankind became mortal, and must die, according to the threatening in the former chapter, then doubtless the threatening in the former chapter, Thou shalt die, had respect not only to Adam but to mankind, and included Adam's posterity. Yea, and Dr. T. is express in it, and very often so, that the sentence concerning dropping into the ground, or returning to the dust, did include Adam's posterity. So, p. 20. speaking there of that sentence, "Observe (says he) that we their posterity are in fact subjected to the same affliction and mortality, here by sentence inflicted upon our first parents.-P. 42. Note. "But yet men through

*

Page 27, S.

The subsequent part of the quotation the reader will not meet with in the third edition of Dr. T. but in the second of 1741.

that long tract were all subject to death, therefore they must be included in the sentence." The same he affirms in innumerable other places, some of which I shall have occasion to mention presently.

The sentence which is founded on the threatening, and (as Dr. T. says) according to the threatening, extends to as many as were included in the threatening, and to no more. If the sentence be upon a collective subject, indefinitely, the greatest part of which were not included in the threatening nor were ever threatened at all, then certainly this sentence is not according to the threatening, nor built upon it. If the sentence be according to the threatening, then we may justly explain the threatening by the sentence. And if we find the sentence spoken to the same person to whom the threatening was spoken, and spoken in the second person singular in like manner with the threatening, founded on the threatening, and according to it; and if we find the sentence includes Adam's posterity, then we may certainly infer, that so did the threatening. And hence, that both the threatening and sentence were delivered to Adam as the public head and representative of his posterity.

And we may also further infer from it, in another respect, directly contrary to Dr. T.'s doctrine, that the sentence which included Adam's posterity was to death, as a punishment to that posterity, as well as to Adam himself. For a sentence pronounced in execution of a threatening, is for a punishment. Threatenings are of punishments. Neither God nor man are wont to threaten others with favours and benefits.

But lest any of this author's admirers should stand to it that it may very properly be said, God threatened mankind with bestowing great kindness upon them, I would observe, that Dr. T. himself often speaks of this sentence as pronounced by God on all mankind, as condemning them; as a sentence of condemnation judicially pronounced, or a sentence which God pronounced on all mankind acting as their judge, and in a judicial proceeding. This he affirms in multitudes of places. In p. 20. speaking of this sentence, which he there says subjects us, Adam's and Eve's posterity, to affliction and mortality, he calls it a judicial act of condemnation. "The judicial act of condemnation (says he) clearly implies, a taking him to pieces, and returning him to the ground from whence he was taken." And p. 28, 29. (Note.) "In all the scripture from one end to the other, there is recorded but one judgment to condemnation, which came upon all men, and that is, Gen. iii. 17-19. “ Dust thou art," &c. P. 40. speaking of the same, he says, "All men are brought under condemnation." In p. 27, 28. "By judgment, judgment to condemnation, it appeareth evidently to me, he (Paul) means the being adjudged to the forementioned death; he means the sentence of death, of a general mortality,

pronounced upon mankind in consequence of Adam's first transgression. And the condemnation inflicted by the judgment of God, answereth to, and is in effect the same thing with, being dead." P. 30. "The many, that is mankind, were subject to death by the judicial act of God." P. 31. "Being made sinners, may very well signify, being adjudged, or condemned to death. For the Hebrew word, &c. signifies to make one a sinner by a judicial sentence, or to condemn."-P. 178. Par. on Rom. v. 19. Upon the account of one man's disobedience, mankind were judicially constituted sinners; that is, subjected to death by the sentence of God the Judge." And there are many other places where he repeats the same thing. And it is pretty remarkable, that (page 48, 49.) immediately after citing Prov. xvii. 15. He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, are both an abomination to the Lord-and when he is careful in citing these words to put us in mind, that it is meant of a judicial act-yet, in the very next words, he supposes that God himself does so, since he constantly supposes that Adam's posterity, whom God condemns, are innocent. His words are these, "From all this it followeth, that as the judgment that passed upon all men to condemnation, is death's coming upon all men, by the judicial act of God, upon occasion of Adam's transgression: So," &c.-And it is very remarkable, that (p. 3, 4, 7, S.) he insists, "That in scripture no action is said to be imputed, reckoned, or accounted to any person for righteousness or CONDEMNATION, but the proper act and deed of that person."-And yet he thus continually affirms, that all mankind are made sinners by a judicial act of God the Judge, even to condemnation, and judicially constituted sinners, and so subjected to a judicial sentence of condemnation, on occasion of Adam's sin; and all according to the threatening denounced to Adam, Thou shalt surely die: Though he supposes Adam's posterity were not included in the threatening, and are looked upon as perfectly innocent, and treated wholly as such.

I am sensible Dr. T. does not run into all this inconsistence only through oversight and blundering; but that he is driven to it, to make out his matters in his evasion of that noted paragraph in the fifth chapter of Romans; especially those three sentences; (ver. 16.) The judgment was by one to condemnation. (ver. 18.) By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation: and (ver. 19.) By one man's disobedience many were made sinners. And I am also sensible of what he offers to salve the inconvenience, viz. "That if the threatening had immediately been executed on Adam, he would have had no posterity; and that so far the possible existence of Adam's posterity fell under the threatening of the law, and into the hands of the judge, to b3 disposed of as he should

think fit: And that this is the ground of the judgment to condemnation coming upon all men.*" But this is trifling to a great degree For,

1. Suffering death, and failing of possible existence, are entirely different things. If there had never been any such thing as sin committed, there would have been infinite numbers of possible beings, which would have failed of existence by God's appointment. God has appointed (if the phrase be allowable) not to bring into existence numberless possible worlds, each replenished with innumerable possible inhabitants. But is this equivalent to God's appointing them all to suffer death?

2. Our author represents, that by Adam's sin, the possible existence of his posterity fell into the hands of the Judge, to be disposed of as he should think fit. But there was no need of any sin of Adam, or of any body else, in order to their being brought into God's hands, in this respect. The future possible existence of all created beings is in God's hands, antecedently to the existence of any sin. And therefore infinite numbers of possible beings, without any relation to Adam, or any other sinning being, fail of their possible existence. And if Adam had never sinned, yet it would be unreasonable to suppose, but that innumerable multitudes of his possible posterity would have failed of existence by God's disposal. For will any be so unreasonable as to imagine, that God would and must have brought into existence as many of his posterity as it was possible should be, if he had not sinned? Or, that then it would not have been possible, that any other persons of his posterity should ever have existed, than those individual persons who now actually suffer death, and return to the dust?

3. We have many accounts in scripture, which imply the actual failing of the possible existence of innumerable multitudes of Adam's posterity, yea, of many more than ever come into existence. As, of the possible posterity of Abel, the possible posterity of all them that were destroyed by the flood, and the possible posterity of the innumerable multitudes which we read of in scripture destroyed by sword, pestilence, &c. And if the threatening to Adam reached his posterity in no other respect than this, that they were liable to be deprived by it of their possible existence, then these instances are much more properly a fulfilment of that threatening, than the suffering of death by such as actually come into existence; and so is that which is most properly the judgment to condemnation executed by the sentence of the Judge, proceeding on the ground of that threatening. But where do we ever find this so represented in scripture? We read of multitudes cut off for their personal sins, who

* Page 95, 90, 91. S.