This book made available by the Internet Archive.

PREFACE.

TflEfo

followmg Discourse is intended^ not merely as an answer to any particular Book ivritten against the Doctrine o/* Original Sin, but as a general Defence of that great imfiort' ant Doctrine, JVevertheless^ I have in this Defence taken notice of the wain things said against this Doctrine^ by such of the more noted opfiosers of it, as I have had o/i/iortunity to read ; particularly those t%vo late Writers, Dr. Turnbull and Dr. Taylor of Norwich ; but esfiecially the latter, in what he has fiublishedin those two Books of his, the fir^st intitled, The Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin proposed to free and candid Examination ; the other, his Key to the Apostolic Writings, with a Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle to the Romans. I have closely attended to Dr. Taylor's Piece on Original Sin, in all its Parts^ and have endeavored that no one thing there said, of any consequence in this Controversy, should pass imnO' ticed, or that any thiyig which has the appearance of an Argu-tnent, in opposition to this Doctrine, should be left unanswered, I look on the Doctrine as of great Importance; which every Body will doubtless own it is, if it be true. For, if the case be such indeed, that all Mankind are by Nature in a State 0/total Ruin, both with respect to the moral Evil they are the subjects •f, and the afflictive Evil they are exposed to, the one as the consequence and punishment of the other, then doubtless the great Salvation by Christ stands in direct Relation to this Ruin, as the remedy to the disease; and the whole Gospel, or Doctrine of Salvation, must suppose it; and all real belief or true notion of that Gospel, must be built upon^it. Therefore, us I think the. Doctrine is most certainly both true and important, I hope, my attempting a Yiw^lCdiiiQn of it, will be candidly interpreted; and that what I have done towards its defence^ will be impartially considered, by all that will give themselves the trouble to read the ensuing Discourse ; in which it is designed to examine every

'y PREFACE.

t/iing 7natcrial throughout the Doctor's whole Booky and ?na>ii/ things in that other Book of Dr. Taylor's, containing his Key and expositioTi en Romans; as also inanij things ivritten in op.-position to this Doctrine by some other modem Authors* And moreover, my discourse being not only intended for an Answer to Dr. Taylor, a7id other op/iosers of the Doctrine of Original Siuy but (as was observed above) for a general defence of that Doctrine ; producing the evidence of the truth of the Doctrine, as well as answering objections made against it....considering these things, I say, I hope this attempt of mine will not be thought needless, nor be altogether useless, notwithstanding oth-' er publications on this subject.

I would also hope, that the extetisiveness of the plan of the following treatise will excuse the length of it. And that when it is considered, honu much was absolutely requisite to the full executing of a design formed on such a plan ; how much has been written against the Doctrine of Original Sin, and with what plausibility ; and how strong the prejudices of many are in favor of what is said in opposition to this Doctrine ; and that it cannot be expected, any thing short of a full consideration of almost every argument advanced by the main opposers, especially by this late and specious Writer, Dr. Taylor, will satisfy many readers ; and also, how much must unavoidably be said in order to a full handling of the arguments in defence of the Doctrine ; and hovj important the Doctrine must be, if true ; 16ay, when such circumstances as these are considered, I trust, the length of the following discourse will not be thought to exceed what the case really required. However, this 7nust be left to the Judg* ■ment of the intelligent and candid Reader.

vj CONTENTS.

CHAPTER IV.

Containing Observat'ons on Rom, v. 12, to the end.

PART III.

Observing the Evidence given us, relative to the Doctrine of Original Sin, in what the Scriptures reveal concerning the Redemption by Christ.

CHAPTER I.

The Evidence of Original Sin from the Nature of Redemption, in the Pro^ curiminto{'\\.'. Which is superceded by Dr. Taylor's Scheme,

CHAPTER n.

The Evidence of the Doctrine of Original Sin from what the Scripture teaches concerning the Application of Redemption.

PART IV.

Containing Ansiuers to Objections* CHAPTER I.

Concerning that Objection, That to suppose Men to be born in Sin, without their Choice, or any previous act of their own, is to suppose what is j'ti-consistent with the Nature of Siu. And reflections, shewing the inconsistence of Dr.Taylor's Argaings from this Topic.

CHAPTER n.

Concerning that Objection against the Doctrine of native Corruption, That to suppose, Men receive their first Existence in Sin, is to make Him who is the Author of their Being, also the Author of their Depravity.

CHAPTER HI.

That great Objection against the Imputation of Adani's Sin to his Posterity considered, That such Imputation is unjust and unreasonable, inasmuch as ^dam and his Posterity are not one and the same : With a brief Reflec-

don subjoined, on what some have supposed, of God's imputing the guilt of Adam's Sin to his Posterity, but in an infinitely less Degree thaa to Adam himself.

CHAPTER IV.

Wherein several other Objections are considered.

CONCLUSION.

Containing some brief Observations on certain artful Methods, used by Writers who are Adversaries to this Doctrine, in order to/^rtyW/cc their Readers against it.

DOCTRINE

OF

ORIGINAL SIN

DEFENDED.

PART I.

Wherein are considered some Evidences of Original Sin from Facts and Events, as found by Observation and Experience^ together with Representations and Testimonies of Holy Scripture^ and the Confession and Assertions of Opposers.

CHAPTER I.

The Evidence of Original Sin from what appear^ in Fact of the Sinfulness of Mankind,

SECTION I-

jiU Mankind do constantly^ in oil ^gesj without Fail in any out Instance^ run into that moral Evil, ivhich is, in Effect, their oitm utter and eternal Perdition, in a total Privation of God's Favor, and Suffering of his Vengeance and Wrath,

x3y Original Sin, as the phrase has been most commonly used by divines, is meant the innate, sinful dejiravity *f the heart. But yet, when the doctrine of Original Sin is spoken of, it is vulgarly understood in that latitude, as to includt^ B

not only the defiravity of nature^ but the imfiutation of AdanCs first Sin ; or in other words, the liableness or exposedness of jidam*8 posterity, in the divine judgment, to partake of the punishment of that Sin. So far as 1 know, most of those who have held one of these, have maintained the other ; and ipost of those who have opposed one^ have opposed the other; bo h are opposed by the author chiefly attended to in the following discourse, in his book against Original Sin : And it may perhaps appear in our future consideration of the subjecti that they are closely connected, and that the arguments which prove the one, establish the other, and that there are no more difficulties attending the allowing of one than the other.

I shall, in the first place, consider this doctrine more especially with regard to the corruption of nature ; and as we treat of this, the other will naturally come into consideration, in the prosecution of the discourse, as connected with it.

As all moral qualities, all principles either of virtue or vice, lie in the disposition of the heart, I shall consider whether we have any evidence, that the heart of man is naturally of a corrupt and evil disposition. This is strenuously denied by many late writers, who are enemies to the doctrine of Original Sin ; and particularly by Dr. Taylor.

The way we come by the idea of any such thing as disposition or tendency, is by observing what is constant or general in event; especially under a great variety of circumstances ; and above all, when the effect or event continues the same through great and various opposition, much arid manifold force and means used to the contrary not prevailing to hinder the effect. I do not know, that such a prevalence of effects is denied to be an evidence of prevaiUng tendency in causes and agents ; or that it is expressly denied by the op-posers of the doctrine of Original Sin, that if, in the course of events, it universally or generally proves that mankind are actually corrupt, this would be an evidence of a prior, corrupt propensity in the woi id of mankind ; whatever may be said by some, which, if taken with its plain consequences, may seem toimjily a dei/ial of this ; which may be considered afier-wards....But by many the fact is denied ; that is, it is denied,

that corruption and moral evil arc commonly prevalent in the world : On the contrary, it is insisted on, that good preponderates, and that virtue has the ascendant.

To this purpose Dr. TurnbuU says,t " Wi'.h regard to the prevalence of vice in the world, men are apt to let their imagination run out upon all the robheries, pyracies, murders, perjuries, frauds, massacres, assassinations they have either heard of, or read in history ; thence concluding all mankind to be very wicked. As if a court of justice was a prop<ir place to make an estimate of the morals of mankind, or an hospital of the healthfulness of a climate. But ought they not to consider, that the number of honest citizens and farmers far surpasses that of all sorts of criminals in any state, and that the innocent and kind actions of even criminals themselves surpass their crimes in numbers ; that it is the rarity of crimes, in comparison of innocent or good actions, which engages our attention to them, and makes them to be recorded in history ; while honest, generous, domestic actions are overlooked, only because they are so common ? As one great danger, or one month's sickness shall become a frequently repeated story during a long life of health and safety....Let not the vices of mankind be multiplied or magnified. Let us make a fair estimate of human life, and set over against the shocking, the astonishing instances of barbarity and wickedness that have been perpetrated in any age, not only the exceeding generous and brave actions with which history shines, but the prevailing innocency, good nature, industry, felicity, and cheerfulness of the greater part of mankind at all times ; and we shall not find reason to cry out, as objectors against providence do on this occasion, that all men are vastly corrupt, and that there is hardly any such thing as virtiie in the world. Upon a fair computation, the fact does indeed ••me out, that very great villanies have been very uncommon m v.W ages, and looked upon as monstrous ; so general is ijie sense and esteem of virtue." It seems to be with a like view that Dr. Taylor says, « We must not take the measure of our ^lefllth

t Moral Philosophy, p, 289, 290.

n ORIGINAL SIN.

nnd enjoym«nts from a lazar house, nor ol" our understanding I'rom bedlam, nor of our morals from a gaol."

With respecl to the propriety and pertinence of such a representation of Ihinpfs, and its force as to the consequence desit^ned, I hope we shall he better able to judi;e, and in some measure to determine, whether the natural disposition of the hearts of mankind be corrupt or not, when the things which follow have been considered.

But for the greater clearness, it may be proper here to premise one consideration, that is of great importance in this controversy? and is very much overlooked by the opposers of the doctrine of Original Sin in their disputing against it ; which is this......

That is to be looked upon as the true tendency of the natural or innate disposition of man's heart, which appears to be its tendency, when we consider things as they are in themselves, or in their own nature, without the interfiosition of di--:<megrace. Thus, that slate of man's nature, that disposition of the mind, is to be looked upon as evil and pernicious, which, as it is in itst-lf, tends to extremely penicious consequences, and would certainly end therein, were it not that the free mercy and kindness of God interposes to prevent that issue. It would be very strange if any should argue^ that there is no evil tendency in the case, because the mere favor and compassion of the Most High may step in and oppose the tendency, and prevent the sad effect tended to. Particularly, if there be any thing in the nature of man, whereby he has an universal, unfailing tendency to that moral evil, which, according to the real nature and true demerit of tilings, as they arc in themselves, implies his utter ruin, that must be looked upon as an evil tendency or propensity ; hov,cver divine grace Tnay interpose, to save him from deserved ruin, and to overrule things to an issue contrary to that which they tend to of themselves. Grace is a sovereign thing, exercised according to the good plcas\irc of Cod- bringing good out of evil. The effect of it belongs not to the nature of things themselves, that otherwise have an ill tendency, any more than the rem-rdv belongs to the di'-v3?e ; btit i« sfi.'ViCthinr: aitoo-rthcr inde-.

pendent on it, inlroduced to oppose the natural tendency, and reverse the course of things. But the event that things tend to, according to their own demerit, and according to divine justice, that is the event which they tend to in their own nature, as Dr.Taylor's own words fully imply. " God alone,(says he) can declare whether he will pardon or punish the ungodliness and unrighteousness of mankind, which is in its oivn nature punishable." Notlung is more precisely according to the truth of things, than divine justice : It weighs things in an even balance : It views and estimates things no otherwise than they are truly in their own nature. Therefore undoubtedly that which implies a tendency to ruin, according to the estimate oi dw'mt justice^ does indeed imply such a tendency in its oron nature.

And then it must be remembered that it is a v.ioral de-firavity we are speaking of; and therefore when we arc considering whether such depravity do not appear by a tendency to a bad effect or issue, it is a moral tendency to such an issue, that is the thing to be taken into the account. A moral tendency or influence is by dencrt. Then may it be said, man'* nature or state is attended with a pernicious or destructive tendency, in a moral sense, when it tends to that which dc' serves misery and destruction. And therefore it equally shews the moral depravity of the nature of mankind in their present state, whether that nature be universally attended Avith an effectual tendency to destructive vengeance actually executed^ or to their deserving misery and ruin, or their ju&t exposedness to destruction, however that fatal consequence may be prevented by grace, or w.hatever the actual event be. One thing more is to be observed here, viz. that the topic mainly insisted on by the opposers of the doctrine of Original Sin, is the justice of God ; both in their objections against the imputation of Adam's sin, and also against its being so ordered, that men should come into the world with a corrupt and ruined nature, without having merited the displeasure of their Creator by any personal fault. But the latter is not repugnant to God's justice, if men can be, and actually are, bom into the world with a tcn(lenv':y to sin, and to misery and

ruin for their sin, which actually will be the consequence, unless mere grace steps in and prevents it. If this be allowed, the argument from justice is given up ; for it is to suppose that their liableness to misery and ruin comes in a way of justice ; otherwise there would be no need of the interposition of divine grace to save them. Justice alone would be sufficient security, if exercised, without grace. It is all one in this dispute about what is just and rig*hteous, whether men are born in a miserable state, by a tendency to rijin, which actually follonvsy and \\\2X justly ; or whether they are born in such a state as tends to a desert of ruin, which might justly follow, and ivould actually folloivy did not grace prevent. For the controversy is not, what grace v/ill do, but what justice might do.

I have been the more particular on this head, because it enervates many of the reasonings and conclusions by which Dr. Taylor makes out his scheme ; in which he argues from that state which mankind are in by divine grace^ yea, which he himself supposes to be by divine grace, and yet not making any allowance for this, he from hence draws conclusions against what others suppose of the deplorable and ruined state mankind are in by the fall. He often speaks of death and affliction as coming on Adam's posterity in consequence of his sin ; and in pages 20, 21, and many olher places, he supposes that these things come in consequence of his sin, not as a punishment or a calamity, but as a benefit. But in page 23, he supposes these things would be a great calamity and misery, if it were not for the resurrection ; which resurrection he there, and in the following pages, and in many other places, speaks of as being by Christ; and often speaks of it as being Inj the grace of God in Christ.

In pages 63, 64, speaking of our being subjected to sorrow, labor and death, in consequence of Adam's sin, he represents these as evils that arc reversed and turned into advantages, and that we are delivered from through graxein Cnrist. And in pages 65....67, he speaks of God's thus himing death into an advantage through grace in Christ, as what vindicates the justice of God in bringing death by Adam.

In pages 152, 156, it is one thing which he alleges against this propobiiion of the assembly of divines, that we are by nature bondslaves to Satan ; That God hath been firoviding^from. the beginning of the world to this day, variouft means and dia-fiensations, to jiresvrx^c and rescue mankiiidfrom the devil.

In pages 168....170, one thing alleged in answer to that objection against his doctrine, that we are in worse cu'cum-stances than Adam, is, the happy circumstances we arc under by the provision and means furnished through free grace in Christ.

In page 228, among other things which he says, in answering that argument against his doctrine, and brought to shew men have corruption by nature, viz. that there is a law in our members....bringing us into captivity to the law of sin and death, spoken of in Rom. vii. he allows that the case of those who are under a law threatening death for every sin (which law he elsewhere says, ^Aews us the natural and firofier demerit of sin, and is p.erfectly consonant to everlasting truth and righteousness) must be quite defilorable, if they have no re-' hef from the mercy of the lawgiver.

In pages 90....93, S. in opposition to what is supposed of the miserable state mankind are brought into by Adam*s sin, one thing he alleges, is. The noble designs of love, manifested by advancing a new and hafifiy disfiensation, founded on the obe-dieiice and Hghteousness of the Son of God ; and that although by'Adam we are subjected to death, yet in this dispensation a resurrection is provided ; and that Adam's posterity are under a mild dispensation of ^rac^, kc.

In page 112, S. he vindicates God's dealings with Adam, in placing him at first under the rigor of law, transgress and die, (which, as he expresses it, was putting his ha/i/iiness on afoot extremely dangerous) by saying, that as God had before determined in his own breast, so he immediately established his cov enant ujion a guite di^erent bottom, namely, ufion grace.

In pages 122, 123, 5. against what R. R. says, that God forsook man when he fell, and that mankind after Adam's sin were born without the divine favor. Sec. he alleges among other things, Christ^ coming to be the firofiitiation for the aina of

tlie ivhok world. .,ind the riches of God's mercy i7i giving the Jiromise ay a Redeemer to destroy the work's of the devil. TJmt he caught his sinvdng^ f<illing creature in the arms of his grace. In his note on Rom. v. 20, p. 297, 298, he says as follows : '» The law, I conceive, is not a dispensation suitable to the infirmiiy of the human nature in our present state ; or it doth not seem congruous lo tlie goodness of God, to afford us no other way of salvation but by law, which, if we once transgress, we arc ruined forever. For who then from the beginning of the world could be saved ? And therefore it seems to me that the law was not absolutely intended to be a rule for obtaining life, even to Adam in Paradise. Grace was the dispensation God intended mankind should be under ; and therefore Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world."

There are various other passages in this author*s writings of the like kind. Some of his arguments and conclusions to this eiTect, in order to be made good, must depend on such a supposition as this : That God's dispensations of grace are rectifications or amendments of his foregoing constitutions and proceedings, which were merely legal ; as though the dispensations of grace, which succeed those of mere law, implied an acknowledgment, that the preceding, legal constitution would be unjust, if left as it was, or at least, very hard dealing with mankind ; and that the other were of the nature of a satisfaction to his creatures, for former injuries or hard treatment ; so that put together, the injury with the satisfaction, the lei^al and injurious dispensation, taken with the following good dispensation, which our author calls grace, and the unfairness or improper Sfiverity of the former, amended by the goodness of the latter, both together made up one righteous dispensation.

The reader is desired to bear in mind that which I have said concerning the interposition of divine grace, its not altering the nature of things, as they are in themselves ; and accordingly, when I speak of such and such an evil tendency of things, belonging to the present nature and state of mankind, understand me to mean their tendency as they are in them-

ORIGINAL SIN. U

^dves^ abstracted from any consideration of that remedy the sovereign and infinite grace of God has provided.

Having premised these things, I now proceed to say*

That mankind are all naturally in such a state, as is attended, without fail, with this consequence or issue ; that they universally run themselves into that which is, in effect, their own utter, eternal perdition, as being finally accursed of God, and the subjects of his remediless wrath through siu.

From which I infer that the natural state of the mind of man, is attended with a propensity of nature, which is prevalent and effectual, to such an issue ; and that therefore their nature is corrupt and depraved with a moral depravity, that amounts to and implies their utter undoing.

Here I would first consider \\\e truth of the proposition ; and then would shew the certain'y of the consequences which I infer from it. If both can be clearly and certair.ly proved, then, I trust, none will deny but that the doctrine of original depravity is evident, and so the falseness of Dr. Taylor's scheme demonstrated ; the greatest part of whose book, called The Scripture Doctrine of Original 5m, &c. is against the doctrine of i7inate depravity. In page i07, 5, he speaks of the conveyance of a corrupt and sinful nature to Adam's posterity as ^/;e ^rawc;?/20zW to be proved by the maintainors of the doctrine of (Original Sin.

In order to demonstrate what is asserted in the proposition laid down, there is need only that these two things should be made manifest : Ojie is this fact, that all mankind come into the world in such a stale, as without fail comes to this issue, namely, the universal commission of sin ; or that every one who comes to act in the world as a moral agent, is, in a greater or less degree, guilty of sin. The other is, that all sin deserves ar.d exposes to utter and eternal destruction, under God's -wrath and curse ; and would end in it, were it not for the interposition of divine grace to prevent the effect. Both which can be abundantly demonstrated to be agreeable to the word of God, and to Dr. Taylor's own doctrine.

That every one of mankind, at least of them that are capable of acting as moral agents, are guihy of sin (not now

e

taking it for granted that they come guilty into the worW) m a thing most clearly and abundantly evident from the holy scriptures. 1 Kings viii. 46. *' If any man sin against thee ; for there is no man that sinneth not." Eccl. vii. 20. '' There is noi a just man upon earth that doeth good, and sinneth not." Job 'X. 2, 3. " I know it is so of a truth, (i. e. as Bildad had just before said, tlia't God would not cast away a fierfect wariy life.) but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with Mm, he cannot answer him one of a thousand." To the like purpose, Psalm cxliii. 2. " Enter v-it into judgment with thy servan* ; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.*' So the words of the apostle (in which he has apparent reference to those of the Psalmist) Rom. iii. 19, 20. " That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of lh6 law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin." So Gal. ii. 16, and 1 John i. 7.... 10. "If we walk in the light, the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faiihful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from ail unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." As in this place, so in innumerable other places, confession and.repentance of sin are spoken of, as duties proper for all ; as also prayer to God for pardon of sin ; and forgiveness of those that injure us, from that motive, that we hope to be forgiven of God. Universal guilt of sin might also be demonstrated from the appointment, and the declared use and end of the ancient sacrifices ; and also from the ransom, which every one that was numbered in Israel, was directed to pay, to make atonement for his soul; Exod. xxx. 11....16. All are represented, not oi^iy as being sinful, but as having great and manifold iniquity, Job ix. 2, fi, James iii. 1, 2.

There are many scriptures which both declare the universal sinfulness of mankind, and also that all sin deserves and justly exj-io es to everlasting destruction, under the wrath . and curse of God ; and so demonstrate both parts of the

ORIGINAL SIN. l^

|)roposition I have laid down. To which purpose that in Gill. iii. 10, is exceeding full. "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse ; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all ihini!:s which are written in the book of the law, to do them." How manifestly is it implied in the apostle's meaning here, tb.at there is r.o man but what fails in some instances of doing all things that are written in the book of the law, and therefore as many as have their dependence on their fulfilling the law, are under that curse which is pronounced on them that do fail of it ? And hence the apostle infers in the next verse, that no man is justijied by the law in the sight of God ; as he had said before in the preceding chapter, verse 16, '^-By the ^vorks of the law shall no Jiesh be justiHedP The apostle shews us that he understands, that by this place which he cites from Beulcr-onomy, the scripture hath concluded, or shut up, all under sin, as in chap. iii. 22. So that here we are plainly taught, both that every one of mankind is a sinner, and that every sinner is under the curse of God.

To the like purpose is that, Rom. iv. 14, and also 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7, 9, where the law is called the letter that kills-, the min' istratio7i of deaths and the ministration of condemnation. The wrath, condemnation and death, which is threatened in the law to all its transgressors, is final perdition, the second death, eternal ruin, as is very plain, and is confessed. And this punishment which the law threatens for every sin, is a just punishment, being what every sin truly deserves ; God's law being a righteous law, and the sentence of it a righteous sentence.

All these things are what Dr. Taylor himself confesses and asserts. He says that the law of God requires perfect obedience. (Note on Rom. vii. 6, p. 308 j " God can never require imperfect obedience, or by his ho^y law allow us to be guilty of any one sin, how small soever. And if the law, as a rule of duty, were in any respect abolished, then we might in some respects transgress the law, and yet not be guilty of sin. The moral law, or law of nature, is the truth, everlasting, unchangeable, and therefore, as such, can never

S« ORIGINAL SIN.

be abrogated. On the contrary, our Lord Jesus Christ has promulgated it anew under the gospel, fuller and clearer than it was in the Mosaical constitution, or any where else ; having added to its precepts the sanction of his own divine authority." And many things which he says, imply that all mankind do in some degree transgress the laWo In page 228, speaking of what may be gathered from Rom. vii. and viii, he says, " We are very apt, in a world full of temptation, to be deceived, and drawn into sin by bodily appetites, Sec. And the case of those who are under a law threatening death to every sin, must be quite deplorable, if they have no relief from the mercy of the lawgiver.*'

But this is very fully declared in what he says in his note on Rom. v. 20, page 297. His v/ords are as follows : " Indeed, as a rule of action prescribing our duty, it (the law) al-v.'ays was, and always must be a rule ordained for obtaining life ; but not as a rule of justification, not as it subjects to death for every transgression. For if it could in its utmost rigor have given us life, then, as the apostle argues, it would have been against the promises of God. For if there had been a law, in the strict and rigorous sense of law, which could have viadc us live, verily justification should have been by the law. But he supposes, no such law was ever given ; and therefore there is need and room enough for the promises of grace ; or as he argues. Gal, ii. 21, it would have frustrated, or rendered useless the grace of God. For if justification can\e by the law, then truly Christ is dead in vain, then he died to accomplish what was, or might have been effected by law itself without his death. Certainly the law was not brouirht in among the Jews to be a rule of justification, or t6 recover them out of a state of death, and to procure life by their sinless obedience to it; for in this, as well as in another respect, it was weak^ not in itself, but through the weakness of our flesh, Rom. viii. 3, The law, I conceive, is not a dis* pensation .sz«Va/Vr/o the injlnmty of the human nature in our present state ; or it doth not seem congruous to the goodness of God to alTord us no other way of salvation, but h\ law, which, if we once transgress, wc are ruined forever. For who

then, from the beginning of the nvorld, could be saved .?".... How clear and express are these things, that no one of mankind, from the beiijinning of the world, can ever be justified by law, because every one transgresses it ?*

And here also we see. Dr. Taylor declare:i, that by the law, n^en are sentenced to everlasting ruin for one transgression. To the like purpose he often expresses himself. So p. 207. " The law' requireth the most extensive obedience, discovering sin in all its branches. It gives sin a deadly force, subjecting every transgression to the penalty of death ; and yet supplieth neither help nor hope to the sinner, but leaveth him under the power of sin and sentence of death." In p. 213, he speaks of the law as " extending to lust and irregular desires, and lo every branch and principle of sin ; and even to its latent principles, and minutest branches." Again (Note on Rom. vii. 6. p. 308) " to every sin, hov/ small soever." And when he speaks of the law subjecting every transgression to the penalty of death, he means eternal death, as he from time to time explains the matter. In p. 212, he speaks of the law " in the condemning power of it, as binding us in everlasting chains.** In p. 120. S. he says, « that death which is the wages of sin, is the second death ;'* and this p. 78, he explains of final perdition.'* In his Key, p. 107, § 296, he says, " The curse of the law subjected men for every transgression to eternal death.^* So in A'^ote on Rom. r. 20, p. 291. " The law of Moses subjected those who were under it to death, meaning by death eternal death." These are his words.

He also supposes, that this sentence of the law, thus subjecting men for every, even the least sin, and every minutest branch and latent firincifile of sin, to so dreadful a punishment, is just and righteous, agreeable to truth and the nature of things, or to the natural 3j\d firo/ier demerits of sin. This he is very

* I am sensible, these things are quite inconsistent with what he says else-■where, of ♦' sufficient power in all mankind constantly to do the whole duty which God requires of them," without a necessity of breaking God's law in any degree, (p. 63,...68. S.) But, I hope, the reader will not think me accountable for his inconsistences^

fifi QRIGINAL SIN.

full in. Tlius in p. 186. P. " It was sin (says he) whicfe subjected us to death by thp. law, justly threatening sin with death. Which law was given us, that shi miti;ht appear ; ■might be set forth in its proper colors ; when we saw it subjected us to death by a law fierfcctly holy^ just and good ; that sin by the commandment, by the law, might be represented 'what ic really is^ an exceedinf^ ereat and deadly evil." So in note on Rom. v. 20, p. 299. " The law or rpin-istration of death, as it subjects to death for every transgression, is still of use to shew the natural and firoper demerit of ^in" Ibid. ^. 202. " The language pf the law, dying thou shalt die, is to be understood of the demerit of the transgression, that which it deserves** Ibid. p. 298. *' The law wa? added, saith Mr. Locke, on the place, because the Israelite^, the posterity of Abraham, were transgressors as well as other men, to shew them their sips, and the punishmpnt ^nd death, which in strict justice they incurred by them. And this appears to be a true comment on Rom. vii. 13....Sin, by virtue of the law, subjected you to death for this end, that sin, working death in us, by that which is holy., just., and good, perfectly consonant to everlasting truth and righteousness....Con' sequently every sin is in strict justice deserving of wrath apd punishment ; and the law in its rigor was given to the Je\ys, to set home this awful truth upon their consciences, to she>^ them the evil and pernicious nature of sin ; and that, being conscious they had broke the law of God, this might convince them of the great need they had of the favor of th? lawgiv* er, and oblige them, by faith in his goodness^ to fly to his mer^ ry, for pardon and salvation."

If the la\v be holy, just, and good, a constitution perfectly agreeable to God's holiness, justice, and goodness ; then he might have put it exactly in execution, agreeably to all these his perfections. Our author himself says, p. 133. S. " How that constitution, which establishes a law, the making of which is inconsistent with the justice and goodness of God, and the executing of it inconsistent with his holiness, can be a righteous constitution, I confess, is quite beyond my coq^i-prehcnsion."

Now the reader is left to judG:c, whetlier it be not most plainly and fully agreeable to Dr. Taylor's own doctrine, that there never was any one person from the beginning of the world, who came to act in the world as a moral agent, and that it is not to be hoped there ever will be any, but what is a sinner or transgressor of the law of God ; and that therefore this proves to be the issue and event of things, with respect to all mankind in all aj^es, that, by the natural ancK prop'er demerit of their own sinfulness, and in the judgment of the law of God, which is perfectly consonant to truth, and exhibits things in their true colors, they are the proper subjects of the Curse of God, eternal death, and everlasting ruin ; which must be the actual consequence, unless the grace or favor of the lawgiver interpose, and mercy prevail for their pardon and salvation. The reader has seen also how agreeable this is to the doctrine of the holy scripture.

And if so, and what has been observed concerning Ihfe iri-terposiiion of divine grace be remembered, namely, that this alters not the nature of things as they are in themselves, and that it does not in the least affect the state of the controversy we are upon, concerning the true nature and tendency of the state that mankind come into the world in, whether grace prevents the fatal effect or no ; I say, if these things are considered, I trust, none will deny, that the proposition that was laid down, is fully proved, as agreeable to the word of God, and Dr. Taylor's own words ; viz. that mankind are all naturally in such a state, as is attended, without fail, with this consequence or issue, that they universally are the subjects of that guilt and sinfulness, which is, in effect, their utter and eternal ruin, being cast wholly out of the favor of God, and subjecte'^ !• his everlasting wrath and curs*-

SECTION II-

It foUoivs from the Profiosition proved in the foregoing Section, that all Mankind are under the influence of a prevailing effectual Tendecy in their Nature, to that Sin and Wickedness, nvhich implies their utter and eternal ruin.

THE proposition laid clown beinp: proved, the consequence of it remains to be made out, viz. that the mind of man has a natural tendency or propensity to that event, which has been shewn universally and infallibly to take place (if this be not sufficiently evident of itself, without proof) and that this is a corrupt or depraved propensity.

I shall here consider the former part of this consequence, namely, whether such an universal, constant, infallible event is truly a proof of the being of any tendency or propensity^ to that event; leaving the evil and corrupt nature of such a propensity to be considered afterwards.

If any should say, they do not think that its being a thing universal and infallible in event, that mankind commit some sin, is a proof of a prevailing tendency to sin ; because they do not only sin, but also do good, and perhaps more good than evil; let them remember, that the question at present is not, how much sin there is a tendency to ; but, whether there be a prevailing propensity to that issue, which it isallowed all men do actually come to, that all fail of keeping the law perfectly ; whether there be not a tendency to such imperfection of obedience, as ahvays without fail comes to pass; to ihat degree of sinfulness, at least, which all fall into ; and so to that utter ruin, which that sinfulness implies and infers. Whether an effectual propensity to this be worth the name of depravity, because of the good that may be supposed to balance it, shall be considered by and by. If it were so, that all mankind, in all nations and ages, were at least one day in their lives deprived of the use of their reason, and run ravin.; mad j or that all, even every individual person, once cut their own

throats, or put out their own eyes ; it might be an evidence of some tendency in ihe nature or natural state of mankind to such an event; though they mis^ht exercise reason many more days than they were distracted, and were kind to, and tender of themselves oficner than they mortally and cruelly wounded themselves.

To determine whether the unfailing' constancy of the: above named event be an evidence of tendency, let it be considered, what can be meant by tendency^ but a prevailing liableness or exposedness to such or such an event. Wherein consists the notion of any such thing, but some stated prevalence or pre-ponderation in the nature or state of causes or occasions, that is followed ^y, and so proves to be effectual /o, a stated prevalence or commonness of any particular kind of effect ? Or, something in the permanent state of things, concerned in bringing a certain sort of event to pass, which is a foundation for the constancy, or strongly prevailing probability of such an event ? If we mean this by tendency (as I know not what else can be meant by it, but this, or something like this) then it is manifest, that where we see a stated prevalence of any-kind of effect or event, there is a tendency to that effect in the nature and state of its causes. A common and steady effect shews, that there is somewhere a preponderation, a prevailing exposedness or liableness in the state of things, to what ^omes so steadily to pass. The natural dictate of reason shews, that where there is an effect, there is a cause, and a 'cause sufficient for the effect; because, if it were not sufficient, it would not be effectual ; and that therefore, where there is a stated prevalence of the effect, there is a stated prevalence in the cause : A steady effect argues a steady eause. We obtain a notion of such a thing as tendency, no other way than by observation ; and we can observe nothing but events ; and it is the commonness or constancy of events that gives us a notion of tendency in all cases. Thus we judge of tendencies in the natural world. Thus we judge of the tendencies or-propensities of nature in minerals, vegetables, animals, rational and irrational creatures. A notion of a stated tendency, or fixed propensity, is not obtained by observ* D

ing only a single event. A stated preponderation in the cause or occasion, is argned only by a staled prevalence of the cffeot. If a die be once thrown, and it falls on a particular side, we do not argue from hence, that that side is the heaviest; but if it be thrown without skill or care, many thousands or millions of times goine:, and constantly falls on the same side, we have not the least doubt in our minds, but that there is something of propensity in the case, by superior weight of that side, or in some other respect. How ridiculous would he make himself, who should earnestly dispute against any tendency in the state of things to cold in the winter, or heat in the summer ; or should stand to it, that although it often happened that water quenched fire, yet there was no tendency in it to such ari effect.

In the case we are upon, the human nature, as existing in such an immense diversity of persons and circumstances, and never failing in any one instance, of coming to that issue, viz« that sinfulness, which implies extreme misery and eternal ruin, is as the die often cast. For it altets not the case in the least, as to the evidence of tendency, whether the subject of the constant event be an individual, or a nature and kind. Thus, if there be a succession of trees of the same sort, proceeding one from another, from the beginning of the world, growing in all countries, soils, and climates, and otherwise ii% (a^s it were) an infinite variety of circumstances, all bearing ill fruit; it as much proves the nature and tendency of the kind^ as if it were only one individuul tree, that had remained from the beginning of the world, had often been transplanted \n\9 different soils, &;c. and had continued to bear only bad fruit. So, if there were a particular family, which, from generation to generation, and through every remove to innumerable different countries, and places of abode, all died of a consumption, or all run distracted, or all murdered themselves, it would be as much an evidence of the tendency of something in the nature or constitution of that race, as it would be of the tendency of something in the nature or state of an individual, if some one person had lived all that time, and some remarkable event had often appci\red in hina, which he had been the

ORIGINAL SIN. «T

agent or subject of from year to year, and fr om ogeto age, •ontinually and without fail.

Here may be observed the weakness of that objeclion, made ai^ainst the validity of the argument for a fixed propensity to sin» from the constancy and universality of the event, that Adam sinned in one instance, without a fixed piijpensity. without doubt a single event is an evidence, Ihat there was some cause or occasion of that event; but the thing we are speaking of, is 2^ fixed cause. Propensity is a stated^ continued thing. We justly argne, that a stated effect must have a ttated cause ; and truly observe, that we obtain the notion of tendency, or stated fire/ionderation in causes, no other way than by observing a stated prevalence of a particular kind of effect. But who ever argues a fixed propensity from a single event ? And is i. not strange arguing, that because an event which once comes TO pass, does not prove any stated tendency, therefore the iinfuiiing constancy of an event is an evidence of no such thinf>; ? But because Dr. Taylor makes so much of this objection, from Adam's sinning without a propensity, I shall hereafter mnsider it more particularly, in the beginning of the 9th Sec:io7i of this Chapter ; where will also be considered what is objected from the fall of the angels.

Thus a propensity, attending the present nature or natural state of mankind, eternally to ruin themselves by sin, may certainly be inferred from apparent and acknoAvIedged fact. And I would now observe further, that not only does this follow from facts that are acknowledged by Dr. Taylor but the things he asserts, the expressions and words which he uses, do plainly imply that all mankind have such a propensity; yea, one of the highest kind, a propensity that is invincible^ or a tendency which really amounts to a fixed, constant, unfailing necessity. There is a plain confession of a propensity or proneness to sin, p. 143. "Man, who drinkelh in iniquity like water, who is attended with so many sensuid appetites, and so afit to indulge them." And again, p. 228, " we arc -very afit^ in a world full of temptation, to be deceived, and drawn into sin by bodily appetites." If we are very afit or prone to be drawn into sin by bodily appetites, and sinfully to

indulge thetn^ and very apt or pror.c to yield to ttmjitaticyn to &in, then wc arc firone to i^h:; for to yield to tcinpialion lo sin i& sinful. In the same page he represents, that on this account, and on account of the consequences of this, t/ie case of those ':vho are under a laiu^ threatening death for every sin, must be quite deplorable, if they have no relief from the mercxf of the lavj'giver. Whicii implies, that their case is hopeless, as to an escape from death, the punishment of sin, by any other means than God*s mercy. And that implies, that there is such an aptness to yield to temptation to sin, that il is hopeless that any of mankind should wholly avoid it. But he speaks of it elsewhere, over and over, as truly imfiosfiible, or xvhat cannot be ; as in the words which were cited in the last Section, from his note on Rom. v. CO, where he repeatedly speaks of the law, which subjects us to death for every trans-^^ression, as what cannot give life ; and represents that if God offered us no other way of salvation, no man from the begin-aing of the world could be saved.** In the same place he, with approbation, cites Mr. Locke's words, in which, speaking of the Israelites, he says, "All endeavors after righteousness were lost lalior, since any one slip forfeited life, and It was impossible for them to expect ought but death.'* Our nuthor speaks of it as impossible for the law requiring sinless obedience, to c^ive life, not that the law was weak in itself but through the weakness of our fiesh. Therefore he says, he con-c-eives the J.aw not to be a disfiensation statable to the infirmity nfthc human nature in its present state. These things amount fo a full confession, that the proneness in men to sin, and to a demerit of, and just exposedness to eternal ruin by sin, is universally invincible, or, which is the same thing, amounts to ribsolute, invinci'.-Ie necessity; which surely is the highest kind of tendency nr propensity ; and that not the less for his laying this propensity to our infirmity or weakness, wiiich may seem to intimate some defect, rather than any thing positive : And it is agreeable to the sentiments of the best divines, thut all sin criginally comes from a defective or privative cause. But sin docs not cease to be sin, or a thing not justly expowng to eternal ruin (as inipl'.eid in Dr. Taylor's owf)

words) for arising from infirmity or defect ; Kor does any invincible propensity to sin, cease to be a propensity to such demerit of eternal ruin, because ihe proneness arises from such a cause.

It is manifest, that this tendency which has been proved, does not consist in any particular external circumstances, that some or many are in, peculiarly tempting or influencing their minds ; but is inherent^ and is seated in that nature which is common to all mankind, which they carry with them wherever they go, and still remains the same, however circumstances may differ. For it is implied in what has been proved, and shewn to be confessed, that the same event comes to pass in all circumstances, that any of mankind ever are, or can be under in the world. In God's sight no man living can be justi-Jied ; but all are sinners, and exposed to condemnation. This is true of persons of all constitutions, capacities, conditions^ manners, opinions and educations ; in all countries, climates^ nations and ages ; and through all the mighty changes an<i revolutions, which have come to pass in the habitable world. We have the same evidence, that the propensity in this case lies in the nature of the subject, and does not arise from any particular circumstances, as we have in any case whatsoever ; which is only by the effects appearing to be the same in all changes of time and place, and under all varieties of circumstances. It is in this way only we judge, that any pro* pensities, which we observe in mankind, are such as are seated in their nature, in all other cases. It is thus we judge of the mutual propensity betwixt the sexes, or of the dispositions which are exercised in any of the natural passions or appetites, that they truly belong to the nature of man ; because they are observed in mankind in general, through all countries, nations, and ages, and in all conditions.

If any should say, though it be evident that there is a tendency in the state of things to this general event, that all mankind should fail of perfect obedience, and should sin, and incur a demerit of eternal ruin ; and also that this tendency does not lie in any distinguishing circumstances of any particular people, person, or age ; yet it may not lie in man's

nature, but in the general constitution and frame of this world, into -which men are born ; thouj^h the nature of man may be good, without any evil propensity inherent in it ; yet the nature and universal stale of this earthly world may be such as to be full of so many and strong temptations every where, and ©f such a powerful influence on such a creature as man, dwelling in so infirm a body? &c. that the result of the whole may be a strong and infallible tendency in such a state of things, to the sin and eternal ruin of every one of mankind.

To this I would reply, that such an evasion will not at all avail to the purpose of those whom I oppose in this controversy. It alters not the case as to thi» question, whether man is not a creature that in his present state is depraved and ruined by propensities to sin. If any creature be of such a nature that it proves evil in its proper place, or in the situation which God has assigned it in the universe, it is of an evil nature. That part of the system is not good, which is not good in its place in the system ; and those inherent qualities of that part of the system, which are not good, but corrupt, in that place, are justly looked upon as evil inherent qualities. That propensity is truly esteemed to belong to the nature of any being, or to be inherent in it, that is the necessary consequence of its nature, considered together with its proper situation in the universal system of existence, whether that propensity be good or bad. It is the iiature of a stone to be heavy ; but yet, if ic were placed, as it might be, at a distance from this world, it would have no such quality. But seeing a stone is of such a nature, that it will have this quality or tendency, in its proper place, here in this world, where God has made it, it is properly looked upon as a propensity belonging to its nature: And if it be a good propensity here in its proper place, then it is a good quality of its nature ; but if it be con-trariv. isc, it is an evil natural quality. So, if mankind are of such a nature, that they have an universal, effectual tendency to fain and ruin m this world, wher« God has made and placed them, this is to be looked upon as a pernicious tendency belonging to their nature. There is, perhaps, scarce any such thing in beings not independent and selfcxistent, as any pow-

er or tendency, but what has some dependence on other beings, which they stand in some connexion with, in the iiniver» sal. system of existence : Propensities are no propensities, any otherwise, than as taken with their objects. Thus it is with the tendencies oi)served in natural bodies, such us j^ravity. ma^jnetism, electricity, he. And thus it is with the propen* sities observed in the various kinds of animals ; and thus it is with most of the propensities in created spirits.

It may further be observed, that it is exactly the same thing, as to the controversy concerning an ar^recableness with God's moral perfections of such a disposal of things, that man should come iiito the world in a depraved, ruined state, by a propensity to sin and ruin ; whether God has so ordered it, that this propensiy should lie in his nature considered alone, or with relation to its situation in the universe, and its connexion with other parts of the system to which the Creator has united it ; which is as much of God's ordeiing, as man's nature itself, most simply considered.

Dr.Taylor, (p. 188, 189) speaking of the attempt of some to solve the difficulty of God's being the author of our nature,-and yet that our nature is polluted, by supposing that God-makes the soul pure, but unites it to a polluted body, (or a body so made, as tends to pollute the soul) he cries out of it as weak and insufficient, and too gross Co be admitted. « For, (says he) who infused the soul into the body ? And if it is polluted by being infiised into the body, who is the author and cause of its pollution ? And who created tlie bodv," Sec. But is not the case jast the same, as to those who suppose that God made the soul pure, and places it in a polluted world, or a world tending by its natural state in which it is made, to pollute the soul, or to have such an influence upoii it, that it shall without fail be polluted with sin, and eternally ruined ? Here, may not I also ci y out, on as good grounds as Dr. Taylor, who placed the soul here in this world ? And if the world be polluted, or so constituted as niturallv and infallibly to pollute the soul with sin, who is the cause of •his pollution ? And who created the world ?

Though in the place now cited, Dr. Taylor so insists up-* on it, that God must be answerable for the pollution of the soul, if he has infused or put the soul into a body that tends %o pollute it ; yet this is the very thintj which he himself supposes lo be fact, with respect to the sours being created by God, in such a body as it is, and in such a v/orld as it is ; in a place which I have already had occasion to observe, where he says, " Wc are a/il, in a world full of temptation, to be drawn into sin by bodily appetites." And if so, according to his way ot* reason, God must be the author and cause of this aptness to be drawn into sin. Again, page 143, we have these words, " Who drinUeth in inquity like water ? Who is attended with so many sensual appetites, and so apt to indulge them ?** In these words our author in effect says the individual thing that he cries out of as so ifross^ viz. the tendency of the body, as God has made it, to pollute the soul which he has infused into it. These sensual appetites, which incline the soul, or make it a/it to a sinful indulgence^ are cither from the body which God hath made, or otherwise a proneness to sinful indulgence is immediately and originally seated in the soul itself, which will not mend the matter for Dr. Taylor.

I would here lastly observe, that our author insists upon it, page 42, S. that this lower world where we dwell, in its present state, " is as it was, when, upon a review, God pronounced it, and all its furniture, very good. And that the present form and furniture of the earth is full of God*s riches, mercy, and goodness, and of the most evident tokens of his love and bounty to the inhabitants." If so, there can be no room for such an evasion of the evidences from fact, of the universal, infallible tendency of man's nature to sin and eternal perdition, as that the tendency there is to this issue, does not lie in man's nature, but in the general constitution and frame of this earthly world, which God hath made to be the habitation of mankind.

OiitGINAl si^. f?S

SECTION III.

Fhat Profiensityy nvhich has been proved to be in the nature of all mankind^ must be a very evil, depraved and pernicious Propensity ; iiiaklng it manifest, that the soul ofman^ as it is by nature, is in a corrupt, fallen, and ruined st^ite ; which is the other part of the consequence, draivn from the proposition laid clown in the first Section.

THE question to be considered, in order to determine whether man*s nature is not depraved and ruined, is not, whether he is not inclined to perform as many good deeds as bad ones ; but \Thich of these two he preponderates lo, in the frame of his heart, and state of his nature, a state of innocence 'ind righteous7iess, and favor with God ; or a state of fin, gidlt" iness, and abhorrence in the sight- of God. Persevering sinless righteousness, or else the guilt of sin, is the alternative, on the decision of which depends, (as is confessed) according to the nature and truth of things, as they(are in themselves, and according to the rule of right, and of. perfect justice, man's being approved and accepted of his Maker, and eternally blessejd as good ; or his being rejected, thrown away, and cursed as bad- And therefore the determination of the tendency of man's heart and nature, with respect to these terms, is that which is to'be looked at, in order to determine whether his nature is good or evil, pure or corrupt, sound or ruined. If such be man's natOre, and state of his heart, that he has an infallibly eift ctual propensity to the latter of those terms ; then it is wholly impertinent to talk of the innocent and kind actions, even of criminals themselves, surpassing their crimes in numbers, and of the prevailing innocence, good nature^ industry, felicity y and cheerfulness of the greater part of mankind. Let never so many thousands or millions of acts of honesty, good nature, &(;, be supposed ; yet, by the supposition, there is an unfailing propensity to such moral evil, as in its dreadful K

consequences infinitely outweighs all effects or consequencJes of any supposed good. Surely that tendency, which, in effect, is an infallible tendency to elernal destruction, is an infinitely dreadful and pernicious tendency ; and that nature and frame of mind, which implies such a tendency, must be an infinitely dreadful and pernicious frame of mind. It would be much more absurd to suppose that such a state of nature is good, or not bad, under a notion of men's doing more honest and kind things than evil ones ; than to say, the state of that ship i& good to cross the Atlantic Ocean in, that is such as cannot hold togelher through the voyage, but will infallibly founder and sink by the way ; under a notion that it may probably go great part of the way before it sinks, or that it will proceed and sail above water more hours than it will be in sinking : Or to pronounce that road a good road to go to such a place, the greater part of which is plain and safe, though some parts of it are dangerous, and certainly fatal to them that travel in it; or to call that a good propensity, which is an inflexible inclination to travel in such a way.

A propensity to that sin which brings God's eternal wrath and curse (which has been proved to belong to the nature of man) is evil, not only as it is calamitous and sorroiuful^ ending in great natural evil, but as it is odious and detestable : For by the supposition, it tends to that moral evil, by which the subject becomes odious in the sight of God, and liable, as such, to be condemned, and utterly rejected, and cursed by him. This also makes it evident, that the state wjiich it has been proved mankind are in, is a corrupt state in amoralsense^ that it is inconsistent with the fulfilment of the law of God, which is the rule of moral rectitude and goodness. That tendency which is opposite to that which the moral law re« quires and insists upon, and prone to that which the moral law utterly forbids, and eternally condemns the subject for, is doubtless a corrupt tendency, in a moral sense.

So that this depravity is both odious, and also fiernicioua. fatal and destructive, in the highest sense, as inevitably tending to that which ijnpiies man's eternal ruin ; it shews that man, as he is by nature, is in a deplorable and undone state?

!n the highest sense. And this proves that men do not come into the world perfectly innocent in the sight of God, and without any just exposedncss to his displeasure. For the be» inf^ by nature in a lost and ruined state, in the highest sense, is not consistent with being by nature in a state of favor with God.

But if any should still insist on a notion of men's good deeds exceeding their bad ones, and that, seeing the good that is in men is more than countervails the evil, they cannot be properly denominated evil ; ail persons and things being most properly denominated from that which prevails, and has the ascendant in them, I would say further, that,

I presume it will be allowed, that if there is in man's nature a tendency to guilt and ill desert, in a vast overbalance to virtue and merit ; or a propensity to that sin, the evil and demerit of which is so great, that the value and merit that is in him, or in all the virtuous acts that ever he performs, are as nothing to it; then truly the nature of mgn may be said tg be corrupt and evil.

That this is the true case, may be demonstrated by what is evident of the infinite heinousness of sin against God, from the nature of things. The heinousness of this must rise in some proportion to the obligation we are under to regard the Divine Being; and that must be in some proportion to his worthiness of regard ; which doubtless is infinitely beyond the worthiness of any of our fellow creatures. But the merit of our respect or obedience to God is not infinite. The merit of respect to any being does not increase, but is rather diminished, in proportion to the obligations we are under in strict justice to pay him that respect. There is no great merit in paying a debt we owe, and by the highest possible obligations in strict justice are obliged to pay, but there is great demerit in refusing to pay it. Thai on such accounts as these there is an infinite demerit in all sin against God, which must therefore immensely outweigh all the merit which can be supposed to be in our virtue, 1 think, is capable of full demonstration ; and that the futility of the objections which some have made against the argument, might most plainly be demon-

So ORIGINAL SIN.

strated. But I shall omit a particular consideration of the evidence of this matter from the nature of tliinj^s, as I study brevity, and lest any should cry oirt, Metafihudcs! as the manner of some is, when any argument is hanciied against any tenet they are fond of, ^yith a close and exact consideration of the nature of things. And this is not so necessary in the present case, inasmuch as the point asserted, namely, that he ^vho commits any ©ne sin, has guilt and ill desert, which is so great, that the value and merit of all the good which it is possible he should do in his whole life, is as nothing to it ; I say this point is not only evident by meta/ihysics,h[i\. is plainly demonstrated by what has been shewn to he facty with respect to God's own constitutions and dispensations towards mankind ; as particularly by this, that whatever acts of virtue and obedience a man performs, yet if he trespasses in one point, is guilty of any the least sin, he, according to the law of God, and so according to the exact truth of things, and the proper demerit of sin, is exposed to be wholly cast out of favor with God, and subjected to his curse, to be utterly and eternally destroyed. This has been proved, and shewn to be the doctrine which Dr. Taylor abundantly teaches. But how can it be ap:reeable to the nature of things, and exactly consonant to everlastinp: truth and righteousness, thus to deal with a creature for the least sinful act, though he should performi ever so many thousands of honest and virtuous acts, to countervail the rjvil of that sin ? Or how can it be agreeable to the exact truth and real demerit of things, thus-wholly to cast off the deficient creature, without any regard to the merit of all his good deeds, unless that be in truth the case, that the value and merit of all those good actions, bear no proportion to the hcinousness of the least sin ? If it were not so, one would think, that however the oftending person mi2;ht have some proper punishment, yet, seeing there is so much virtue to lay in the balance against the guilt, it would be agreeable to the nature of things, that he should find some favor, and not be altogether rejected, and made the subject of perfect and eternal destruction ; and thus no account at all )je made of all his virtue, so much as to procure him the

least relief or hope. How can such a consiiiuiion 7-c/ircsent zin in its profier colors^ and according to its true nature mid dc' sert, (as Dr. Taylor says it does) unless this be its true nature, that it is so bad, that even in the least instance it perfectly swallows up all the value of the sinner's supposed good deeds, let them be ever so many. So that this matter is not left to our metaphysics or philosophy ; the s^reat Lawgiver, and infallible Judge of the universe, has clearly decided it, in the revelation he has made of what is agreeable to exact truth, justice, and the nature of things, in his revealed law, or rule of righteousness.

He that in any respect or degree is a transgressor of God's law, is a wicked man, yea, wholly wicked in the eye of the law ; all his goodness being esteemed nothing, having no account made of it, when taken together with his wickedness. And therefore, without any regard to his righteousness, he is, by the sentence of the law, and so by the voice of truth and justice, to be treated as worthy to be rejected, abhorred, and cursed for ever; and must be so, unless grace interposes, to cover his transgression. But men are really, in themselves, . what they are in the eye of the law, and by the voice of strict equity and justice; however they may be looked upon, and treated by infinite and unmerited mercy.

So that, on the whole, it appears, all mankind have an infallibly effectual propensity to that moral evil, which infinitely outweighs the value of all the good that can be in them; and have such a disposition of heart, th^it the certain consequence of it is, their being, in the eye of perfect truth and • righteousness, wicked men. And 1 leave all to judge, whether such a disposition be not in the eye of truth a depraved disposition ?

Agreeably to these things, the scripture represents all mankind, not only as having guilt, but immense guilt, which they can have no merit or worthiness to countervail. Such is the representation we have in Matth. xviii. 21, to the end. There, on Peter's inquiring, How often his brotfier should trcs' fiass against him^ and he forgive him^ ivhethcr until seven times ; Christ replies, /^ffv not unto thee^ until seven timcsy but until

seventy timef} arven ; apparently meaning, that he should es*-teem no number of offences too m.any, and no degree of inju^ ry it is possible our neighbor should be guilty of towards us, too great to be forgiven. For which this reason is given in the parable there foIIov»ing, tlial if ever we obtain forgiveness and favor with God, he must pardon that guilt and injury towards his majesty, which is immenst^ly greater than the greatest injuries that ever men are guilty of one towards another, yea, than the sum of all their injuries put together, let them be ever so many, and ever so great; so that the latter would be but as an hundred pence to ten thousand talents, which immense debt we owe to God, and have nothing to pay ; which implii's, that we have no merit to countervail any part of our guilt. And this must be, because if all that may be called virtue in us, be compared with our ill desert, it is in the sight of God as nothing to it. The parable is not to represent Peter's case in particular, but that of all who then were, or ever should be, Christ*s disciples. It appears by the conclusion oi the discourse, So likcivise shall my heavenly 'leather do^ if ye, from your hearts^ forgive not every one his brother their tres» passes.

Therefovj hov; absurd must it be for Christians to object against the depravity of man's nature, a greater number of innocent and kind actions, than of crimes; and to talk of a prevailing innocency, good nature, industry and cheerfulness of the greater part of mankind ? Infinitely more absurd, than it would be to insist, that the domestic of a princewas not a bad servant, because though sometimes he contemned and affronted his master to a great degree, yet he did not spit in }\is master*s face so often as he performed acts of service ; or, than it would he to affirm, that his spouse was a good wife to Kim, because, although she committed adultery, and that with the davt's and scoundrels sometimes, yet she did not do this so often as she did the duties of a wife. These notions would be absurd, because the crimes are too heinous to be atoned for, by m^ny honest actions of the servant or spouse of the prince ; there being a vast disproportion between the merit of the one, and the ill desert of the other ; but in no measuro

so great, nay infinitely less, than that between the demerit of our offences against God, and the value of our acts of obedience.

Thus I have gone through with my first argument; having shewn the evidence of the truth of the proposition I laid down at first, and proved its consequence. But there are many other thing!-, that manifest a very corrupt tendency or disposition in man's nature, in his present state, which I shall t:«ke notice of in the following Sections.

SECTION IV.

The de/iravity of A^ature apfiears by a firojienaity in all to Sin immediately, as soon as they are capable of ity and to Sin continually and progressively ; aiid also by the remains of iSm/;2//le best of Men.

THE great depravity of man's nature appears, not only in that they univetlfelly commit sin, who spend any long time in the world, but in that men are naturally so prone to sin, that none ever fail o^ immediately transgressing God*s law, and so of bringing infinite guilt on themselves, and exposing themselves to eternal perdition, as soon as they are capable of it.

The scriptures are so very express in it, that all mankind, all feshy all the ivorld^ every man livings are guilty of sin ; that it must at least be understood, every one that is come to be capable of being active in duty to God, or sin against him, is guilty of sin. There are multitudes in the world who have but very lately begun to exert their faculties, as moral agents; and so are but just entered on their state of trial, as acting for themselves. There are many thousands constantly in the world, who have not lived one month, or week, or day since they have arrived to any period that can be assigned from their birth to twenty years of age. And if there be not a

^ ORlClNAL SIN.

strong propensity in man's nature to sin, that should, as i! \vere, hnrry them on to speedy transp^ression, and they hav6 no f^uilt previous to their personal sinning, what should hinder' but that there might always be a great number of such as act for themselves on the stage of the world, and are answerable for themselves to GoJ, who have hitherto kept themselves free from sin, and have perfectly obeyed God*s law, and so are righteous in God's sight, with the righteousness of the law ; and if they should be called out of the world without any longer trial (as great numbers die at all periods of life) would be justified by the deeds of the law ? And how then can it be true, thai in God's sight no man living can be justijied^ -that no man can be just with God^ and that by the deeds of the law no Jlesh can be jiistijied^ because by the law. is the knoivledge of Sin ? And what should hinder but that there may always be many in the world, who are capLible subjects of instruction and counsel, and of prayer to God, for whom th6 calls of God*s word to repentance, and to seek pardon through the blood of Christ, and to forgive others their injuries, because they need that God should forgive them, would not be proper ; and for whom the Lord's prayer is not suitable, whe||fein ChristMirects all his followers to pray, that God woulo^orgive their sins, as 'they forgive those that trespass against them ?

If there are any in the world, though but lately become capable of acting for themselves, as subjects of the law of God, who are perfectly free from sin, such are most likely to be found among the children of Christian parents, whtf give them the most pious education, and set them the best examples ; and therefore such would never be so likely to be found in any part or age of the world, as in the primitive Christian church, in the first age of Christianity, (the age of the churches greatest purity) so long after Christianity had been estab-lished, that there, had been time for great numbers of children to be born, and educated by those primitive Christians. It was in that age, and in such a part of that age, that the Apostle John wrote his first epistle to the Christians that then were. But if there was then a number of them come to understanding, who were perfectly free from sin, why does he

vo^te as he does? 1 John i. 8 10. "If we say that we

have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and tlie truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unritvhteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and the truth is not in us."

If any should object, that this is an overstraining of things; and that it supposes a greater niceness and exactness than is observed in scripture representations and expressions, to mfer from these expressions, that all men sin immediately as soon as ever they are capable of it. To this 1 would say, that I think the arguments used are truly solid, and do really and justly conclude, either that men are born guilty, and so are chargeable with sin before they come to act for themselves, or else commit sin immediately, without the least time intervening, after they are capable of undersiandmg their obligation to God, and reflecting on themselves ; and that the scripture clearly determines, there is not one such person in the world, free from sin. But whether this be a straining things up to too great an exactness, or not ; yet I suppose, none that do not entirely set aside the sense of such scriptures as have been men;ioned, and deny those propositions which Dr. Tay* lor himself allows to be contained in some of them, will deny they prove, that no conmderahle time passes after men are capable of acting for themselves, as the subjects of God's law, before they are guilty of sin ; because if the time were eonsldcrable, it would be great enough to deserve to be taken liotire of, as an exception to ^uch universal propositions, as, In thy sight shall no man living dejustijied^ &c. And if this be allowed, that men are so prone to sin, that in fact all mankind do sin, as it werpy immefliately, after they come to be CL^pable ef it, or fail not to sin so soon, that no considerable time passes before they run into transgression against God; it does not much alter the case, as to the present argument. If the time of freedom from sin be so small, as not lo be worthy of notice in the forementioned universal piopositions of scripture, it Is alHo so small, as not to be worthy of notice in the prtseoJ Argument.

F

Aj^ain, the reality and greatness of the depravity of man*s nature appears in this, that he has a prevailing propensity to be continually sinnins^ against God. What has been observed above, will clearly prove this. That same disposition of nature, which is an effectual propensity to immediate sin, amounts to a propensity to continual sin. For a being prone to continual sinning, is nothing but a proneness to immediate sin continued. Such appears to be the tendency of nature to sin, that as soon as ever man is capable, it causes him immediately to sin, williout suffering any considerable time to pass without sin. And therefore, if the same propensity be con-tin lied ndimnished, there will be an equal tendency to im-niediate sinning again, without any considerable time passing. And so the same will always be a disposition still immediately to sin, with as little time passing v/ithout sin afterwards, as at first. The only reason that can be given why sinning must be immediate at first, is that the disposition is so great, that it will not suffer any considerable time to pass without sin ; and therefore, the same disposition being continued in equal degree, without some new restraint, or contrary tendency, it will still equally tend to the same effect. And though it is true, the propensity may be diminished, or have restraints laid upon it, by gracious disposals of providence, or merciful influences of God's spirit ; yet this is not owing to nature. That strong propensity of nature, by which men are so prone to immediate sinning at first, has no tendency in itself to a diminution ; but rather to an increase ; as the continued exercise of an evil disposition, in repeated actual sins, tends to strengthen it more and more ; agreeable to that observation of Dr. Taylor's, p. 228. "We are apt to be drawn into sia by bodily appetites, and when once we are under the government of these appetites, it is at least exceeding difficult, if not impracticable, to recover ourselves, by the mere force of reason." The increase of strength of disposition in such a case, is as in a falling body, the f:trength of its tendency to descend is continually increased, so long as its motion is continued. Not only a constant commission of sin, but a constant increase in the habits and practice of wickedness, is the true

tendency of man's depraved nature, if unrestrained by divine grace ; as the true tendency of the nature of an heavy body, if obstacles arc removed, is not only to fall with a continued motion, but with a constantly increaslnj^- motion. And we see, that increasing iniquity is actually the consequence of natural depravity, in most men, nolwithstandinj; all the restraints they have. Dispositions to evil arc commonly much stronger in adult persons, than in children, when they first begin to act in the world as rational creatures.

If sin be such a thing as Dr. Taylor lumself represents it, p. 69. " A thing of an odious and destructive nature, the corruption and ruin of our nature, and infinitely hateful to God ;'* then such a propensity to continual and increasing sin, must be a very evil disposition. And if wc may judge of the perniciousness of an inclination of nature, by the evil of the effect it naturally tends to, the propensity pf man's nature must be evil indeed ; for the soul being immortal, Dr. Taylor acknowledges, p. 94. S. it will follow from what has been observed above, that man has a natural disposition to one of these two things ; either to an increase of wickedness without end, or till wickedness comes to be so great, that the capacity of his nature will not allow it to be greater. This being what his wickedness will come to by its natural tendency, if divine grace does not prevent, it may as truly be said to be the effect which man's natural corruption tends to, as that an acorn in a proper soil, truly tends by its nature to become a great tree.

Again, that sin which is remaining in the hearts of the best men on earth, makes it evident, that man's nature is corrupt, as he comes into the world. A remaining depravity of heart in the greatest saints, may be argued from t!ie sins of most of those who are set forth in scripture as the most eminent instances and examples of virtue and piety ; and is also manifest from this. That the scripture represents all God's children as standing in need of chastisement. Heb. xii. 6....8. " For whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth ; and scourgeth every Son whom he receiveth. What Son is he, whom the Father chasteneth net ? If ye re without chastisement, then

are ye bastards, and not sons." But this is directly and fully asserted in some places; as in that forementioned, Eccles viio 20.«' There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." Which is as much as to say, there is no man on earth, that is so just, as to have attained to such a dej^ree of righteousness, as not to commit any sin. Yea, the Apostle James speaks of all Christians as often sinning, or committing many sins ; even in that primitive age of the Christ* ian church, an age distinguished from all others by eminent attainments in holiness ; James iii. 2. " In many things we all offend." And that there is pollution in the hearts of all> as the remainder of moral filth that v^as there antecedent to all attempts or means for purification, is very plainly declar-ed, in Prov. xx. 9. << Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin ?**

According to Dr. Taylor men come into the world wholly free from sinful propensities. And if so, it appears from what has been already said, there would be nothing to hinderj but that many, without being better than they arc by nature, might perfectly avoid the commission of sin. But much more might this be the case with men after they had, by care, diligence, and good practice> attained those positive habits of virtue, whereby they are at a much greater distance from sin, than they were naturally ; which this writer supposes to be the case with many good men. But since the scripture teaches us, that the best men in the world do often commit sin, and have remaining pollution of heart, this makes it abundantly evident, that men, when they are no otherwise than they were by nature, without any of those virtuous attainments, have a sinful depravity ; yea, must have great corruption of nature.

SECTION V.

J^e dcfiravity of J\*dture afifiearsy in that the general Conae-, gucnce of the State mid Tejidency of Man's JVature is a muck greater Degree of Sin, than Righteousness ; not only nuith feafiect to Value and Demerit, but Matter and Quantity.

I HAVE before shewn, that there is a propensity in man's nature to that sin, which in heinousness and ill desert im-jnensely outweighs all the value and merit of any supposed good, that may be in him, or that he can do. I now proceed to say further, that such is man's nature, in his present state, that it tends to this lamentable effect ; that there should at all times, through the course of his life, be at least much more sin than righteousness, not only as to iveight and value^ but as to matter and measure ; more disagreement of heart and practice from the law of God, and from the law of nature l&nd reason, than agreement and conformity.

The law of God is the rule of right, as Dr. Taylor often calls it: It is the measure of virtue and sin: So much agreement as there is with this rule> so much is there of rectitude, righteousness, or true virtue, and no more ; and so jnuch disagreement as there is with this rule, so much sin is there.

Having premised this, the follov/ir.g things may be here observed.

I. The degree of disagreement from this rule of right is to be determined, not only by the degree of distance from it in excess, but also in defect ; or in other words, not only in positive transgression, or doing what i?, forbidden, but also in >vithholding what is required. The Divine Lawgiver does as much prohibit the one as the other, and does as much charge the latter as a sinful breach of his law, exposing to his eternal wrath and curse, as the former. Thus at the day of judgment, as described Mallh. xxv. The wicked are condemned

as cursed to everlasting Jire^ for their sin in defect and omission : I ii>as an himgrcd^ and yc gave ?nc no meaty he. And the case is thus, not only when the defect is in word or behavior, but in the inward temper and exercise of the mind. 1 Cor. xvi. 22, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.** Dr. Taylor, speaking of the sentence and punishment of the wicked, (Matth. xxv. 4!, 46) says, p. 159, " It was manifestly for n^ant of benevolence, love, and compassion to their fellow creatures, that they were condemned." And elsewhere, as was cbseived before, he says, that the law of God extends to the latent firinci/Ues of sin lo forbid them, and to condenm to eternal destruction for them. And if so, it doubtless also extends to the inward principles of holiness; to require them, and in like manner to condemn for the want of them.

II. The sum of our duty to God, required in his law, is love to God; taking love in a large sense, for the true regard of our hearts to God, implying esteem, honor, benevolence, gratitude, complacence, Sec. This is not only very plain by the scripture, but it is evident in itself. The sum of what the law of God requires, is doubtless obedience to that law : No law can require more than that it be obeyed. But it is manifest, that obedience to God is nothing, any otherwise than as a testimony of the respect of our hearts to God : Without the heart, man*s external acts are no more than the motions of the limbs of a wooden image, have no more of the nature of either sin or righteousness. It must therefore needs be so, that love to God, or the respect of the heart, must be the sum of the duly required towards God in his law.

III. It therefore appears from the premises, that whosoever withholds more of tliai love or respect of heart from God, which his law requires, than he affords, has more sin than righteousness. >sot only he that has less divine love, than passions and affcclions which are opposite ; l)ut also ho that d'jes not love God half so much as he ought, or has reason to do, has justly more wrong than right imputed to him, according to the law of God, and the law of reason, he ha§

ORIGINAL SIN. Af

^ore irreG^ulnrity th?.n rectitude, with re^^ard to the law of love. The sinful disrespect or unrespectfulness of his heart to God, is greater than his respect to him.

But what considerate person is there, even among the more virtuous part of mankind, but what would be ashamed to say» and profess before God or men, that he loves God half so much as he ought to do ; or that he exercises one half of that esteem, honor and gratitude towards God, which would be altogether becoming him ; considering what God is, and what great m nifestations he lias made of his transcendent excellency and goodness, and what benefits he receives from him ? And if few or none of the best of men can with reason and truth make even such a profession, how far from it must the generality of mankind be ?

The chief and most fundamental of all the commands of the moral law, requires us " io love the Lord our God 'toith all our hearts', and tuith all our sozcls, rdth all our strength^ and all our mind ;"* that is plainly, with all that is within us, or to the utmost capacity of our nature ; all that belongs to^ or is comprehended within the utmost extent or capacity of our heart and soul, and mind and strength, is required. God is in himself worthy of infinitely greater love, than any creature can exercise towards him : He is Avorthy of love equal to his perfections, which are infinite : God loves himself with no greater love than he is worthy of, when he loves himself infinitely ; but we can give God no more than we have. Therefore, if we give him so much, if we love him to the utmost extent of the faculties of our nature^ we are excused ; but when what is proposed, is only that we should love him as much as our capacity will allow, this excuse of want of capacity ceases, and obligation takes hold of us ; and we arc doubtless obliged to love God to the utmost of what is possible for us, with such faculties, and such opportunities and adv[\ntages to know God, as wc have. And it is evidently implied in this great commandment of the law, that our love to God should be so great, as to have the most absolute pos-sesrAon of all the soul, and the perfect government of all the principles and springs of action that are in ©ur r>atnrc.

Thoiij^h it is not easy, precisely to fix the limits of man's capacity, as to love to God ; yet in general we raay determine, that his capacity of love is coextended with his capacity of knowledge ; the exercise of the understanding opens the way for the exercise of the other faculty. Now, though we cannot have any proper positive understanding of God*s infinite excellency ; yet the capacity of the human understanding is very great, and may be extended far. It is needless to dispute, how far man's knov/ledge may be said to be strictly comprehensive of things that are very great, as of the extent of the expanse of the heavens, or of the dimensions of thp globe of the earth, and of such a great number, as of the Ujany millions of its inhabitants. The word comfirehen&ive seems to be ambiguous. But doubtless we are capable of some proper positive understanding of the greatness of these things, in comparison of other things that we know, as unspeakably exceeding them. We are capable of some clear understanding of the greatness or considerableness of a whole nation ; or of the whole world of mankind, as vastly exceed-ing that of a particular person or family. We can positively underfjtand that the whole cjobe of the earth is vastly greater than a particular hill or mountain. And can have some good positive apprehension of the starry heavens, as so greatly exceeding the globe of the earth, than the latter is as it were nothing to it. So the human faculties are capable of a real and clear understanding of the greatness, glory and goodness of God, and of our dependence upon him, from the manifestations which God has made of himself to mankind, as being beyond all expression above that of the most excellent human friend, or earthly object. And so we are capable of an esteem and love to God, which shall be proportionable, and as much exceeding that which we have to any creature.

Thtse things may help us to form some judgment, how vastly the generality of mankind foil below their duty, with respect to love to God ; yea, how far they a^-e from coming halfway to that hei.urht of love, ^r'-ich is agree j')lc lo the rule of right. Suitly if our • ^ oem of Ciorl, desires alter him, and delight in him, were sucli us become us, consiUering the

things forementioned, they would exceed our regard to other things as ihe heavens arc high above the earth, and would swallow up all other affections like a dclut^c. But how far, how exceedinj^; far, are the generality of ilic world from any appearance of being inllucnced and governed by such a degree of divine love as this !

If we consider tlie love of God, with respect to that one kind of exercise of it, namely, gratitude^ how far indeed do the generality of mankind come short of the rule of right and reason in this ! If we consider how various, innumerable, and vast the benefits are wc receive from God, and how infinitely great and wonderful that grace of his is, which is revealed and offered to them that live under the gospel, in that eternal salvation which is procured by God*s giving his only begotten Son to die for sinners ; and also-how unworthy we arc all, deserving (as Dr. Taylor confesses) eternal perdition under God's wrath and curse ; how great is the gratitude that would become us, who are the subjects of so many and great benefits, and have such grace towards poor, sinful, lost mankind set before us in so affecting a manner, as in the extreme sufferings of the Son of God, being carried through those pains by a love stronger than death, a love that conquered those mighty agonies, a love whose length, and breadth, and depth, and height, passes knowledge ? But oh I What poor returns ! How little the gratitude ! How low, how «old and inconstant the affection in the best, compared with the obligation ! And what then shall be said of the gratitude of the generality ? Or rather, who can express the ingratitude ?

If it were so, that the greater part of them that are called Christians, were no enemies to Christ in heart and practice, were not governed by principles opposite to him and his gospel, but had some real love and gratitude ; yet if their love falls vastly short of the obligation or occasion given, they are guilty of shameful and odious ingratitude. As when a man has been the subject of some instance of transcendent generosity, whereby he has been relieved from the most extreme calamity, and brought into very opulent, honorable, and hap-G

py circumstances, by a benefactor of excellent character j and yet expresses no more gratitude on such an occasion than would be requisite for some kindness comparatively infinitely small, he may justly fall under the imputation of vile un-thankfulness, and of much more ingratitude than gratitude ; though he may have no ill will to his benefactor, or no positive affection of mind contrary to thankfulness and benevolence. What is odious in him is his defect, whereby he falls so vastly below his duty.

Dr. Turnbnll abundantly insists, that the forces of the affections naturally in man are well proportioned ; and often puts a question to this purpose :....Row man*snaturc could have been better constituted in this respect ? How the affections of his heart could have been better proportioned ? I v,'ill no-Nv mention one instance, out of many that might be mentioned :

Man, if his heart were not depraved, might have had a disposition to gratitude to God for Ills good7iess^ in proportion to his disposition to cuiger towards men for their injuries. When I say in proportion, I mean considering the greatness and number of favors and injuries, and the degree in which the one and the other are unmerited, and the benefit received by the former, and the damage sustained by the latter. Is there not an apparent and vast difference and inequality in the dispositions to these two kinds of affection, in the generality of both old snd young, adult persons and little children ? How ready is resentment for injuries received from men ? And how easily is it raised in most, at least to an equality with the desert ? And is it so with respect to gratitude for benefits received from God, in any degree of comparison ? Dr. Turn-bull pleads for the natural disposition to anger for injuries, as being good and useful ; but surely gratitude to God, if we were incliiu d to it, would be at least as good and useful as the other.

How far the generality of mankind are from their duty with respect to love to God, will further appear, if we consider that we are obliged not only to love him with a love of gratitude for benefits received ; but true love to God primarl'

ly consists in a supreme regard to him for what he is in himself. The tendency of true virtue is to treat every thing as it is, and according to iis nature. And if \vc regard the Most High according to the infinite dignity and glory of his nature, we shall esteem and love him w'nh all our heart and soul, and to the utmost.of the capacity of our nature, en this account ; and not primarily because he has promoied our interest. If God be infinitely excellent in himself, thcr. lie is infinitely lovely on that account, or in other words, infinitely worthy to be loved. And doubtless, if he be v/orthy to be loved for this, then he ought to be loved for this. And it is manifest there can be no true love to him, if he be not loved for what he is in himself. For if we love him not for his own sake, but for something else, then our love is not terminated on him, but on something else, as its ultimate object. That is no true value for infinite worth, which implies no value for that worthiness in itself considered, but only on the account of something foreign. Our esteem of God is funela-mentally defective, if it be not primarily for the excellency of his nature, which is the foundation of all that \s valuable ip him in any respect. If we love not God because he is what he is, but only because he is profitable to us, in truth we loyje him not at all; if we seem to love him, our love is not to him, but to something else.

And now I must leave it to every one to judge for him* self, from his own opportunities of observation and information concerning mankind, how little there is of this disinterested love to God, this pure divine affectior., in the world. How very little indeed in comparison of other affections altogether diverse, which perpetually urge, actuate and govern mankind, and keep the world, through all nations and ages, in a continual agitation and commotion ! This is an evidence of an horrid contempt of God, reigning in the world of mankind. It would justly be esteemed a great instance of disrespect and contempt of a prince, if one of his subjects, when he came into his house, should set him below his meanest slave. But in setting the Infinite Jehovah below earthly objects and enjoyments, men degrade him belov/ those things,

between which and him there ia an infinitely greater distance, than between the highest earthly potentate, and the most abject of mortals. Such a conduct as the generality of men arc guilty of towards God, continually and through all ages? in innumerable respects, would be accounted the most vile, contemptuous treatment of a fellow creature of distinguished dignity. Particularly men's treatment of the offers God makes of himself to them as their Friend, their Father, their God, and everlasting portion ; their treatment of the exhibitions he has made of his unmeasurabie love, and the boundless riches of his grace in Christ, attended with earnest repealed calls, counsels, expostulations and intreaties, as also of the most dreadful threatenings of his eternal displeasure and vengeance.

Before I finish this Section, it may be proper to say something in reply to an objection, some may be ready to make against the force of that argument, which has been used to prove that men in general have more sin than righteousness, namely, that they do not come half way to that degree of love to God, which becomes them, and is their duty.

The objection is this : That the argument seems to prove too much, in that it will prove, that even good men themselves have more sin than holiness, which also has been supposed. But if this were true, it would follow that sin is the prevalent principle even in good men, and that it is the principle which has the predominancy in the heart and practice of the truly pious, which is plainly contrary to the word of God.

I answer, if it be indeed so, that there is more sin, consisting in defect of required holiness, than there is of holiness in good men in this world ; yet it will ndt follow that sin has the chief government of their heart and practice, for two reasons.

1. They may love God more than other things, and yet there may not be so much love, as there is want of due love ; or in other words, they may love God more than the world, and therefore the love of God may be predominant, and yet may not love God near half so much as they ought to do. This need not be esteemed a paradox : A person may love a

father, or some great friend and benefactor, of a very excellent character, more than some other object, a thousand times less worthy of his esteem and affection, and yet love him ten times less than he ought; and so be chargeable, all things considered, with a deficiency in respect and f^ralilude, that is very unbecoming and hateful. If love to God prevails above the love of other things, then virtue will prevail above evil affections, or positive principles of sin ; by which principles it is, that sin has a positive power and influence. For evil affections radically consist in inordinate love to other tilings besides God ; and therefore, virtue prevailing beyond these, will have the governing influence. The predominance of the love of God in the hearts of good men, is more from the nature of the object loved, and the nature of the principle of true love, than the degree of the principle. The object is one of supreme loveliness ; immensely above all other objects in v/orthiness of regard ; and it is by such a transcendent excellency, that he is God, and worthy to be regarded and adored as God ; and he that truly loves God, loves him as God : True love acknowledges him to be God, or to be divinely and, supremely excellent; and must arise from some knowledge, sense, and conviction of his worthiness of supreme respect; and though the sense and view of it may be very imperfect, and the love that arises from it in like manner imperfect; yet if there be any realising view of such divine excellency, it must cause the heart to respect God above all.

2. Another reason, why a principle of holiness maintains the dominion in the hearts of good men, is the nature of the covenant of grace, and the promises of that covenant, on which true Christian virtue relies, and which engage God's strength and assistance to be on its side, and to help it against enemy, that it may not be overcome. The just live by faith. Holiness in the Christian, or his spiritual life, is maintained, as it has respect by faith to its author and finisher ; and derives strength and efficacy from the divine fountain, and by this means overcomes. For, as the apostle says. This is the victory that overcomes the worlds even our faith. It is our faith in him who has promised, never to leave nor forsake his

people, and not to forsake the work of his own bands, nor sul-fer iils people to be tempted above their ability, and that his grace s'lall be sufficient for them, and that his strength shall be mad*^ perfect in weakness, and that where he ha3 begun .71 good work lie will carry it on to the day of Christ.

SECTION VI.

The CorrufiHon of Man's J^ature afijiectrs by its Tendency^ z"?? its firesent State, try an extreme degree of Folly awr/ Stupidity in Matters of Religion.

IT appears, that man's nature is greatly depraved, by an apparent proneness to an exceeding stupidity and sottish-Tjess in those things wherein his duty and main interest are chiefly concerned.

I shall instance in two things, viz. men's proneness to idolatry ; and so general and great a disregard of eternal things, as appears in them that live under the light of the gospel.

It is manifest, that man's nature in its present state is attended with a great propensity to forsake the acknowledgment and worship of the true Cod, and to fall into the most stupid idolatry. This has been sufficiently proved by known fact, on abundant trial: Inasmuch as the world of mankind in general (excepting one small people> miraculously delivered and persevered) through all nations, in all pans of the vorld, ages after ages, continued without the knowledge and worship of the true God, and overwhelmed in gross idolatry, without the least appearance or prospect of its recovering itself from so great blindness, or returning from its brutish principles and customs, till delivered by divine grace.

In order to the most just arguing from fact, concerning the tendency of man's nature, as that is in itself, it should be inquired what the event has been, where nature has been left to itself, to operate according to its own tendency, with least opposition made to it by any thing supernatural ; rather than in exempt places, where the infinite power and grace of God have interposed, and extraordinary means have been used to stem the current, and bring men to true religion and virtue. As to the means by which God's people of old, in the line of Abraham, were delivered and preserved from idolatry, they were miraculous, and of mere grace : Notwilhslanding which, they were often. relapsing into the notions and ways of the heathen ; and when they had backslidden, never were recovered, but by divine gracious interposition. And as to the means by vrhich many Gentile nations have been delivefed since the days of the gospel, they are such as have been wholy owing to most \vonderful, miraculous, and infinite grace. God was under no obligation to bestow on the heathen world greater advantages than th^y h?.d in the ages of their gross darkness ; as appears by the fact, that God actually did not, for so long a time, bestow greater advantages.

Dr. Taylor himself observes, (Key^ p. I.) " That in about four hundred years after the flood, the generality of mankind were fiillen into idolatry." And thus it was every where through the world, excepting among tliat people that was saved and preserved by a constant series of miracles, through a variety of countries, nations, and climates, great enough ; and through successive changes, revolutions, and ages, numerous enough^ to be a sufficient trial of what mankind are prone to, if there be any such thing as a sufficient trial.

That rnen should forsake the true God for idols, is an evidence of the most astonishing folly and stupidity, by God's own testimony, Jer. ii. 12, 13. " Be astonished, O yc heavens, at this, and be ye horribly afraid, be ye very desolate, saith the Lord : For my people have committed tv.o evils ; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and have hev/ed out to themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that c<\n hold no water." And th.at m?.nkind in general did thus.

so soon after the flood, was from the evil propensity of their hearts, and because they did not like to retain God in their knonvledge ; as is evident by Rom. i. 28. And the universality of the effect shews that the cause was universal, and not any thing bclons^inej to 'he paiticiilar circumstances of one, or only some nations or ages, but something belonging to that nature that is common to all nations, and that remains the same throuc:h all ages. And what other cause could this great effect possibly arise from, but a depraved disposition, natural to all mankind ? It could not arise from want of a sufficient capacity or means of knowlcdf^e. This is in effect confessed on all l^ands. Dr. Turnbull (Christian Philosophy^ p. 21.) says as follows : " The existence of one infinitely powerful, wise, and good mind, the author, creator, upholder, and governor of all things, is a truth that lies plain and obvious to all that will but think." And (ibid, p. 245.) » Moral knowledge, which is the most important of all knowledge, may easily be acquired by all men." And again, (ibid, p. 292.) " Every man by himself, if he would duly employ his mind in the contemplation of the works of God about him, or in the examination of his own frame migh^ make very great progress ia the knowledge of the wisdom and goodness of God. This all men, generally speaking, might do, with very little assistance ; for they have all sufficient abilities for thus employing their minds, and have all sufficient time for it.** Mr. Locke says fHitman Understanding, p. iv. Chap. iv. p. 242, Edit. 11.) " Our own existence, and the sensible parts of the universe, offer the proofs of a deity so clearly and cogently to our thoughts, that I deem it impossible for a considerate man to withstand them. For I judge it as certain and clear a truth, as can any where be delivered, that the invisible things of God are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead." And Dr. Taylor him-eli, (in p. 78) says, " The light given to all ages and nations of the world, is sufficient for the knowledge and practice of their duty." And in p. Ill, 112, citing those words of the apostle, Rom. ii. 14, 15, saySj « This clearly supposes that the Gentiles, who were

then in the world, might have clone the things contained in the law by nature, or their natural power." And in one of the

next sentences, he says, " The apostle, in Rom. i. 19 21,

affirms that the Gentiles had lip^ht sufficient to have seen God*s eternal power and godhead, in the works of creation ; and that the reason why they did not j^Iorify him as God, wis because they became vain in their imaojinations, and hud darkened their foolish heart ; so that they were without excuse." And in his paraphrase on those verses in the 1st of Romans he speaks of the " very heathens, that were wiihout a written revelation, as havinj^ that clear and evident discovery of God's being and perfections, that they are inexcusable in not glori-fyin.o: him suitably to his excellent nature, and as the author of their being and enjoyments." And in p. 146, 5'. he says, '< God affords every man sufficient light to know his duty." If all ages and nations of the world have sufficient light for the knowledge of God, and their duty to him, then even such nations and ages, in which the most brutish ignorance and barbarity prevailed, had sufficient light, if they had had but a disposition to improve it; and then much more those of the heathen, which were more knowing and polished, and in ages wherein arts and learning had made greatest advances. But even in such nations and ages, there was no advance made towards true religion ; as Dr. Winder observes (History of Knonvledge^ Vol. ii. p. 336) in the following words : " The Pagan religion degenerated into greater absurdity, the further it proceeded ; and it prevailed in all its height of absurdity, ■when the Pagan nations were polished to the height. Though they set out with the talents of reason, and had solid foundations of information to build upon, it in fact proved, that with all their strengthened faculties, and growing powers of reason, the edifice of religion rose in the most absurd deformities and dispositions, and gradually <vcnt on in the most irrational, dis-proportioned, incongruous systems, of which the most easy dictates of reason would have demonstrated the absurdity. They were contrary to all just calculations in moral mathematics." He observes, '' That their grossest abominations first began in Egypt, where was an ostentation of the greatest H

progress in learning and science ; and they never renounced clearly any of their abominations, or openly returned to the worship of the one true God, the Creator of all things, and tc the original, genuine sentiments of the highest and most ven-erable andquity. The Pagan religion continued in this deep state ofcorruption to the last. The Pagan Philosophers, and inquisitive men, made great improvements in many sciences, and even in morality itself; yet the inveterate absurdities of Pagan idolatry remained without remedy. Every temple smoked with increase to the sun and moon, and other inani-jnate material luminaries, and earthly elements, to Jupiter, Juno, Mars and Venus, Sec. the patrons and examples of almost every vice. Hecatombs bled on the altars of a thousand gods ; as mad superstitions inspired. And this was not the disgrace of our ignorant, untaught northern countries only ; but even at Athens itself, the infamy reigned, and circulated through all Greece; and finally prevailed, amidst all their learning and politeness, under the Ptolemijs in Egyfit^ and the Cesars at Rome, Now if the knowledge of the Pagan world, in reliu;ion, proceeded no further than this ; if they retained all their deities, even the most absurd of them their de* ified beasts, and deified men, even to the last breath of Pagan power; we may justly ascribe the great improvements in the world, on the subject of religion, to divine revelation, either vouchsafed in the beginning when this knowledge was competently clear and copious ; or at the death of Paganism, when this light shone forth in its consummate lustre at the coming of Christ."

Dr. Taylor often speaks of the idolatry of the heathen world, as great ivickeclness^ in which they were wholly inexcusable ; and yet often speaks of their case as remediless, and of them as being dead in sin, and unable to recover themselves. And if so, and yet, according to his own doctrine, every age, and every nation, and every man, had sufficient light afforded) to know God, and to know and do their whole duty to him ; then their inability to deliver themselves must be a moral inability, consisting in a desperate depravityi and most evil disposition of heart.

And if there had not betn sufficient trial of the propensity of the hearts of mankind, through all those ages that passed from Abraham to Christ, the trial has been continued down to this day, in all those vast regions of ihe face of the earth, that have remained without any effects of the light of the gospel ; and the disinal effect continues every where unvaried. How was it with that multitude of nations inhabiting ^outh and north America ? What appearance was there, when the F.uropeans first came hithtr, of their being recovered, or recoveringr in any degree, from the grossest ignorance, dehu 3ions, and most stupid Paganism ? And how is it at this day, in those parts of Africa and Asia, into which the hght of the gospel has not penetrated ?

This strong and universally prevalent disposition of mankind to idolalry, of which there has been such great trial, and so notorious a»>d vast proof, in fact, is a most glaring evidence of the exceeding depravity of the human nature; as it is a propensity, in the utmost degree, contrary to the highest end, the main business, and chief happiness of mankind, consisting in the knowledge, service, and enjoyment of ilic living God, the Creator and Governor of the world ; in the highest degree contrary to that for which mainly God gave mankind more understanding than the beasts of the earth, and made ihem wiser than the fowls of heaven ; wl.ich was, that lliey might be capable of the knowledge of God ; and in the highest degree contrary to the first and greatest commandment of the moral law, that "jjc should have ni otl;er gods before Jehovah^ and that we should love and adore him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. The scriptures are abundant in representing the idolatry of the heathen world, as their exceeding wickedness, and their most brutish stupidity. Tliey v/orship and trust in idols, are said to be like the lifeless statues they worship, like mere senseless stocks and stones, Psalm cxv. 4 8, and cxxxv. 15......18.

A second instance of the natural stufiidity of the minds of mankind, that I shall observe, is, that great disregard of their nivn eternal interest^ which appears so remarkablv, so gener-ajly among them that live under the gosne^.

As Mr. Locke observes (Human Understandings Vol. I. ji. 207.) " Were the will rletcrmined by the views of good, as it appears in contemplation, greater or less to the understanding, it could never get loose from the infinite, eternal joys of heaven, once proposed, and considered as possible ; the eternal condition of a future state infinitely outweighing the expectation of riches or honor, or any other worldly pleasure; which we can propose to ourselves ; though we should grant these the more probable to be obtained." Again (p. 228, 229.) ^' He that will not be so far a rational creature, as to reflect seriously upon infinite happiness and mise'-y, must needs condemn himself, as not tnaking that use of his understanding he should. The rewards and punishments of another life, which the almighty has established, as the enforcements of his laws, are of weiecht enough to determine the choice, against whatsoever pleasure or pain this life can shew. When the eternal state is considered but in its bare possibility, which nobody can make any doubt of, he that will allow exquisite and endless happiness to be but the possible consequence of a good life here, and the contrary state the possible reward of a bad one, must own himself to judge very much amiss, if he does not Conclude that a virtuous life, with the certain expectation of everlasting bliss, which may come, is to be preferred to a vicious one, with the fear of that dreadful state of misery, which it is very possible may overtake the guilty, or at least the terrible, uncertain hope of annihilation. This is evidently so ; though the virtuous life here had nothing but pain, 'and the vicious continual pleasure ; which yet is for the most part quite otherwise, and wicked men have not much the odds to brag of, even in their present possession : Nay, al! things rightly considered, have I think even the worst part here. But when infinite happiness is put in one scale, against infinite misery in the other ; if the worst that comes to the pious man, if he mistakes, be the best that the wicked man can attain to, if he be in the right ; who can, without madness, run the venture ? Who in his wits would choose to come with" in a possibility of infi lite misery ? Which if he miss, there is yet nothing to be got by that haz.u'd : Whereas, on the

other side, the sober man ventures nothing, against infinite happiness to be got, if his expectation comes to pass.

That disposition of mind which is a propensity to act contrary to reason, is a depraved disposition. It is not because the faculty of reason, which God has given to mankind, is not sufficient fully to discover to them, thai forty, sixty, or an hundred years, is as nothing in comparison of eternity, infinitely less than a second of time to an hundred years, that the greatest worldly prosperity and pleasure is not treated with most perfect disregard, in all cases where there is any degree of competition of earthly things, with salvation from exquisite, eternal misery, and the enjoyment of everlasung glory and felicity ; as certainly it would be, if men acted according to reason. But is it a matter of doubt or controversy, whether men in general do not shew a strong disposition to act far otherwise, from their infancy, till death is in a sensible approach ? In things that concern men's temporal interest, they easily discern the difference between things of a long and short continuance. It is no hard matter to convince men of the difference between a being admitted to the accommodations and entertainments of a convenient, beautiful, well furnished habitation, and to partake of the provisions and produce of a plentiful estate for a day or a night, and having all given to them, and settled upon them as their own, to possess as long as they live, and to be their's, and their heirs forever. There would be no need of men's preaching sermons, and spending their strength and life, to convince men of the difference. Men know how to adjust things in their dealings and contracts one with anotlier, according to the length of time in which any thing agreed for is to be used or enjoyed. In temporal affairs, men arc sensible that it concerns them to provide for future time, as well as for the present. Thus common prudence teaches them to take care in summer to lay up for winter ; yea, to provide a fund, and get a solid estate, whence they may be supplied for a long time to come. And not only so, but they are willing and forward to spend and be spent, to provide that which will stand iheir children in stead, after they are dead ; l!)ough it be

<^ ORIGINAL SIN.

^uite \incertain, \vhD shall use and enjoy what tliey lay w^^ after they have left the world ; and if their children should have the comfort of it, as they desire, they will not partake with them in that comfort, or have any more a portion in any thinj^ under the sun. In things which relate to men's tcnipo-ral interest, they seem very sensible of the uncertainty of life, especially of the lives of others ; and to make answerable provision for the security of their worldly interest, that no considerable part of it may rest only on so uncertain a foundation, as the life of a neighbor or friend. Common discre-tion leads men to take good care that their outward possessions be well secured by a good and firm title. In worldly concerns men are discerning of their opportunities, and careful to improve them before they are past. The husbandman is careful to plow his ground and sow his seed in the proper season, otherwise he knows he cannot expect a crop ; and when the harvest is come, he will not sleep away the time ; for he knows, if he does so, the crop will soon be lost. How careful and eagle eyed is the merchant to observe and improve his opportunities and advantages to enrich himself ? How apt are men to be al rmed at the appearance of danger to their worldly estate, or any thing that remarkably threatens great loss or damage to their outward interest ? And how will they bestir themselves in such a case, if possible to avoid the threatened calamity ? In things purely secular, and not of a moral or spiritual nature, naen easily receive conviction by past experience, when any thing, on repeated trial, proves unprofitable or prejudicial, and are ready to take warning by what they have found themselves, and also by the experience «f their neighbors and forefathers.

But if we consider how men generally conduct themselves in things on wiiich their well being does infinitely more depend, liow vast is the diversity ? In these things how cold, lifeless and dilatory ? With what difficulty are a few of multitudes excited to any tolerable degree of care and diligence^ by the innumerable means used with men to make them wise for themselves ? And when some vigilance and activity is excited, how apt is it to die away, like a mere force against

a natural tendency ? What need of a constant repetition of admonitions and counsels, to keep the heart from fulling asleep ? How many objections are made ? And how are difficulties maj^nified ? And how soon is the mind discouraged ? How many arguments, and often renewed, and variously and elaborately enforced, do men stand in need of, tO' convince them of things that are selfevident ? As that things which are eternal, are infinitely more important than things temporal, and the like. And after all, how very few are convinced effectually, or in such a manner as to induce to a practical preference of eternal things ? How senseless are men of the necessity of improving their time to provide for futurity, as to their ^iritual interest, and their welfare in another v/orld 1 Thouu,h it be an endless futurity, and though it be their own personal, infinitely important good, after they are dead, that is to be cared for, and not the good of their children) which they sliali have no share in. Though men are so sensible of the uncertain-.y of their neighbors' lives, when any considerable part of their estates depends on the continuance of them ; how stupidly senseless da they seem to be of the uncertainty of their own lives, when their preservation from immensely great, remediless, and endless misery, is risqued by a present delay, through a dependence on future opportunity ? What a dreadful venture will men carelessly and boldly run, and repeat and multiply, with regard to their eternal salvation, who are very careful to have every thing in a deed '*^ or bond firm, and without a flaw ? How negligent are they of their special advantages and opportunities for their souFs good ? How hardly awakened by the most evident and imminent dangers, threatening eternal destruction, yea, though put in mind of them, and much pains taken to point tliem forth, shev/ them plainly, and fully to represent them, if possible to engage their attention to them ? How are they like the horse, that boldly rushes into the battle ? How hard 17 are men convinced by their own frequent and abundant expe* rience, of the unsatisfactory nature of earthly things, and the instability of their own hearts in their good frames and intcU' tions ? And how hardly convinced by their ov-n observation,

and the experience of all past generations, of the uncertainty of life, and its enjoyments ? Psalm xlix. 11, Sec. "Their inward thon.u;ht is, that their houses shall continue forever. ....Nevertheless, man being in honor, abideth not: He is like the beasts that perish. This their way is tlieir foilv, yet their posterity approve their sayings. Like sheep are they laid in the s^rave."

In these things, men that are prudent fcr their temporal interest, act as if they were bereft of reason : " They have eyes, and see not ; ears, and hear not ; neither do they understand : They are like the horse and mule, that have no understanding." Jer. viii. 7. " The stork in the heaven knovveth her appointed times; and the turtle, and the crane, and the swallov/, observe the time of their coming ; but my people know not the judgment of the Lord."

These things are often mentioned in scripture, as evidences of extreme folly and stupidity, wherein men act the part of enemies to themselves, as though they loved their own ruin ; Prov. viii. 36. " Laying wait for their own blood." Prov, i. 18. And how can these things he accounted for, but by supposing a most wretched depravity of nature ? Why otherwise should not men be as wise for themselves in spiritual and eternal things, as in temporal ? All Christians will con* fess that man*s faculty of reason was given him chiefly to enable him to undei stand the former, wherein his main interest, and true happiness consists-. This faculty would therefore undoubtedly be every way as fit for the understanding of them, as the latter, if not depraved. The reason why these are understood, and not the other, is not that such things as have been mentioned, belonging to men's spiritual eternal interest, are more obscure and abstruse in their Own nature. For instance, the difference between long and short, the need of providing for fuiurity, the importance of improving proper opportunities, and of having good security, and a sure foundation, in aifairs wherein our inteiest is greatly concerned, &c. these things are as plain in themselves in religious matters, as in other matters. And we have far greater means to assist us to be wise for ourselves in eiernal, than in temporal

ORIGINAL SIN. «5

things. We have the abundant instruction of perfect and infinite wisdom itself, to lead ^nd conduct us in the paths of righteousness, so that we may not err. And the reasons of things are most clearly, variously, and abundantly set before \is in the word of God ; which is adapted to the faculties of mankind, tendin(^ greatly to enlij^hien and convince the iTiind : Whereas we have no such excellent and perfect rules to instruct and direct us in things pertainiii.£^ to our temporal interest, nor any thing to be compared to it.

If any should say, it is true, if men gave full credit to what they are told concerning eternal things, and these appeared to them as real and certain things, it 'would be an evidence of a sort of maciness in them, that they shew no greater regard to them in practice ; but there is reason to think, this is not the case, the things of another world being unseen things, appear to men as things of a very doubtful nature, and attended with great uncertainty. In answer, I would observe, agreeably to what has been cited from Mr. Locke, though eternal things were considered in their bare possibility, if inen acted rationally, they would infinitely outweigh all temporal things in their influence on their hearts. And I would also observe, that the supposing eternal things not to be fully Relieved, at least by them who enjoy the light of the gospel, does not weaken, but rather strengthen the argument for the depravity of nature. For the eternal world being what God had chiefly in view in the creation of men, and the things of this world being made to be wholly subordinate to the other, man's state here being only a state of probation, preparation, and progression, with respect to the fuiure state, and so eternal things being in effect men's all, their whole concern ; to understand and know which, it chiefly was, that they had understanding given them ; and it concerning them infinitely more to know the truth of eternal things than any-other, as ail that are not infidels will own ; therefore we may undoubtedly conclude, that if men have not respect to thcra as real and certain things, it cannot be for want of sufficient evidence of their truth, to induce them so to regard them ; especially as to them that live under that light, which God I

- \

has appointed as the most proper exhibition of the nature and evidence of these things ; but it must be from a dreadful stupidity of mind, occasioning a sottish insensibility of their truth* and importance, when manifested by the clearest evidence.

SECTION VIL

TTiat Man*8 nature is corrupt^ afifiears in that vastly the greater part ofmajikindj in all ages^ have been ivicked Men.

THE depravity of man's nature appears, not only in it» propensity to sin in some degree^ which renders a man an evil or wicked man in the eye of the ktw^ and strict justice, as was before shewn ; but it is so corrupt, that its depravity either shews that men are^ or tends to make them to be^ of such an evil character, as shall denominate them wicked men, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace.

This may be argued from several things which have beett already observed ; as from a tendency to continual sin, a tendency to much greater degrees of sin than righteousness, and from the general extreme stupidity of mankind. But yet the present state of man's nature, as implying or tending to a wicked character, may be worthy to be more psu'ticularly considered, and directly proved. And in general, this appears in that there have been so very few in the world, from age to age, ever since the world has stood, that have been of any other character.

It is abundantly evident in scripture, and is what I suppose none that call themselves Christians will deny, that the whole world is divided into good and bad, and that all mankind at the day of judgment will either be approved as righteous, or condemned as wicked ; either glorified as children of the kingdom, or cast into a furnace of fire, as children of the ivicked one.

ORIGINAL SIN. €7

I need not stand to shew what things belong to the character of such as shall hereafter be accepted as righteous, according to the word of God. It n>ay be sufficient for my present purpose, to observe what Dr. Taylor himself speaks of as belonging essentially to the character of such. In p. 2');>, he says, " This is inialUbly the character of true Christians, and what is essential to such, that they have really mortified the flesh with its lusis ; they are dead to sin, and live no looger therein ; the old man is crucified, and the body of sin destroyed ; they yield themselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and their members as instruments of ri}>jhleousness to God, and as servants of righteoiisness to holiness." There is more to the like purpose in the two next pages. In p. 228, he says, " Whatsoever is evil and corrupt in us, we ought to condemn ; not so, as it shall still remain in us, ihat we may always be condemning it, but that we may speedily reform, and he effectually delivered from it ; otherwise certainly we do not come up to the character of the true disciples of Christ."

In page 248, he says, " Unless God*s favor be preferred b&fore all other enjoyments whatsoever, unless there be a delight in the worship of God, and in converse v/uh him, unless every appetite be brought into subjection to reason and truth, and unless there be a kind and benevolent disposition towards our fellow creatures, how can the mind be fit to dwell with God, in his house and family, to do him service in his kingdom, and to promote the happiness of any part of his creation." And in his Key, § 286, page 101, 102, £cc. shewing there, Kvhat it is to be a true Christian^ he says among other things, " That he is one who has such a sense and persuasion of the love of God in Christ, that he devotes his life to the vhonor and service of God, in hope of eternal glory. iVnd that to the character of a true Christian, it is absolutely necessary that he diligently study the things that are fretly given him of God, viz. his election, regeneration, Sec. that he may gain a just knowledge of those inestimable privileges, may taste that the Lord is gracious, and rejoice in the gospel salvation, as his greatest happiness and glory. It is necessary

that he work these blessins^s on his heart, till they become a vital principle, producing in him the love of God, enj/aging him to all cheerful obedience to his will, givinj^ him a proper dignity and elevation of soul, raising him above the best and worst of this world, carrying his heart into heaven, and fixing his affections and regards upon his everlasting inheritance, and the crown of glory laid up for him there. Thus he is armed against all the templaiions and trials resulting from any pleasure or pain, hopes or fears, gain or loss, in the present world. None of these things move him from a faithful discharge of any part of his duty, or from a firm attachment to triith and righteousness ; neither counts he his very life dear to him, that he may do the will of God, and finish bis course with joy. In a sense of the love of God in Christ, he maintains daily communion with God, by reading and meditating on his word. In a sense of his own infirmity, and the readiness of the divine favor to succor him, he daily addresses the throne of grace, for the renewal of spiritual strength, in assurance of obtaining it, through the one Mediator Christ Jesus. Enlightened and directed by the heavenly doc'-rine of the gospel," &c.*

Now I leave it to be judged by every one that has any degree of impartiality, whether there be not sufficient grounds to think, from what appears every where, that it is but a very small part indeed, of the many myriads and millions which overspread this globe, who are of a character that in any wise answers these descriptions. However, Dr. TayJor insists ihat all nations, and every man on the face of the earth, have light and means sufficient to do the whole will of God, even they that live in the grossest darkness of paganism.

Dr. Taylor in answer to arguments of this kind, very im-pertmenily from time to time objects, that we are no judges of the viciousness of men's characters, nor are able to decide in what degree they are virtuous or vicious. As though we

* What Dr. Tiirnbull says of the character of a good man, is also worthy to be observed, i/iriitian Philosophy, p. SG, 258, 2^,9, 288, 37»i, 376, 409, 4 10.

could have no gooJ grounds to judge, that any thinp; appertaining to the qualities or properties of the mind, which is invisible, is i^eneral or prevailing among i\ niullitude or collective body, unless we can determine how it is with each individual. I think I have sufficient reason, from what I know and have heard of the American Indians^ to judge, that there are not many good philosophers among them ; though the thoughts of their hearts, and the ideas and knowledge they have in their minds, are things invisible ; and though I have never seen so much as a thousandth part of the Indians ; and with respect to most of them, should not be able to pronounce peremptorily concerning any one, that he was not very knowing in the nature of things, if all should singly pass before me. And Dr. Taylor himself seems to be sensible of the falseness of his own conclusions, that he so. often urges against others ; if we may judge by his practice, and the liberties he takes, in judging of a multitude himself. He, it seems, is sensible that a man may have good grounds to judge, that wickedness of character is general in a collective body ; because he openly does it himself. (I^ey, p. 102.) After declaring the things which belong to the character of a true Christian, he judges of the generality of Christians, that they have cast off these things, that they are a fieople that do err in their heartSf and have not knoiun God*s -ways. P. 259, he judges that the generality of Christians are the most ivicked of all mankind ; when he thinks it will throw some disgrace on the opinion of such as he opposes. The like we have from time to time in other places, as p. 168, p. 258. AW, p. 127, 128.

But if men are not sufficient judges, whether there are few of the world of mankind but what are wicked, yet doubtless God is sufficient, and his judgment, often declared in his •vvord, determines the matter. Matth. vii. 13, 14, *' Enter ye in at the strait gate j for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrov/ is the way that leadeth to life, and few there be that find it." It is manifest, that here Christ is not only describing the state of things, as it was at that day, and doe?: not mention t'le comparative

TO ORIGINAL SIN.

smallness of the number of them that are saved, as a couse' quence of the peculiar perverseness of that people, and of that generation ; but as a consequence of the general circumstances of the way to life, and the way to destruction, the broadness of the one, and the narrowness of t!ic other. In the straitness of the gate, Sec. I suppose none will deny, that Christ has respect to the strictness of those rules, which he had insisted on in the preceding sermon, and which render the Vv'ay to life very difficult to mankind. But cerlainly these amiable rules would not be difficuii, were they not contrary to the natural inclinations of men's hearts ; and they would not be contrary to those inclinations, were these not depraved. Consequently the wideness of the gate, and broadness of the way, that leads to destruction, !n consequence of which many go in thereat, must imply the agreeableness of this way to Dien's natural inclinations. The like reason is given by-Christ, why few are saved. Luke xiii. 23, 24. " Then said cne unto him, Lord, are there few saved ? And he said unto them, strive to enter in at the strait gate : For many i say imto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able.'* That there are generally but fev/ good men in the world, even among them that have those most distinguishing and glorious advantages for it, which they are favored with, that live under the gospel, is evident by that saying of our Lord, from time to time in his mouth, many are called^ but few arc chosen. Anil if there are but few among these, how few, how very few indeed, must persons of this character be, compared with the whole world of mankind ? The exceeding smallness of the number of true saints, compared with the whole world, appears by the representations often made of them as distinguished from the world ; in which they arc spoken of as called and chosen out of the world, redeemed from the earth, yedecmed from aiDong men ; as being those that are of God, while ;l.c whole world lieth in wickedness, and tlie like. And if we look into the Old Testament, we shall find the same testimony given. Prov. xx. 6. " Most men will proclaim every man his own goodness: But a faithful man who can tu'.d ?" By a faithful man, as the phrase is used in scripture,

.- . '^ -

i» intended mnch the same as a sincere, iipric^ht, or truly

jjjood man ; as in Psal. xii. I, and xxni. 23, and ci. 6, and other places. Again, Eccl. vii. 25....29. '* I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to-find out wisdom, and the rea* son of thinp^s, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness : And I find more biiter than death, the woman wliose heart is snares, kc...Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, countinj^ one by one, to find out the account, Avhich yet my soul seeketh, but I find not; Ono B>an among a thousand have I found ; but a woman among all these have I not found. Lo, this only have I found, that God made man uprijjht; but they have sought out many in-* ventions." Solomon here signifies, that when be set himself diligently to find out the account or proportio-n of true wisdom, or thorough uprightness among men, the result was, that he found it to be but as one to a thousand, &c. Dr. Taylor on this place, p. 184, says, *' The wise man in the context, 19 inquiring into the corruption and depravity of mankind, of the men and women, that lived in his timt^.'* As though what be said represen-ted nothing of the state of things in the world in general, but only in his time. But does Dr. Taylor or any body else, suppose this only to be the design of that book, to represent the vanity and evil of the world in that time, and to shew that all was vanity and vexation of spirit in Solomon's day ? (Which day truly we have reason to think, was a day of the greaiest smiles of heaven on that nation, that ever had l>een on any nation from the foundation of the world.) Not only d©es the subject and argument of the whole book shew it to be otherwise ; but also the declared design of the book in the first chapter ; where the world is rep'esented as very much the same, as to the vanity and eNil it is full of, from age to age, making litile or no progress, after all its revokuions and restless motions, labors and pursuits, like the sea, that has all the m'ers constantly emptying themselves into it, from age to age, and yet is never the fuller. As to that place, Prov, XX. 6. " A faithful man, who can find r" There is no more reason to suppose that the wise man has respect only to his lime, in thesewords, than in those immediately preceding,

counsel in the heart of a man is like deefi waters ; but a man of understanding will drazv it out. Or in the words next following, The jufit man lualketh in his iritegrity : His children arc blessed after him, 0»" in any other Proverb in the whole book. And if it were so, that Solomon in these thinp:s meant only to describe is own times, it would not at all weaken the argument. For, if we observe the history of the Old Testament, there is reason to think there never was any lime from Joshua to the captivity, wherein wickedness was more restrained, and virtue and religion more encouraged and promoted, than in David's and Solomon's times. And if there was so little true piety in that nation tliat was the oiily people of God under heaven, even in their very best times, what may we suppose concerning the world in general, take one time with another ?

Notwithstanding what some authors advance concerning the prevalence of virtue, honesty, good neighborhood, cheerfulness, Sec. in the world ; Solomon, whom we may justly esteem as wise and just an observer of human nature, and the state of the world of mankind, as most in these days (besides. Christians ought to remember, that he wrote by divine inspiratior) judged the world to be so full of wickedness, that it was better never to be born, than to be born to live only in such a world. Fxcles. iv. at the beginning. " So I returned and considered all the oppressions that are done under the "sun ; and behold, the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter : And on the side of their, oppressors there was power ; but they had no comforter. Wherefore, I praised the dead, which were already dead, more than the living, which are yet alive. Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been ; who hath not seen the evil work thai is done under the sun." Surely it will not be said that Solomon has only respect to his times here too, when he speaks of the oppressions of them that were in power ; since he himself, and others appointed by him, and wholly under his control, were the men that were in power in that land, and in almost all the neighboring countries.

The same inspired writer says, Eccles. ix. 3." The heart of the sons of men is full of evil; and madness is in their heart while they live ; and after that they go to the dead.*' If these general expressions are lobe understood only of some, and those the less part, \vhen in general, truths honesty^ good no:turcy &c. govern the woild, why are such general expressions from time to time used ? Why does not this wise and noble, and great soul'd Prince express himself in a more generous and benevolent strain, as well as more agreeable to truth, and say, IVisdoiyi is in the hearts of the sons of ?Ken ivhilc they live^ Sec....instead of leaving in his writings so many sly, illnatured suggestions, which pour such contempt on the human nature, and tend so much to excite mutual jealousy and malevolence, to taint the minds of mankind through all generations after him ?

If we consider the various successive parts and periods of the duration of the world, it will, if possible, be yet more evident, that vastly the greater part of mankind have, in all ages, been of a wicked character. The short accounts we have of Adam and his family are such as lead us to suppose, that far the greatest part of his posterity in his life time, yea, in the former part of his life were wicked. It appears, that his eldest son, Cain, was a very wicked man, who slew his righteous brother Abel. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years before Seth was born ; and by that time, we may suppose, his posterity began to be considerably numerous: iVhen he was born, his mother called his name Seth ; for God, ^aid she, hath a/ifiointed me another seed instead of KhtX. Which naturally suggests this to our thoughts ; that of all her seed then existing, none were of any such note for religion and virtue, as that their parents could have any great comfort in them, or expectation from them on that account. And by the brief history we have, it looks as if (however there might be some intervals of a revival of religion, yet) in the general, mankind grew more and more corrupt till the flood. It is signified, that ivhen men began to multifily on the face of the earthy wickedness prevailed exceedingly, Gen. vi. at the beginning. And that before God appeared to Noah^ to coni-K

n ORIGINAL Sm.

mand him to build the Ark, one hundred and twenty years be* ibre the flood, the world had long continued obstinate in p;reat and general wickedness, and the disease was become inveterate. The expressions we have in the 3, 5, and 6 verses of that chapter sugp^est as much: " And the Lord said, my Spirit sliall not always strive with man ; and God saw, that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every iningination of the thought of his heart was evil, only evil continually ; and it repented the Lord, that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." And by that iAmtt all flesh had corrupted his ivay ufion the earthy v. 12. And as Dr. Taylor himself observes, p. 122. "Mankind were universally debauched into lust, sensuality, rapine, and injustice."

And with respect to the period after the flood, to the calling of Abraham ; Dr. Taylor says, as has been already observed, that in about four hundred years after the flood, the generality of mankind were fallen into idolatry ; which was before the passing away of one generation ; or before all they were dead, that came out of the Ark. And it cannot be thought, the world sunk into tliat so general and extreme degree of corruption, all at once ; but that they had been gradually growin!'; more and more corrupt; though it is true, it must be by very swift degrees, (however soon we may suppose they began) to get to that pass in one age.

And as to the period from the calling of Abraham to the coming of Christ, Dr. Taylor justly observes as follows : (Kty^ p. 13.'>.) "If we reckon from the call of Abraham t« the coming of Christ, the Jewish dispensation continued one. thousand nine hundred and twentyone years ; during which period, the other families and nations of the earth, not only lay out of God's peculiar kingdom, but also lived in idolatry, great ignorance, and wickedness." And with regard to that one only exempt family or nation of the Israelites, it is evident that wickedness was the generally prevailing character among them, from age to age. If we consider how it was with Jacob*6 family, the behavior of Reuben with his father's concubine, the behavior of Judah with Tamar, the conduct of

Jocob*s sons in general (though $imcon and Levi were leading) towards the Shechemites, the behavior of Joseph's icn brethren in their cruel treatment of him; we cannot think, that the character of true piety belonged to many of them, ac-^ccording to Dr. Taylor's own notion of such a character ; though it be true, they might afterwards repent. And with respect to the time the children of Israel were in Egypt ; the scripture, speaking of them in general, or as a collective body, often represents them as complying with the abominable idolatries of the country.* And as to that generation which went out of Egypt, and wandered in the wilderness, they are abundantly represented as extremely and almost universally wicked, perverse, and children of divine wrath. And after Joshua's death, the scripture is very express, that wickedness was the prevailing character in the nation, from age to age. So it was till Samuel's time. 1 Sam. viii. 7, 8. " They have rejected me, that I should not reign over them ; according to all their works which they have done, since the day that I brought them out of Egypt, unto this day." Yea, so if was till Jeremiah and Ezekiel's time. Jer. xxxii. 30, ol. " For the children of Israel, and the children of Judah, have only done evil before me from their youth ; for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger, with the work of their hands, saith the Lord : For this city hath been to me a provocation of mine anger, and of my fury, from the day they built it, even unto this day." (Compare chap. v. 21, 23, and chap. vii. 25....27.) So Ezek. ii. 3, 4. « I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation, that haLli rebelled against me, they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day : For they are impudent children, and stifFhearted.'* And it appears by the discourse of Stephen (Acts vii.) that this was generally the case with that nation, from their first rise, even to the days of the apostles. After his summary rehearsal of the instances of their perverse-ness from the very time of their selling Joseph into Egypt, he concludes (Verse 51....53.) " Ye stiffnecked, and uncir-

• Levit. xvil, 7. Josh. v. 9, and xxiv. 14. Ezek. xx. 7, 8, and xxiii. 3.

cumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Hol^^ Ghost. As your Fathers did, so do ye. Which of the Prophets have not your Fathers persecuted ? And they have slaia them ^vhich shewed before of the coming of that just one, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers : Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.**

Thus it appears, that wickedness was the generally prevailing character in all the nations of mankind, till Christ came. And so also it appears to have been since his coming to this day. So in the age of the apostles ; though then> among those that were converted to Christianity, were great numbers of persons eminent for piety ; yet this was not the case with the greater part of the world, or the greater part of any one nation io it. There was a great number of persons of a truly pious character in the latter part of the apostolic age, when multitudes of converts had been made, and Christianity was as yet in its primitive purity. But what says the Apobtle John of the church of God at that time, as compared with the rest of the world ? 1 John v. 19. « We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." And after Christianity came to prevail, to that degree, that Christians had the upper hand in nations and civil communities, still the greater part of mankind remained in their old heathen state ; which Dr. Taylor speaks of as a state of great ignorance and wickedness. And besides, this is noted in all ecclesiastical history, that as the Christians gaisied in power and secular advantages, true piety declined, and corruption and wickedness prevailed among them. And as to the state of the Christian world, since Christianity began to be established by human laws, wickedness for the most part has j;reatly prevailed ; a> is very notorious, and is implied in ^vhat Dr. Taylor himself says : He, in giving an account how the doctrine of Original Sin came to prevail among Christians, says, p. 167. 'V. <' That th.c Christian religion was very early and grievously corrupted, by dreaming, ignorant, superstitious monks." In p. 259, he s-\ys, " The generality of Christ-Jnns have embraced this persiiat^ion concerning Original Sin ;

and the consequence has been, that the genei'ality of Christians have been the most wicked, lewd, bloody, and treacherous of all mankind.**

Thus, a view of the several successive periods of the past duration of the world, from the bej^innint^ to this day, shews, ((hat wickedness has ever been exceedins^ prevalent, and has had vastly the superiority in the world. And Dr.Taylor himself in effect owns That it has been so ever since Adam fiisi turned into the way of transgression, p. 168. " It is certain (says he) the moral circumstances of mankind, since the time Adam first turned into the way of transgression, have been very different from a state of innocence. So far as we can judge from history, or what we know at presentithe greatest part of mankind have been, and still are very corrupt, though not equally so in every age and place." And lower in the same page, he speaks of Adam's posterity^ as haviiig simk themselves into the most lamentable decrees of ignorance^ superstition'^ idolatry^ in' jitsfice^ debauchery^ &c.

These things clearly determine the point, concerning the tendency of man's nature to wickedness, if we may be allowed to proceed according to such rules and methods of reasoning, as are pniversally made use of, and never denied, or doubted to be good and sure, in experimental philosophy ;* or may reason from experience and facts, in that manner which common sense leads all mankind to in other cases. If experience and trial will evince any thing at all concerning the natural disposition of the hearts of mankind, one would think the experience of so many ages, as have elapsed since the beginning of the world, and the trial as it were made by hundreds of different nations together, for so long a time, should be sufficient to convince all, that wickedness is agreeable to the nature of mankind in its present state.

• Dr. Turnbul!, though so great an enemy to the doctrine of the Depravi-ity ot Nature, yet greatly insists upon it, that the experimental method of rcaso-^iing ought to be gone into in moral matters, and things pcitaining to the human nature, and should chiefly be relied upon, in moral, as well 3"^ natural philosophy. See Introd, to AUr. PhiL

rb ORIGINAL SIN.

Here, to strengthen the argument, if there were any need of it, I might observe some furthei' evidences than those ivhich have been already mentioned, not only of the extent and generality of the prevalence of wickedness in the world, but of the height to v/hich it has risen, and the de^'rce in which it has reigned. Among innumerable things which shew this, I shall now only observe this, viz. the degree in which mankind have from age to age been hurtful one to another. Many kinds of brute animals are esteemed very-noxious and destructive, many of them very fierce, voracious, and many very poisonous, and the destroying of them has always been looked upon as a public benefit ; but have not mankind been a thousand times as hurtful and destructive as any one of them? yea, as all the noxious beasts, birds, fishes, and reptiles in the earth, air, and water, put together, at least of all kinds of animals that are visible.? And no creature can be found any where so destructive of its own kind as mankind are. AH others for the most part are harmless and peaceable, .with regard to their own species. Where one wolf is destroyed by another wolf, one viper by another, probably a thousand of mankind are destroyed by those of their own species. Well, therefore, might o:jr blessed Lord say, when sending forth his disciples into the world, Maith. x. 16, 17, Behold^ I send you forth as sheep, in the widst oj" wolves ;....hl!T BEWARE OF MEN. As much as to say, 1 send you forth as sh^cp among wolves. But why do I say, wolves ? I send you forth into the wide world of incn^xhs^i are far more,hurtful and pernicious, and that you had much more need to beware of, than wolves.

It would be strange indeed, that this should be the state of the woild of mankind, the chief of the lower creation, distinguished above all by reason, to that end that they might be capable of religion, which summarily consists in love, if men, as they come into the world, are in their nature innocent and harmlebSj undepravcd, and perfectly free from all evil propensities.

ORIGINAL SIN. fi

SECTION viir.

The nntive Dcfiravity of Mankind afifieam^ in that there ha» been so little ^qood effect of so manifold and great means used to /ir<,mote Virtue in the World.

THE evidence of the native corruption of mankind, ap-^ pears much more glaring^, vi'hen it is considered that the world has been so generally, so constantly, and so exceedingly corrupt, notwithstanding the various, g-reat and co?itinu' al meansy that have been used to restrain men from sin, and promote virtue and true religion among them.

Dr. Taylor supposes ail that sorrow and death, which came on mankind,in consequence of Adam's sin, was brought on them by God, in great favor to them ; as a benevolent Father^ exercising an ivholesome discipline towards his child-ren, to restrain them from sin, by increasing the vanity of all earthly things, to abate their force to tempt and delude ; ' to induce them to be moderate in gratifying the afifietites of the body ; to mortify pride aiid ambition; and that men might always have before their eyes a striking demonstration, that sin is infnitely hateful to God, by a si^ht of that, than ivhich nothiiig is more proper to give them the utmost abhorrence of inicjuity, and to fix in their minds a sense of the dreadful consequences of sin, S:c. Sec. And in general, that they do not come as punishments, but purely as •means to keep men from vice, and to make them better. If it be so, surely they are great means indeed. Here is a mighty alteration : Mankind, once so easy and liappy, healthful, vigorous and beautiful, rich in all the pleasant and abundant blessings of Paraclise, now turned out, destitute, weak, and decaying, into a wide, barren world, yielding briars and thorns, instead of the delightful growth and sweet fruit of the garden of Eden, to wear out life in sorrow and toil, on the

ground cursed for his sake ; and at last, either through long lanf^uishtnent and linp;ering decay, or severe pain and acute disease, to expire and turn to putrefaction and dust. If these are only used as medicines, to prevent and to cure the diseases of the mind, they are sharp medicines indeed, especially death ; which, to use Hezekiah's representation, is, as it were, breaking all his bones : And one would think, should be very effectual, if the subject had no depravity, no evil and contrary hias, to resist and hinder a proper effect ; especially in the old world, when the thing which was the first occasion of this terrible alteration, this severity of means, was fresh in memory, Adam continuing alive near two thirds of the time that passed before the flood ; so that a very great part of those that were alive till the flood, might have opportunity of seeing and conversing with him, and hearing from his mouth, not only an account of his fall, and the introduction of the awful consequences of it, but also of his first finding himself in existence in the nev/ created world, and of the creation of Eve, and the things w^iich passed between him and his Creator in Paradise.

But what was the success of these great means, to restrain men from sin, and to induce them to virtue ? Did they prove sufficient ? Instead of this, the world soon grew exceeding corrupt, till it came to that, to use our author's own words, that mankind were universally debauched into lust^ sensuality,, 'rapine^ and injustice^

Then God used further means : He sent Moah, a preacher of righteousness, to warn the world of the universal destruction which would come upon them by a flood of waters, if they went on in sin. Which warning he delivered with these circumstances, tending to strike their minds, and command their attention ; that he immediately went about building that vast structure of the ark, in which he must employ a great number of hands, and probably spent all he had in the world, to save himself and his family. And under these uncommon means God waited upon them one hundred and twenty years ; but all to no effect. The whole world, for ought appears, continued obstinate, and absolutely incorrigi*

ORIGINAL SIN. »1

tile ; so that nothing remained to be done with them, but utterly to destroy the inhabitants of the earth, and to be^in a new world from that single family who had distinguished themselves by their virtue, that from them might be propagated a new and purer race. Accordinp:ly this \vas done ; and the inhabitants of this new world, of Noah's posteriiy, had these new and extraordinary means to restrain sin, and excite to virtue, in addition to the toil, sorrow, and common moriylity, which the world had been subjected to before, in consequence of Adam's sin, viz. that God had newly testified his dreadful displeasure for sin, in destroying the many millions of mankind, all at one blow, old and young, men, women and children, without pity on any for all the dismal shrieks and cries which the world was filled with ; when they themselves, the remaining family, were so wonderfully distinguished by God*s preserving goodness, that they might be a holy seed, being delivered from the corrupting examples of the old world, and being ail the offspring of a living parent, whose pious instructions and counsels they had, to enforce these things upon them, to prevent sin, and engage them to their duty. And these inhabitants of the new earih, must for a long time, have before their eyes many evident, and as it were, fresh and striking effects and signs of that universal destruction, to be a continual, affecting admonition to them. And besides all this, God now shortened the life of man, to about one half of what it used to bCw The shortening man*s life. Dr. Taylor says, page 68, *' was, that the wild range of ambition and lust might be brought into narrower bounds, and have less opportunity of doing mischief ; and that death, being still nearer to our view, might be a more powerful motive to regard less the things of a transitory world, and to attend more to the rules of truth and wisdom."

And now let us observe the consequence. These new and extraordinary means, in adduion to the former, were so far from provmg sufficient, that the new world degenerated, and became corrupt by such swift degrees, that, as Dr. Taylor observes, mankind in genertil were sunk into idolatry in about L

S2 , ORIGINAL SIN.

four hundred years after the flood, and so in about fifty yeaitf after Noah's death. They became so wicked and brutish, as to forsake the true God, and turn to the worship of inanimate Ci'eatures.

When things were come to this dreadful pass, God was pleased, for a remedy, to introduce a new and wonderful dispensation ; separating a particular family and people from all the rest of the world, by a series of most astonishing miracles, done in the open view of the world, and fixing their dwelling, as it were in the midst of the earth, between Asia, Europe and Africa, and in the midst of those nations which were most considerable and famous for power, knowledge, and arts, that God might, in an extraordinary manner, dwell among that people, in visible tokens of his presence, manifesting himself there, and from thence to the world, by a course of great and miraculous operations and effects for many ages ; that that people might be holy to God, and as a kingdom of priests, and might stand as a city on an hill, to be a light to the world ; withal, gradually shortening man*s life, till it was brought to be but about one twelfth part of what it used to be before the flood ; and so, according to Dr. Taylor, vastly cutting off and diminishing his temptations to sin, and increasing his excitements to holiness. And now let us consider what the success of these means was, both as to the Gentile world, and the nation of Israel.

Dr. Taylor justly observes, (Keyy p. 24, § 75) «The Jewish dispensation had respect to the nations of the world, to spread the knowledge and obedience of Go4 in the earth ; and was established for the benefit of aH mankind." But how unsuccessful were these means, and all other means used with the heathen nations, so long as this dispensation lasted ? Abraham was a person noted in all the principal nations that were then in the world ; as in Egypt, and the eastern monarchies : God made his name famous, by his wonderful, distinguishing dispensations towards him, particularly by so miraculously subduing before him and hisr trained servants, those armies of the four eastern kings. I'his great work of the most high God, Possesser of heaven

and earth, was jijreatly taken .notice of by Melchizedeck, and one would think, should have been sufficient to have awaken-td the attention and consideration of all tbe nations in that part of the world, and to have led them to the knowledge and •worship of the only true God; especially if considered in conjunction with that miraculous and most terrible destruction of Sodom, and all the cities of the plain, for their wickedness, with Lot's miraculous deliverance, which doubtless were facts, that in their day were much famed abroad in the world. But there is not the least appearance, in any accounts v/e have, of any considerable good effect. On the contrary, those nations which were most in the way of observing and being affected with these things, even the nations of Canaan, grew worse and worse, till their iniquity came to the full, in Joshua's time. And the posterity oi Lot, that saint so wonderfully distinguished, soon became some of the most gross idolaters ; as they appear to have been in Moses' time. See Numb. xxv. Yea, and the far greater part even of Abraham's posterity, the children of Ishmael, Ziman, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah, and Esau, soon forgot the true God, and fell off to Heathenism,

Great things were done in the sight of the nations of the world, tending to awaken them, and lead them to the knowledge and obedience of the true God, in Jacob's and Joseph's time ; in that God did miraculously, by the hand of Joseph, preserve from perishing by famine, as it were the whole world, as appears by Gen. xji. 56, 57. Agreeably to which, the name that Pharaoh gave to Joseph, Zafmath Paaneah^ as is said, in the Egyptian language, signifies Saviour of the World, But there does not appear to have been any good abiding effect of this ; po, not so much as in the nation of the Egyptians, (which seems to have been the chief of all the heathen nations at that day) who had these great works of Jehovah in their most immediate view ; on the contrary, they grew worse and worse, and seem to be far more gross in their idolatries and ignorance of the true God, and every way more wicked, and ripe for rw/n, when Moae^ was sent to J'haraoh, tlmn they were in Josejih^ lime.

After this, in Moses' and Joshua's time, the great God ■was pleased to manifest himself in a series of the most astonishing miracles, for about fifty years together, wrought in the most public manner, in Egypt, in the wilderness, and in Ca-raan, in the view, as it were, of the whole -world ; miracles by which the world was shaken, the whole frame of the visible creation, earth, seas and rivers, the atmosphere, the clouds, sun, moon and §tars were affected ; miracles, greatly tending to convince the nations of the world, of the vanity of their false gods, shewing Jehovah to be infinitely above them, in the thing wherein they dealt most proudly, and exhibiting God's awful displeasure at the wickedness of the Heathen world. And these things are expressly spoken of as one end of these great miracles, in Exod. ix. 14) Numb. xiv. 21, Josh. iv. 23, 24, and other places. However, no reformation followed these things ; but, by the scripture account, the nations which had them most in view, were dreadfully hardened, stupidly refusing all conviction and reformation, and obstinately went on in an opposition to the living God, to their own destruction.

After this, God did from time to time very publicly mam« fest himself to the nations of the world, by wonderful works, wrought in the time of the Judges^, of a like tendency with those already mentioned. Particularly in so miraculously destroying, by the hand of Gideon, almost the whole of that vast army of the Midianites, Amalekites, and all the Children oftheEasty consisting of about 135,000 men, Ju<lges vii. 12, and vili. 10. But no reformation followed this, or the other great works of God, wrought in the times of Deborah and Barak, Jephtha and Sampson.

After these things, God used new, and in some respects much greater means with the heathen world, to bring them to the knowledge and service of the true God, in the days of David and Solomon. He raised up David, a man after his own heart, a most fervent worshipper of the true God, and zealous hater of idols, and subdued before him almost all the nations between Egypt and Euphrates; often miraculously assisting him in his battles with his enemies j and he con«

ORIGINAL SIN. hs

firmed Solomon, his son, in the full and quiet possession of that great empire, for about forty years; and made him the wisest, richest, most magnificent, and every way the greatest monarch that ever had been in the world ; and by far the most famous, and of greatest name among the nations; especially for his wisdom? and things concerning the name of hi^t .God; particularly the temple he built, which was exce^rf/;?^ Tnagnificent, that it might be of fame and glory throughout all 'lands; 1 Chron. xxii. 5. And we are told, that there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth ; 1 Kings iv. 34, and x. 24. And the scripture informs us, that these great things were done, that the " Nations in far countries might hear of God*s great name, and of his outstretched arm; that all the people of the earth might fear him, as well as his people Israel: And that all the people of the earth might know, that the Lord was God, and that there was none else.'* 1 Kings viii. 41....43, 60. But still there is no appearance of any considerable abiding effect, with regard to any one heathen nation.

After this, before the captivity in Babylon, many great things were done in the sight of the Gentile nations, very much tending to enlighten, affect, and persuade them : As, God's destroying the army of the Ethiofiians of a thousand thousand, before Asa ; Elijah's and Elisha'a miracles; especially Elijah's miraculously confounding Baal's prophets and worshippers; Elisha's healing Naaman, the king of Syria's prime minister, and the miraculous victories obtained through Elisha's prayers, over the Syrians, Moabites and Edomites ; the miraculous destruction of the vast united army of the children of Moab, Amon and Edom, at Jehosha-phat's prayer. (2 Chron. xx.) Jonah's preaching at Nineveh, together with the miracle of his deliverance from the whale's belly; which was published and well attested, as a sign to confirm his preaching ; but more especially that great work of God, in destroying Sennacherib's army by an angel, for his contempt of the God of Israel, as if he had been no more than the gods of the heathen.

.86 ORIGINAL SIN.

When all these things proved ineffectual, God took a new method with the heathen world, and used, in some respects, much greater means to convince and reclaim them, than ever before. In the first place, his people the Jews were removed to Babylon, the head and heart of the heathen world (Chaldea having been very much the fountain of idolatry) to carry thither the revelations which God had made of himself, contained in the sacred writings ; and there to bear their testimony against idolatry ; as some of them, particularly Dan^ iel, Shadrach, Mcshack and Abednego, did, in a very open manner before the king and the greatest men of the empire, with such circumstances as made their testimony very famous in the world ; God confirming it with great miracles, whieii were published through the empire, by order of its monarch? as the mighty works of the God of Israel, shewing him to be above all gods : Daniel, that great prophet, at the same time being exalted to be governor of all the wise men of Babylon, and one of the chief officers of Nebuchadnezzar's court.

After this, God raised up Cyrus to destroy Babylon, for its obstinate contempt of t])e true God, and injuriousness towards his people ; according to the prophecies of Isaiah, speaking of him by name, instructing him concerning the nature and dominion of the true God. (Isa. xlv.) which prophecies were probably shewn to him, whereby he was induced to publish his testimony concerning the God of Israel, as the God. (Ezra i. 2, S.) Daniel, about the same time, being advanced to be prime minister of state in the new empire, erected under Darius, did in that place appear openly as a worshipper of the God of Israel, and iiim alone ; God confirming his testimony for him, before the king and all the grandees of his kingdom, by preserving him in the den of lions ; whereby Darius v/as induced to publisli to all people, nations and languages, that dwelt in all the earth, his testimony, that the God of hrael luas the living God, and steadfast for ever, &c.

When, after the destruction of Babylon, some of the Jews returned to their Ovvn land, multitudes never returned, but were dispersed abroad throiigh many parts of the vast Persian empire ; as appears by the book of Esther. And many of

ihem afterwards, as good histories inform, were removed into the more western parts of the world ; and so were dispersed as it were all over the heathen world, having the Holy Scriptures with them, and Synagogues every where, for the worship of the true God. And so it continued to be, to the days of Christ and his apostles ; as appears by the acts of the afiost' ks. Thus that light, which God had given them, was in the providence of God carried abroad into all parts of the world : So that now they had far greater advantages, to come to the knowledge of the truth, in matters of religion, if they had been disposed to improve their advantages.

And besides all these things, from about Cyrus's time, learning and philosophy increased, and was carried to a great height. God raised up a number of men of prodigious genius, to instruct others, and improve their reason and understanding in the nature of things ; and philosophic knowledge, having gone on to increase for several ages, seemed to be got to its height before Christ came, or about that time.

And now let it be considered what was the effect of all these things ; instead of a reformation, or any appearance or prospect of it, the heathen world in general rather grew worse. As Dr. Winder observes, " The inveterate absurdities of Pagan idolatry continued without remedy, and increased, as arts and learning increased ; aod paganism prevailed in all its height of absurdity, when Pagan nations were polished to the height, and in the most polite cities and countries ; and thus continued to the last breath of Pagan power.'* And solt was with respect to wickedness in general, as well as idolatry ; as appears by what the Apostle Paul observes in Rom. i. Dr. Taylor, speaking of the time when the gospel scheme was introduced, (K(^y-, § 289.) says, " The moral and religious state of the heathen was very deplorable, being generally sunk into great ignorance, gross idolatry, and abominable vice." Abominable vices prevailed, not only among the common people, but even among their philosophers themselves, yea, some of the chief of them, and of greatest genius ; so Dr. Taylor himself observes, as to that detestable vice of

Sodomy, which they commonly and openly allowed and prac* tased without shame. See Dr. Taylor's note on Rom. i. 27.

Having thus considered the state of the heathen world, with rej^ard to the effect of means used for its reforma* lion, during the Jewish dispensation, from the first foundation of it in Abraham's time ; let us now consider how it was with that peoj)le themselves, that were distinguished with the peculiar privileges of that dispensation. The means used with the heathen nations were great; but they were small, if compared with those used with the Israelites. The advantages by which that people were distinguished, are represented in scripture as vastly above all parallel, in passages which Dr. Taylor takes notice of. (Key^ § 54.) And he reckons these privileges among those which he calls antecedent bless-ings^ consisting in motives to virtue and obedience ; and says, (Key^ § 66.J " That this was the very end and design of the dispensation of God's extraordinary favors to the Jews, viz. to engage them to duty and obedience, or that it was a scheme for promonng virtue, is clear beyond dispute, from every part of the Old Testament." Nevertheless, as has been already shewn, the generality of that people, through all the successive periods of that dispensation, were men of a wicked character. But it will be more abundantly manifest, how strong the natural bias to iniquity appeared to be among that people, by considering more particularly how things were with them from time to time.

Notwithstanding the great things God had done in the times of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to separate them and their posterity from the idolatrous world, that they might be a holy people to himself; yei in about two hundred years after Jacob's death, and in less than one hundred and fifty years after the death of Joseph, and while some were alive that had seen Joseph, the people had in a great measure lost the true religion, and were apace conforming to the heathen world : When, for a remedy, and the more effectually to alienate them from idols, and engage them to the God of their fathers, God appeared to bring them out from among the Egyptians, and separate them from the heathen world, and to reveal him*

self in his glory and majesty, in so affectinf^ and astonishing a manner, as tended most deeply and durably to impress their minds ; that they might never forsake him more. But so perverse were they, that they murmured even in the midst of the miracles that Ciod wrought for them in Egypt, and murmured at the red sea, in a few days after God had brouq;httheni out with such a mighty hand. When he had led them throupjh the sea, thexj mng his praise-^ but soon forgat his works. Before they got to mount Sinai, they openly manifested their perverseness from time to lime ; so that God says of them, Exod. xvi. 28. '• How long refuse ye to keep my commandments, and my laws ?" Afterwards they mur~ mured again at Rephidini.

In about two months after they came out of Egypt, they came to Mount Sinai, where God entered into a most solemn covenant with the people, that they should be an holy people unto him, with such astonishing manife-stations of his power, majesty and holiness, as were altogether unparalleled ; as God puts the people in mind, Deut. iv- 32....34. " For ask noAV of the days that are pa^t, which were before thee, since . the day that God created man upon the earth ; and ask from one side of heaven unto the other, whether there has been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it. Did ever people hear the voice of God, speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live ? Or hath God assayed to take him a nation from the midst of another nation," Sec. And these great things were to that end, to impress their minds with such a conviction and sense of divine truth, and their obligations to their duty, that they might never forget them ; As God says, Exod. xix. 9. " Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the i>eople may hear when i speak with thee, and believe thee for ever." But what waf, the effect of all ? Why, it was not more th^ two or three months, before that people, there, under ihEnBtry mountain, returned to their old Egyptian idolatry, and were singing and dancing bet'ore a golden calf, which they had set up to worship. And after such awful manifestations as there were of God's displeasure for that sin, and so much donr to bring M

thetn to repentance, and confirm them in obedience, it wa8 but a few months before they came to that violence of spirit, in open rebellion aj^ainst God, that with the utmost vehemence they declared their resolution to follow God no longer, but to make them a captain to return into Egypt. And thus they went on in ways of perverse opposition to the most high, from time to time, rrpeatinp; their open acts of rebellion, in the midst of continued, astonishing miracles till that generation was destroyed. And though the followinc; generation seems to have been the best that ever was in Israelj yetj notwithstanding their good example, and notwithstanding all the wonders of God's power and love to that people in Joshur.'s time, how soor, did that people degenerate, and be* gin to forsake God, an^l join with the heathen in their idolatries, till God, by severe means, and by sending prophets and judges, extraordinarily influenced from above, reclaimed them ? But when they were brought to some reformation by-such means, they soon fell away again into the practice of idolatrv ; and so from time to time, from one age to another ; and nothing proved effectual for any abiding reformation. After thin«:s had gone on thus for several hundred yearsj God used new methods with his people, in two respects; Firsts He raised up a great prophet, under whom a number of young men were trained up in schools, that from among, them there might hn a constant succession of great prophets in Israel, of such as God should choose ; which seems to have been continued for more than five hundred years. , Secondly^ God raised up a great king, David, one eminent for wisdom, piety, and fortitude, to subdue all their heathen neighbors, 'vho used to be such a snare to them ; and to confirm, adorn and perfect the institutions of his public worship; and by him to make a more full revelation of the great salvation, and future glorious kingdom of the Messiah. And after him, raised up his s^ Solomon, the wisest and greatest prince that ever was on earth, more fully to settle and establish those things which his father David had begun, concerning the public worship of (iod in Israel, and to build a glorious temple for the honor of Jehovah, and the institutions of his wor-

ihip) and to instruct the neighbor nations in true "wisdom and jreligion. But as to the success of these new and exlraordi-Hary means ; if \\e take Dr. Taylor for our expositor of sciJp-ture, the nation must be extremely corrupt in David's time ; for he supposes, he has respect to his own times, in those words, Psal. xiv. 2, 3. " The Lord looked down from heaven, to see if there were any that did undcrs'and, and seek God ; they are all gone aside ; thoy are toi^ether become filthy; there is none that doeth f^':o(jd ; no, not one." Uut whether Dr. Taylor be in the right in this, or not, yet if we consider what appeared in Israel, in Absalom's and Shcba's rebellion, we shall not see cause to think, that the greater part of the nation at that day were men of true wisdom and piety. As to Solomon's time, Dr. T.iylor supposes, as has been already observed, thai Solomon speaks of his own times, when he says, he had found but one in a thousand that was a thoroughly upright man. Hov/ever, it appears, that all those great means used to promote and eslLiblish virtue and true religion, in Samuel's, David's and Solomon's times, were so far from having any general, abidmg good effect in Israel, . that Solomon himself, with all his wisdom, and notwithstanding the unparalleled favors of God to him, had his mind corrupted, so as openly to tolerate idolatry in the land, ar;d greatly to provoke God against him. And as soon as he was dead, ten tribes of the twelve forsook the true woibhip of God, and instead of it, openly established the like idolatry, that the people fell into at mount Sinai, when they Uiude the golden calf; and continued finally obstinate in this apostasy, notwithstanding all means that could be used with ihcm by the prophets, whom God sent, one after another, to reprove, counsel and warn them, for about two hundred and fifty years ; especially those two great prophets, Elijah uid Elisha. Of all the kings that reigned over them, there \\\.s not so much as one but what was of a wicked character. And at last it came to that, that their case seemed utterly despc^i^ite ; so that nothing remained to be done with them, but to remove them out of God's bight. Thus the scripture represents the matter; 3 Kings xvii.

And as to the other two tribes ; though theif kings were always of the family of David, and they were favored in many respects far beyond their brethren, yet they were generally very corrupt; their kings were most of them wicked men, and their other magistrates, and priests and people, were generally agreed in the corniptioTi. Thus the matter is represented in the scripture history, and the books of the prophets. And when they had seen how God had cast off the ten tribes, instead of taking warning, they made themselves vastly more vile than ever the others had done ; as appears by 2 Kings xvii. 18, 19. Ezek. Xvi. 46, 47, 51. God indeed waited longer upon them, for his servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, that he had chosen ; and used more extraordinary means with them ; especially by those great prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, but to no effect: So that at last it came io this, as the prophets represent the matter, that they were like a body universally and desperately diseased and corrupted, that would admit of no cure, the whole head sick, and the ^vhole heart faint, 8cc.

Things being come to that pass, God took this method uith them : He utterly destroyed their city and land, and the temple which he had among them, made thorough work in purging the land of them ; as when a man empties a dish, Kvi/ies zV, and turns it ufisidc down ; or when a vessel is cast into a Jiercejire, till its Jilthiness is thoroughly burnt oiU. 2 Kings xxi. 13. Ezek. Chap. xxiv. They were carried into captiv-Uy, and there left till that wicked generation wa« dead, and those old rebels were purged out ; that afterwards the land might be resettled with a more pure generation.

After the return from the captivity, and God had built the Jewish church again in their own land, by a series of wonderful providences ; yet they corrupted themselves again, to so great a degree, that the transgressors were come to the full again in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes ; as the matter is represented in the prophecy of Daniel, Dan. viii. 23. And then God made them the the subjects of a dispensation, little, if any thinp:, le^'S terrible than liiat v/hich had been in Nebuchadnezzar's days. And after God had again delivered

them, and restored the slate of religion among them* by the instrumentality of the Maccabees, they degenerated again ; so that when Christ came, they were arrived to that extreme degree of corruption, which is represented in the accounts given by the evangelists.

It may be observed here in general, that the Jews, though so vastly distinguished with advantages, means and motives to holiness, yet are represented as coming, from time to time, to that degree of corruption and guilt, that they were more ■wicked in the sight of God, than the very worst of the Heathen. As, of old, God sware by his life, that the wickedness of Sodom was small, compared with that of the Jews. Ezek. xvi. 47, 48, he. also chap. v. 5..., 10. So Christ, speaking of the Jews in his time, represents them as having mucii greats er guilt than the inhabiiants of Tyre and Sidon, or even Sodom and Gomorrah.

But we are now come to the time when the grandest scene was displayed, that ever was opened on earth. After all other schemes had been so long and so thoroughly tried, and had so greatly failed of success, both among Jews and Gentiles ; that wonderful dispensation was at length introduced, which was the greatest scheme tor the suppressing and restraining iniquity among mankind, that ever infinite ■wisdom and mercy contrived, even the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. " A new dispensation of grace was erected (to use Dr. Taylor's own words, p. 239, 240) for the more certain and effectual sanctification of mankind, into the image of God ; the delivering them from the sin anxl wickedness, into ■which they might fall, or were already fallen ; to redeem them from all iniquity, and bring them to the knowledge and obedience of God." In -whatever higii and exalted terms the scripture speaks of the means and motives which the Jews enjoyed of old ; yet their pri^^ileges ara represented as having no glory, in comparison of the advantages of the gospel. Dr. Taylor's words in p. 233, are worthy to be here repealed. '' Even the Heathen (says he) knew God, and might have glorified him as God ; but under the glorious light of the gospel, "we have "very clear ideas of th.'"^ divine perfections,

and particularly of the love of God as our Father, and as the God and Father of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. We see our duty in tlie utnaost txtenr, and the most cogent rea^ sons to perform it : We have eternity opened to us, even an endless state of honor and felicity, the reward of virtuoui^ actions, and the Spirit of God promised for our direction and assistance. And all this may and ought to be applied to the purifyinc: our minds, and the perfecting of holiness. And to those happy advantages we are born, for whjch we are bound for ever to praise and magnify the rich grace of God in the Redeemer." And he elsewhere says,* " The gospel constitution is a scheme the most perfect and effectual for restoring true religion, and promoting virtue and happiness, that ever the world has yet seen." Andf admirably adajited to enlighten our mindSi and sanctify our hearts ; And\ never were mo* lives so divine and poiveyful prcjiosed, to induce us to the firaC' tice of all virtue a7id goodness.

And yet even these means have been ineffectual upon the far greater part ©f ihem with whom they have been used ; of the many that have been calledyfeiv have been chosen.

As to the Jews, God*s ancient people, with whom they were used in the first place, and used long by Christ and his apostles, the generality of them rejected Christ and his gospel, with extreme pcrtinaciousness of spirit. They not only went on still in that career of corruption which had been increasing from the time of the Maccabees ; but Christ's coming, and his doctrine and miracles, and the preaching of his followers, and the glorious things that attended the same, were the occasion, through their pervei-se misimprovement, of an infinite increase of their wickedness. They crucified the Lord of (ilory with the utmost malice and cruelty, and persecuted his followers ; they pleased not God, and were contraty to all men i and went on to t;row worse and worse, till tl ey fii'cd up the measure of their sin, and wrath came upon liicin to the utleronust; and tlicy ">ierc desiroyed> and

* A'a. ^167. + N(.'U von Rom. i. 16. % ^^'^if- ^" ^<"'' on Rom. page* H5. 47.

fiast out of God*s sight, with unspeakably {^reater tokens of the divine abhorrence and indignation, than in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. The bigger part of tb.e whole nutio'i were slain, and the rest were scattered abroad throupjh the earth, in the most abject and forlorn circumstances. And in ihe same spirit of unbelief and malice ae^ainst Chi-ist and the gospel, and in their miserable, dispersed circumstances, do they remain to this day.

And as to the Gentile nations, though there was a i^lorious success of the gospel amongst them in the apostles* days, yet probably not one in ten of those that had the erospel preached to them, embraced it. The powers of the world were set against it, and persecuted it with insatiable malignity. And among the professors of Christianity, there presently appeared in many a disposition to corruption, and to abuse the gospel unto the service of pride and licentiousness. And the apostles, in their days, foretold a grand apostasy of the Christian world, which should continue many ages, and observed that there appeared a disposition to such an apostasy, among professing Christians, even in that day, 2 Thess. ii. 7. And the greater part of the ages which have now elapsed, have been spent in the duration of that grand and general apostasy, under which the Christian world, as it is called, has been transformed into that which has been vastly more deformed, more dishonorable and hateful to God, and repugnant to true virtue, than the state of the Heathen world before ; which is agreeable to the prophetical descriptions given of it by the Holy Spirit.

In these latter ages of the Christian church, God has raised up a great number of great and good men, to bear testimony against the corruptions of the church of Kon>e, and by their means introduced that light into the world, by which, in a short time, at least one third part of Europe was delivered from the more gross enormities of Antichrist ; which was attended ai first with a great reformation as to vital and practical religion. But liow is the gold soon become dim ! To what a pass are things come in Prottstant countries at this day. and in oMr nation in particular ! To

what a prodigious height has a dekige of infidelity, profand-ness, luxury,debauchery and wickedness of every kind, arisen 1 The poor savage Americans are mere babes and fools, (if I may so speak) as to proficiency in wickedness,in comparison of multitudes that tlie Christian world throngs with. Dr. Taylor himself, as was before observed, represents that the generality of Christians hwuc been the most nvicked, leivdy bloodi/y and treacherous of all mankind; and says, fKey, ^ S88) ** The wickedness of the Christian world renders it so much like the Heathen, that the good effects of our change to Christianity are but little seen."

And with respect to the dreadful corruption of the present day, it is to be considered, besides the advantages already mentioned, that great advances in learning and philosophic knowledge have been made in the present and past century, giving great advantage for a proper and enlarged exercise of our rational powers, and for our seeing the bright manifestation of God*s perfections in his works. And it is to be observed, that the means and inducements to virtue, which this age enjoys, are in addition to most of those which were mentioned before as given of old, and among other thingSjin addition to the shortening of man's life to seventy or eighty years, from near a thousand. And with reg. rd to this, I would observe, that as the case now is in Christendom, take one with another of them that ever come to years of discretion, their life is not more than forty or fortyfive years; which is but about the twentieth part of what it once was ; and not so much in great cities, places where profaneness, sensuality and debauchery commonly prevail to the greatest degree.

Dr. Taylor, (Key^ § 1) truly observes, that God has, from the beginning, exercised wonderful and infinite wisdom, in the methods he has, from age to age, made use of to oppose vice, cure corruption, and promote virtue in the world, and introduced several schemes to that end. It is indeed remarkable, how many schemes and methods were tried of old, both before and after the flood ; how many were used in the times of the Old Testament, both with Jews and Heathens, and how ineflfcctual all these ancient methods proved for four hundred

«

ORIGINAL SIN. 9l

j^ears together, till God introduced that grand dispensation for the redeeming men from all iniquity, and purifying them to himself, a people zealous of good works, which the scripture represents as the subject of the admiration of angels. But even this has now so long proved ineffectual with respect to the generality, that Dr. Taylor thinks there is need of a nciv dis-pensation ; the present light of the gosfiel being insufficient for the full reformation of the Christian worlds by reason of its corruptions ; (Note on Rom. i. 27j and yet all these things, according lo him, without any natural bias to the contrary ; 110 stream of natural inclmation or propensity at all, to oppose inducements to goodness ; no native opposition of heart, to "withstand those gracious means, which God has ever used •with mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, any more than there was in the heart of Adam, the moment God created him in perfect innocence.

Surely Dr. Taylor's scheme is attended with strange paradoxes ! And that his mysterious tenets may appear in a true light, it must be observed, at the same time while he supposes these means, even the very greatest and best of them, to have proved so ineffectual, that help from them, as to any general reformation, is to be despaired of; yet he Tnaintains that all mankind, even the Heathen in all parts of the world, yea, every single person in it, (which must include every Indian in America, before the Europeans came hit'aer; and every inhabitant of tlie unknown parts of Africa and Terra Australis) has ability, light and mean-s sufficient to do their "whole duty ; yea, (as many passages in his writings plainly suppose) to perform perfect obedience to God's law, without, the least degree of vice or iniquity.*

But I must not omit to observe....Dr. Taylor supposes that the reason why the gospel dispensation has been so ineffectual, is, that it has been greatly misunderstood and perverted. In A>y, § 389, he says, "Wrong representations of the scheme of the gospel have greatly obscured the glory of divine grace, and contributed much to the corruption of its pro-

*Sccp. 259, 63, 64, 72,5.

N

fessors. Such doctrines have been almost universally taught and receiveci, as quite subvert it. Mistaken notions about nature, grace, election and reprobation, justification,*reyjenef-ation, redemption, calling, adoption, &c. have quite taken away the very ground of the Christian life"

But bow came the gospel to be so universally and exceedingly misunderstood ? Is it because it is in itself so very dark and unintelligible, and not adapted to the apprehension of the human faculties ? If so, how is the possession of such an obscure and unintelligible thing, so unspeakable and glorious an advantage ? Or is it because of the native blindness, corruption and superstition of mankind ? But this is giving. up the thing in question, and allowing a great depravity of nature. And Dr. Taylor speaks of the gospel as far otherwise than dark and unintelligible ; he represents it as exhibiting the clearest and most glorious light, to deliver the world from darkness, and bring them into marvellous light. He speaks of the light which the Jews had, under the Mosaic dispensation, as vastly exceeding the light of nature, which the Heathen enjoyed : And yet he supposes that even the latter was so clear as to be sufficient to lead men to the knowledge of God, and their whole duty to him. And he speaks of the light of the gospel as vastly exceeding the light of the Old Testan;ent. He says of the ApestlePaul in particular,^»That he wrote with gveat perspicuity ; that he takes great care to explain every part of his subject; that he has left no part of it unexplained and unguarded, and that never was an auihoT more exact and cautious in this."* Is it not strange, therefore, thut the Christian world, without any native depravity to prejudice and darken their minds, should be so blind in the midst of such glaring light, as to be all, or the generality, agree<^ from age to age, so essentially to misunderstand \\idil which is made so very plain ?

Dr. Taylor says, p. 167, S. »«It is my persuasion that the Christian religion was very early and grievously corrupted^

*^rtj. U Par, oa Rom, p. 146, 48.

by (^reaminj3f, ignorant, superstitious monks^ too conceited to be satisfied with plain f^jospel, and has long remained in that deplorable state." But how came the whole Christian world, without any blinding depravity, to hearken to these ignorant, foolish men, rather than unto wiser and better teachers ? Especially, when the latter had filam gosful on their «ide, and the doctrines of the other were (as our author supposes) so very contrary, not only to the plain gospel, but to inen*3 reason and common sense 1 Or were all tl^e teachers of thje Christian church nothing but a parcel of ignorant dream' ef9 ? K so, this is very strange indeed, unless manHind naturally love darknessy rather than light, seeing in all parts of the Christian world there was so great a multit,ude of those in the work of the ministry, who had the gospel in their hands, and whose whole businesj» it was to study and teach it, and therefore had infinitely greater advantages to become truly wise, than the Heathen philosophers, 13ut if it did happen so, by some strange and inconceivable means, that notwithstanding all these glorious advantages, all the teachers of the Christian church through the world, without any native evil propensity, very early became silly dreamers^ and aho in their dfeaming, generally stumbled on the mme .individual, monstrous opinions, and so the world w»ight, be bljnded for a while ; yet why did they not hearken to that wise and great man, Pelagius, and others like him, when he plainly held forth the truth to the Christian world ^ Especially seeing his instructions were so agreeable to the plain doctrines, and the bright and ^^ll^f iJgi^t of the gospel of Christ, and also so agreeable to the plainest dictates of the common sense and Tunderstanding of all mankind ; but the other so repugnant to it, that (according to our author) if they were true, it would prove understanding to be no -understanding^ and the IVord of God to be no ride of truth', nor at all to be relied nfihu^ and Cod to be a Being worthy of no regard I

And besides, if the iniefrectualnessof the gospel to restrain sin and promote virtue, be owing to the general prevalence of these doctrines, which are supposed to be so absurd and contrary to the gospel, here is this further to be accounted

for, namely, why, since there has been so great an increase of lit^ht in religious matters (as must be supposed on Dr. Tay* lor's scheme) in this and the hist at^e, and these monstrous doctrines of Original Sin, Election, Reprobation, Justification, Regeneration, &c. have been so much exploded, especially in our nation, there has been no reformation attending this great advancement of light and truth ; but on the contrary, vice, and every thing that is opposite to practical Christianity, has gone on to increase, with such a prodigious celerity, as to become like an overflowing deluge, threatening, vmless God mercifully interpose, speedily to swallow up all that is left of what is virtuous and praiseworthy.

Many other things might have been mentioned under this head, of the means which mankind have had to restrain viccj and promote virtue ; such as wickedness being many ways contrary to men's temporal interest and comfort in this world, and their having continually before their eyes so many instances of persons made miserable by their vices ; the restraints of human laws, without which men cannot live in society ; the judgments of God brought on men for their wickedness, with which history abounds, and the providential rewards of virtue, and innumerable particular means that God has used from age to age to curb the wickedness of mankind, which I have omitted. But there would be no end of a particular • enumeration of such things. Enou?;h ha^ been said. They that' will not be convinced by the instances which have been mentioned, probably would not convincedj^ the world had stood a thousand times so long, and we hs^HI most authentic and certain accounts of means having OT^ used from the beginning, in a thousand times greater variety, and new dispensations had been introduced, after others had been tr?ed in vain, ever so often, and still to little effect. He that will not be convinced by a thousand good witnesses, it is not likely that he would be convinced by a thousand thousand. The proofs that have been extant in the world, from trial and fact, of the depravity of man*s nature, are inexpressible, and as it were infinite, beyond the representation of all comparison ind similitude. 11' there were a piece of ground? wl^ich

ORIGINAL SIN. lOi

abounded with briars and thorns, or some poisonous plant, and all mankind had used their endeavors, for a thousand years together, to suppress that evil j^jrowth, and lo bring that ground by manure and cultivation, planting and sowing, to produce better fruit, but all in vain, it would still be overrun with the same noxious growth ; it would not be a proof, that such a produce was agreeable to the nature of that soil, ir. any wise to be compared to that which is given in divine providence, that wickedness is a produce agreeable to the nature of the field of the world of mankind ; which has had means used "with it, that have been so various, great and vv'onderful, contrived by the unsearchable and boundless wisdom of God ; medicines procured with infinite ex pence, exhibited with so vast an apparatus ; so marvellous a succession of dispensations, introduced one after another, displaying an incomprehensible length and breadth, depth and height, of divine wisdom, love, and power, and every perfection of the godhead, to the eternal admiration of the principiilities and powers in heavenly places.

SECTION IX,

Seiyeral Evasions of the Arguments for the Defiraxdty of Xa^ ture, from trial and events, considered.

Evasion 1. DR. TAYLOR says, p. 231, 232. Adam's nature, it is allowed, was very far from being sinful; yet he sinned. And therefore, the common doctrine of Original Sin, is no moi>e necessary to account for the sin that has been> or is in the world, than it is to account for Adam's sin." Again, p. 52....54. S, &c. " If we allow mankind to be as wicked as R. R. has represented them to be ; and suppose that there is not one upon earth that is truly righteous, and without sin, and that some are very enorraous sinners, yet k

will not tlicnce follow, that they are naturally corrupt. For, if sinful action infers a natrire oripjinally corrupt, then, ^vhere• as Adam (according to them that hold the doctrine of Origin* al Sin) committed the most heinous and aj^ejravated sin, that ever was committed in the world ; for, accordinijj to them, he had greater light than any other n^an in tlie world, to know his duty, and greater power than any other man to fulfil it, and was under greater obligations than any other man to obedience ; he sinned, when he knew he was the representative of millions, and that the happy or miserable state of all mankind, depended on his conduct; which never was. nor can be, the case of any other man in the world : Then, I. say, it will follow, that his nature was originally corrupt. Sec. Thus their argument from the wickedness of mankind, to prove a sinful and corrupt nature, must inevitably and irrecoverably fall to the ground ; which wiil appear more abundantly, if we take in the case of the angels, vv'ho in nr.mbers sinned, and kept not their first estate, though created with a nature superior to Adam's.** Again, p. 145. S. " When it is inquired, how it comes to pass that our appetites and pas/ions are now so irregular and strong, as that not one person has resisted them, so as to keep himself pure and innocent ? If this be the case, if such as make the inquiry will tell the world, how it came to pass that Adam*s appetites and passions were so irregular and strong, that he did not resist them, so as to keep himself pure and innocent, when, upon their principles, he was far more able to have resisted them ; I also will tell them how it comes to pass, that his posterity docs not resist them. Sin dotli not alter its nature, by its being general; and therefore how far soever it spreads, it must come upon all just as it came upon Adam.'*

These things are delivered with much assurance. But is there any reason in such a way of talking ? One thing implied in it, and the main thing, if any thing at all to the purpose, is, that because an effect's being general, does not alter the nature of the effect, therefore nothing more can be argued concerning the cause, from its happening constantly, and in the most steady manner, than from its happening but once.

But how contrary is this to reason ? If such a case should happen, that a person, throu^^h the dcccilful persuasions of a pretended friend, once takes an unwholesome and poisonous draught, of a liquor he had no inclination to before; but after he has once taken of it, he be observed to act as one that has an insatiable, incurable thirst after more of the same, in hi"s conslunt practice, and acts often repeated, and obstinately continued, in as long as he lives, against all possible arguments and endeavors used to dissuade him from it; and we should from hence argue a fixed inclination, and begin to suspect that this is the nature and operation of the poison, to produce such an inclination, or that this strong propensity is some way the consequence of the first draught in such a case, could it be said with good reason, thai a fixed propensity can no more be argued from his consequent constant practice, than from his firs-t draught ? Or, if we suppose a young man, no otherwise than soberly inclined, and enticed,by wicked companions, should drink to excess, until he had got a habit of excessive drinking, and should come under the power of a greedy appetite after strong drink, so that drunkenness should become a common and constant practice wiih him ; and some observer, arguing from this his general practice, should say, " It must needs be that this young man has a fixed inclination to that sin ; otherwise, how should it come to pass that he should make such a trade of it ?'* And another, ridiculing the weakness of his arguing, should reply, " Do you tell me how it came to pass, that he was guilty of that sin the first time, without a fixed inclination, and I will tell you how he is guilty of it so generally without a fixed inclination. Sin does not alter its nature by being general; and therefore, how common soever it becomes, it must come at all times by the same means that it came at first." I leave it to every one to judge, who would be chargeable with weak arguing in such a case. It is true, as was observed before, there is no effect without some cause, occasion, ground or reason of that effect, and some cause answerable to the effect. But ceriairdy it will not follow from thence, that a transient effect requires a permanent cause, or a fixed influence or propensity. An ef-

feet's happening once, though the effect may be great, yea/ thouj>h it may come to pass on the same occasion in many subjects at the same lime, will not prove any fixed propensity, or permanent influence. It is true, it proves an influence great and extensive, answerable to the effect, once exerted, or once effectual ; but it proves nothing in the cause fixed or constant. If a particular tree, or a great number of trees standing together, have blasted fruit on tlieir branches at a particular season, yea, if the fruit be very much blasted, apd entirely spoiled, it is evident that something was the occasion of such an effect at that time ; but this aione docs not prove the nature of the tree to be bad. But if it be observed, that those trees* and all other trees of the kind, wherever planted, and in all soils, countries, climates and seasons, and however cultivated and managed, still bear ill fruii, from year to year, and in all ages, it is a good evidence of the evil nature of the tree ; and if the fruit, at all these times, and in all these cases, be very bad, it proves the nature of the tree to be very bad ; and if we argue in like manner from what appears among men, it is easy to determine, whether the universal sinfulness of mankind, and their all sinning immediately, as soon as capable of it, and all sinning continually, and generally being of a wicked character, at all times, in all ages, and all places, and under all possible circumstances, against means and motives Inexpressibly manifold and great, and in the utmost conceiva-"ble variety, be from a permaiient, internal, great cause.

If the voice of common sense w'ere attended to, and heard, there would be no occasion for labor in multiplying arguments and instances to shew, that one act does not prove a fixed inclination ; but that constant practice and pursuit do. "VVe see that it is in fact agreeable to the reason of all man-kmd, to argue fixed principles, tempers, and prevailing inclinations, from repeated ar.d continued actions, though the actions are voluntary, and performed of choice; and thus to judge of the tempers and inclinations of persons, ages, sexes, tribes and nations. But is it the manner of men to conclude, that whatever they see others once do, they have a fixed, abiding inclination to do ? Yea, iliere may be several acts seenj

and yet they not taken as t^ood evidence of an established propensity ; nay, though attended \vi»h that circumstance, that one act, or those several acts, are followed with such constant practice, as afterwards evidences fixed disposition. As for example, there may be several instances of a man's drinking; some spirituous liquor, and they be no sip^n of a fixed incli-aation to that liquor ; hut these acts may be introductory to a settled habit or propensity, which may be made very manifest afterwards by constant practice.

From these lhinp;s it is plain, that what is alleged concern-mg the first sin of Adam, and of the angels, without a previous, fixed disposition to sin, cannot in the least injure or weaken the arguments, which have been brought to prove a fixed propensity to sin in mankind in their present state. The thing which the permanence of the cause has been argued ^from, is the permanence of the effect. And that the permanent cause consists in an internal, fixed propensity, and not any particular, external circumstances, has been argued from the effects being the same, through a vast variety and change of circumstances. Which things do not take place with respect to the first act of sin that Adam or the angels were guilty of ; which first acts, considered in themselves, were no per-luanent, continued effects. And though a great number of the angels sipncd, and the effect on that account was the greater, and more extensive ; yet this extent of the effect is a very dificvent thing from Xhzx permanence^ or settled continuance of the effect, which is supposed to shew a permanent cause, or fixed influence or propensity. Neither was there any trial of a vast variety of circumstances attending a permanent effect, to shew the fixed cause to be internal, consisting in a settled disposition of nature, in the instances objected. And however great the sin of Adam, or of the angels was, and however great means, motives, and obligations they sinned against ; whatever may be thence argued concerning the transient cause, occasion, or temptation, as being very subtle, remarkably tending to deceive and seduce, or otherwi::e great y yet it argues nothing of any settled disposition, ovjlxed cause at all; either great or small; the effect both in the angels and O

loe ORIGINAL SIN.

our first parents, bein^ in itself transiency and for ou^ht ap» pears, h;lppenin?2; in each of (hem under one system or coin cidence of influenlial circumstances.

The general, continued wickedness of mankind, against such means and motives, proves each of these things, viz. that the cause is fixed^ and that the fixed cause is internal^ in nian's nature, and also that if is very fiotverfuL It proves the ./??'sf, namely, that the cause is fixed, because the effect is so abiding:!:, through so many changes. It proves the second^ tha?. is, that the fixed cause is internal, because the circumstances are so various: The variety of means and motives is one thing that is to be referred to the head of variety of circumstances ; and tiicy are that kind of circumstances, which above all others proves this ; for they are such circumstances as cannot possibly cause the effect, being most opposite to the effect in their tendency. And it proves the thirds, viz. the greatness of the internal cause, or the powcrfulness of the propensity ; because the, means which have opposed its influence, have been so great, and yet have been statedly overcome.

But here I may observe by the way, that v/ith regard to the motives and obligations which our first father sinned a-gainst, it is not reasonably alleged, that he sinned when he knew his sin would have destructive consequences to all his posterity, and inight.^ in Jirocess of time ^ pave the whole globe luith skulls &c. Seeint^ it is so evident, by the plain account the scripture c;ives us of the temptation which prevailed with our first parents to commit, that sin, that it was so contrived by the sublilty of the tempter, as first to blind and deceive them as to that matter, and to make them believe that their disobedience should be followed with no destruction or calamity at all to themselves (and therefore not to their posterity) but on the contrary, with a great increase and advancement oi dignity and happiness.

Evasion 2. Let t'le wickedness of the world be ever so general and great, there is no necessity of supposing any depravity of nature to be the cause : Man's own free will is cause sufficient. Let mankind be more or less corrupt, they makf-

ORIGINAL SIN. lOV

v'hcmselvcs corrtrpt by their own free choice. This, Dr. Taylor abundantly insists upon, in many parts of his book.»

But I would ask, how it comes to pass that mankind so universally agree in this evil exercise of iheir free will ? If their wills are in the first place as free to i^'ood as evil, whaL is it to be ascri!>ed to, that the world of mankiiul, consisting of so many millions, in so many successive j^enerutions, without* cousultalion, all a^vtc to exercise their freedom in favor of evil? If there be no natural tendency or preponderation in the case, then there is as good a chance for the will's beiny-determined to p;ood as evil. If the cause is indiRerent, why is no! the effect in some measure indifferent ? If the balance be no heavier at one end than the other, why does it perpetually, and, as it were, infinitely, preponderate one way r How comes U to pass, that the free will of mankind has been determined to evil, in like manner before the flood, and after the flood ; under the law, and under the gospel; among- both Jews and Gentiles, under the Old Testament; and since that,^ anionic Christians^ Jewsy^ Mahoinetans; among Papists and Protestants; in those nations where civility, politeness, arts, and learning most prevail, and ar>-iong the Negroes and Hottentots in x\fiica, the Tartars in Asia, and Indians in America, towards both the poles, and on every side of the globe ; in greatest cities and obscurest villages ; in palaces and in liiits, wigwams and cells under ground ? Is it enough to reply, it happens so, that men every where, and at all times, choose thus to determine their own wills, and so to make themselves sinful, as soon as ever they are capable of it, and to sin constantly as long as they live, and universally to choose never to-come up half way to their duty ?

As has been often observed, a steady effect requires a steady cause ; but free will, without a.iy previous propensity to influence its determina'ions, is no permanent cause ; nothing can be conceived of, further from it : For the verv notion of freedom of will, consisting in selfdetermining power, i-TipUes contingence : And if the will is free in that sense.

• Page 257, 258, 52, 53, 5, and many other places.

that it is perfectly free from any government of previous inclination, its freedom must imply the mos\. absolute t\r\(\ perfect contingence ; and surely nothing can be conceived of, more unfixed than that. The notion of liberty of will, in this sense-, implies perfect freedom from every thing that should previously fix, bind or determine it; that it may be left to be fixed and determined wholly by itself: Therefore its deter-roinations must be previously altogether imfixed. And can that which is so unfixed, so contingent, be a cause sufficient to account for an effect, in such a manner, and to such a degree, permanent, fixed and constant ?

When men see only one particular person, going on in a certain course with great constancy, against all manner of means to dissuade him, do they judge this to be no argument of any fixed disposition of mind, because he, being free, may determine to do so, if he will, without any such disposition ? Or if they see a nation or people that differ greatly from other nations, in such and such instances of their constant conduct, as though their tempers and inclinations were very diverse, and any should deny it to be from any such cause, and should say, we cannot judge at all of the temper cr disposition of any nation or people, by any thing observable in their constant practice or behavior, because they have all free will, and therefore may all choose to act so, if they please, without any thing in their temper or inclination to bias them ; would such an account of such effects be satisfying to the reason of mankind ? But infinitely further would it be from satisfying a considerate mind, to account for the constant and universal sinfulness of mankind, by saying, that the will of all mankind is free, and therefore all mankind may, if they please, make themselves wicked : They are free when they first begin to act as moral agents, and therefore all may, if they please, begin to sin as soon as they begin to act: They are free as long as they con'inue to act in the world, and therefore they may nli commit sin continually, if they will .♦ yicn of all nations are free, and therefore all nations may act alike in these respects, if they please (though some do not kn(5w how other nations do act.) Men of high and low condi'

tion, learned and ignorant, are free, and therefore they may agree in acting wickedly, if they please (thouj>h lliey do not consult together.) Men in all ages are free, and therefore men in one age may all agree with men in every other age in wickedness, if they please, (though they do not know how men in other ages have acted) Sec. &c. Let every one judge whether such an account of things can satisfy reason.

Evasion 3. It is said by many of the opposcrs of the doc trine of Original Sin, that the corruption of the world of mankind may be owing, not to a depraved nature, but to bad example. And I think we must understand Dr. Taylor as having respect to the powerful influence of bad instruction and example, when he says, p. 118. <'The Gentiles, in their heathen state, when incorporated into the body of the Gentile world, were without strength, unable to help or recover themselves.'* And in several other places to the like purpose. If there was no depravity of nature, what else could there be but bad instruction and example to hinder the heathen world, as a collective body, (for as such Dr. Taylor speaks of them, as may be seen p. i 17, 118) from emerging out of their corruption, on the rise of each new creneration ? As to their bad instruction, our author insists upon it, that the heathen, notwithstanding all their disadvantages, had sufficient light to know God, and do their whole duty to him, as we have observed from time to time. Therefore it mwjt be chiefly bad example, that we must suppose, according to him, rendered their case helpless.

Now concerning this way of accouniinv:; for the corruption of the world, by the influence of bad example, I would observe the following things :

1. It is accounting for the thing by the thing itself. It is accounting for the corruption of the world by the corruption of the world. For, that bad examples arc general all over the world to be followed by others, and have been so from the beginning, is only an instance, or ratljcr a description of that corruption of the world which is to be accounted for. If mankind are naturally no rioi^ inclined to evil than good, then how comes there to be so many niore bad exam

pies than ^ood ones, in all aj^es ? And if there are not, how come the bad exaniples that are set, to be so much more followed than tlie good? If the propensity of man's nature be not to evil, hov/ comes the current of t^cneral example, every where, and at all limes, to be so much lo evil ? And when opposition has been made by j;ood examples, how comes it to pass that it has had so little effect to stem the stream of general, wicked practice ?

I think from the brief account the scripture gives us of the behavior of the first parents of mankind, the expressions of their faith and hope in God's mercy revealed to them, we have reason to suppose, that before ever they had any childrenj they repented, and were pardoned, and became truly pious. So that God phnted the world at first with a noble vine ; and at the beginning of the g-enerations of mankind, he set the stream of example the right way. And we see, that children are more apt to fol'ov/ the example of their parents, than of any others ; especially in early youth, their forming time, when those habits are generally coritracted, which abide by them all their days. And besides, Adam's children Iiad no other examples to follow, birt those of their parents. How therefore came the stream so soon to turn, ami to proceed the contrary way, with so violent a current ? Then, when mankind became so universally and desperately corrupt, as not to be fit lo live on earth any longer, and the world was everywhere full of bad examples, God destroyed them all at once, but only righteous Noaii, and his family, to remove those bad examples, and that the world of mankind might be planted a-gain with gotid example, and the stream again turned the right way : Kow therefore came it to pass, that Noah's posterity did not follow his good example, especially' when they had such extraordinary things to enforce his example, but so generally, even in his life time, became so exceeding corrupt ? One would think, the first generations at least, while all lived together as one family, under Noah, their venerable Father, might have followed his good example ; and if they had done so, then, wh.cn the earth came lo be divided in Peleg's time, the heads of tJie several families would have set out their par-

ORIGINAL SIN. Hi

ticular colonies "wiih oood examples, and the stream would have been turned the lii^ht way in all the various divisions, colonies, and nations of the woi Id. liut we see verily the fact was, that in about fifty years afier Noah's death, the world in general was overrun with dreadful corsuption ; so that all virtue and j;^oodncss were like soon to perish from among mankind, unless something extraordinary should be done to prevent it.

Then, for a remedy, God separated Abraham and his family from all the rest of the world, thut they might be delivered from the influence of bad example, that, in his posterity, he might have an holy seed. Thus God again planted a noble vine ; Abraham, Isaac and Jacob being eminently pious. But how soon did their posterity de;^enerate, till true religion was like to be swallowed up ? VVe see how desperately, and almost universally corrupt they were, when God brought them out of Egypt, and led them in the wilderness.

71ien God was pleased, before he planted his people in Canaan, to destroy that perverse generation in the wilderness, that he might plant them there a noble vine, ivholly a right . seed-, and set them out with good example, in the land where they were to have their settled abode. Jer. ii. 21, It is evident, that the generation which came with Joshua into Canaan, was an excellent generation, by innumerable things said of them.* But how soon did that people, nevertheless, become the degenerate filant of a strange vine ?

And when the nation had a long lime proved themseh'cs desperately and incurably corrupt, God destroyed them, and sent them into captivity, till the old rebels were dead and purged out, to deliver their children from their evil example ; and when the following generation were purified as in a furnace, God planted them again, in the land of Israel, a nobh vin<', and set them o\U with good example ; which yet was not followed by their posterity.

* See Jer. ii. 2, 3. Psal. Ixviii. 14. Josh, xxii 2, and xxili. 8. Deui. iy. 3, 4, Hos. xi. s, and ix. 10. Judges ii, 7, 17^ 22, and irany otht" places.

When again the corruption was become inveterate and desperate, the Christian church was planted by a glorious outpouring of the Spirit of God, causing true virtue and piety to be exemplified in the first age of the church of Christ, far beyond whatever had been on earth before ; and the Christian church was planted a noble vine. But that primitive good example has not prevailed, to cause virtue to be generally and steadfastly maintained in the Christian world ; To how great a degree it has been otherwise, has already been observed.

After many ages of general and dreadful apostasy, God was pleased to erect tlve Protestant church, as separated from the more corrupt part of Christendom ; and true piety flourished very much in it at first; God planted it a noble vine : But, notwithstanding the good examples of the first reformers, what a melancholy pass is the Protestant world come to at this day ?

When England grew very corrupt, God brought over a number of pious persons, and planted them in Newenglanel, and this land v/as planted with ^ noble vine. But how is the gold become dim ! How greatly have we forsaken the pious examples of our fathers !

So prone have mankind always proved themselves to degeneracy, and bent to backsliding. Which shews plainly their natural propensity ; and that when good has revived, and been promoted among men, it has been by some divine interposition, to oppose the natural current; the fruit of some extraordinary means, the efficacy of which has soon been overcome by constant, natural bias, and the effect of good example presently lost, and evil has regained and maintained the dominion : Like an heavy body, which may by some great power be caused to ascend, cgainst its nature, a little while, but soon goes back again towards the centre, to which it naturally and constantly tends.

So thi.t evil exan'ple will in no wise account for the corruption of mankind, v/ilhout supposing a natural proneness to sin. The tendency of example alone will not account for general wicked practice, as consequent on good example And if the influence of bad example is a reason of some ol

the wickedness that is in the world, that alone will not account for mer/s becoming wors.e than the example set, and degenerating more and more, and growing worse and worse, which has been the manner of mankind.

2. There has been given lo the world an example of virtue, which, were ii not for a dreadful depravity of nature, would have influence on them that live under the gospel, far beyond all other examples ; and that is, the example of Jesus Christ.

God, who knew the hliman nature, and how apt men are to be influenced by example, has made answerable provision. His infinite wisdom has contrived that we should have set before us the most amiaMe and perfect example, in such circumstances, as should have the greatest tendency to influence all the principles of man's nature, but his corruption. Men are apt to be moved by the example of others like thetnsel-jes^ or in their own nature ; therefore this example Was given in our nature. Men are ready to follow the example of the great and honorable ; and this example, though it was of one in our nature, yet it was of one inlinitely higher and more honorable than kings or angels. A people are apt to follow the example of their prince : This is the example of that glorious person, who stands in a peculiar relation to Chrie;lians, as their Lord and King, the Supreme Head of the church ; and not only so, but the King of kings, Supreme Head of the Uni-'V'erse, and head over all things to the church. Children arc apt to follow the example of their parents : This is the example of the i\uthor of our Being, and one who is in a peculiar and extraordinary manner our Faiho*-, as he is the Auihor of our Holy and happy Being ; besides his being the Creator of the world, and everlasting Father of the Universe. Men are very apt to follow the example of their friends: The example of Christ is of one that is infinitely our greatest friend, standing, in the most endearing relations of our Brolhei-, Redeemer, Spiritual Head and Husband ; whose grace and love expressed to us, transcends all nther love and Iriendship, as much as heaven is higher than the earth. And then the virtues and acts of his example were exhibited to us in tlie mast P

endearing and engaging circumstances that can possibly b'f conceived of: His obedience and submission to God, his hu* mility, meekness, patience, charity, selfdcnial, Sec. being ex* crcised and expressed in a work of infinite grace, love, condescension, and beneficence to us ; and had all their highest expressions in his laying down his life for us, and meekly> patiently, and' cheerfully undergoing such extreme and unutterable suffering, for our eternal salvation. Men are peculiarly apt lo follow the example of such as they have great benefits from : But it is utterly impossible to conceive of greater benefits, that we could have by the virtues of any person, than we have by the virtuous acts of Christ; who depend upon being thereby saved from eternal destruction, and brought to inconceivable, immortal glory at God's right hand. Surely if it were not for an extreme corruption of the heart of men, such an example would have that strong influence on the heart, that would as it were swaliov/ up the power of all the evil and hateful examples of a generation of vipers.

S. The influence of bad example, without corruption of nature, will not account for children's universally committing r/m as soon as capable of it; which, I think, is a fact that has been made evident by the scripture. It will not account for this, in the children of eminently piou-s parents ; the first examples that are set in their view, being very good ; which, as has been observed, was especially the case of many children in Christian families in the apostles' days, when the Apostle John supposes that every individual person had sin to repent of, and confess to God.

4. Wlvat Dr. Taylor supposes to have been fact, with respect to a great part of mankind, cannot consistently be accounted for from the influence of bad example, viz. the stale of the heathen world, which he supposes, considered as a collective body, was helpless, dead in sin, and unable to recover itself. Not evil example alone, no, nor as united with evil instruction, can be supposed a sufficient reason why every new generation ihat arose among them, should 'Ot be able t* emerge from the idolatry and wickedness of li. . ^ ancestors, in any consistence witii his scheme. The ill example of an-

ORIGINAL SIN. : i

■«;estors could hnve no power to oblige ihcm to sin, any oihcr rWay than as a strone; temptation. But Dr. Taylor himseli" .says, p. 72. 5. " To suppose men's temptations to be su-pe-rior to their powers, will impeach the goodness i\nd justice of God, who appoints every man's trial.'* And as to bad in-•struclions, as was observed.before, he supposes that they all, .yea every individual person, had Uglit suITiciciit ip know God. and do their whole duty. And if each one could do this tor .himself, then surely they might all be agreed in it through the power of free will, as well as the whole v/orld be agreed in corruption by the same power.

Evasion 4. Some modern opposers of the doctrine o*' Original Sin, do thus account for the general prevahnce oi wickedness, viz. that in a course of nature our senses grow Up first, and the animal passions get the start of reason. So pr. Turnbull says,* " Sensitive objects first aftcct us, and inasmuch as reason is a principle, which, in the nature of things, must be advanced to strength and vigor, by gradual cultivation, and these pbjects are continually assailing and soliciting us; SO} unless a very happy education prevents, our sensitive appetites must have become very strong, before reason can have force enough to call them to an account, and assume authority over them." From hence Dr. Turnbull supposes it comes to pass,! " Th^t though some few may, through the influence of virtuous example, be said to be sanctified from the womb, so liberal, so generous, so virtuous, so truly r.oble is their cast of mind ; yet, generally speaking, the whole world lieth in such wickedness, that, vrith respect to the far greater part of mankind, the study of virtue is beginning to reform, and is a severe struggle against bad habits, early contracted, and deeply rooted ; it is therefore putting off aii old, inveterate, corrupt nature, and putting on a new form and temper; it is moulding ourselves anev,- ; it is a being born again, and becoming as children. And how few are there in the world who escape its pollutions, so as not to he early in that class, or to be among the righteous that need no repent-

ince :

?»»

• See Moral ThiL>sophj, p. 279, and Christian Philosophy, p. ?74.. + Christian Philcjophy, p, «8a, 2B3.

Dr. Taylor, thov.i^h he is not so explicit, seems to hint at the same thing, p. 192. '' It is by slow degrees (says he) that children come to the use of unclerstandintj ; the animal passions beinj^ for some years the governing part of their constitution. And therefore, thougl) they may be froward and apt to displease us, yet how far this is sin in them, we are not capal/le of judging. But it may suffice to say, that it is the •will of God that children should hr,ve appetites and passions to regulate and restrain, that he hath given parents instructions and commands to discipline and inform their minds, that if parents first learned true wisdom for tliemselves, and then endeavored to bring up their children in the way of virtue, there \vould be less wickedness.in the world."

Concerning these things I would observe, that such a scheme is attended wiih the very same difficulties, which they that advance it would avoid ; liable to the same objections, which they make against God's ordering it so that men should be brought into being with a prevailing propensity to sin. For this scheme supposes, the author of nature has so ordered things, that men should come into being as moral agents, that is, should first have existence in a state and capacity of moral agency, under a prevailing propensity to sin. For that strength, which 'sensitive appetites and animal passions come to by their habitual exercise, before persons come to the exercise of their rational powers, amounts to a strong propensity to sin, when they first come to the exercise of those rational powers, by the supposition ; because this is given as a reason why liie scale is turned for sin among mankind, and why, gcnerclhj f.fieakingy the nuhole world lies in wick' cdness-i and the study of virtue is a severe struggle against had habits, early coiitracted, and deejily rooted. These deeply rooted habits must imply a tendency to sin ; otherwise they could not account for that which they are brouglit to account for, namely, prevailing wickedness in the world; for that ca\!se cannot account for an elTcct, whicw is supposed to have no tendency to that effect. And this tendency which is supposed, is altogetiier tciuivalent to a natural tendency : It is as necessary to the subject. For it is supposed to be brought on the person who is the subject of it^

when he has no power to withstand or oppose it: The habit, as Dr. Turnbull says, becomincj very strong, Ijefore reason can have force enough to call the passions to account, or assume authority over thein. And it is supposed, ttiat thib necessity, by which men become subject to this propensity to sin, is from the orderine^ and disposal of the autlior of nature ; and therefore must be as much from his hand, and as much without ilie hand of the person himself, as if he were first brought into being with such a propensity. Moreover, it is supposed that the effvjct, which the tendency is to^ is trulv wickedness. For it is alleged as a cause or reason wiiy the whole world lies in wickedness, and why all but a very few are first in the class of the wicked, and not among the righteous, that need no repentance. If they need repentance, what they are guilty of is truly and properly wickedness, or moral evil ; for certainly men need no repentance for that which is no sin, or blamable evil. If it be so, that, as a consequence of this propensity, the world lies in wickedness, and t'^.e far greater part are of a wicked character, without doubt, the far greater part go to eternal perdition ; for death docs not pick and choose for men of a righteous character only. And certainly that is an evil, corrupt state of things, which Tnjturally tends to, and issues in that consequence, that as it were the whole world lies and lives in wickedness, and dies in wickedness, and perishes eternally. And this, by the supposition, is a state of things, wholly of the ordering of the author of nature, before mankind are capable of having any hand in the affair. And is this any relief to the difficulties, which these writers object against the doctrine of nalut al depravity ?

And 1 might here also observe, that this way of accounting for the wickedness of the world, amounts to jast the same thing with that solutioa of man's depravity, which was mentioned before, that Ur. Taylor cries out of as too gross to be admitted (p. 188, 189.) viz. God's creating the soul pure, and putting it into such a body, as naturally tends lo pollute it For this scheme supposes, that God creates the soul pure, and puts it into a body, and into such a state in that body, that the natural consequence is a strong propensity to sin, as soon as ♦he sou] is capable of sinning.

.ilB ORIGINAL SIN.

Dr. Turnbull seems to suppose, that the matter could not have been ordered otherwise, consistent with the nature 04 things, than that animal passions shauld be so atbrehand with reason, as that the consequence should be that which has been mentioned ; because reason is a faculty ©f such a nature, that it can have strenc^th and vigor no otherwise than by exercise and culture.* But can there be any force in this ? Is there any thin^ in nature, to make it impossll:le, but that the superior principles of man's nature should be so proportioned to the inferior, as to prevent such a dreadful consequence, as the moral and natural ruin, and eternal perdition of the far greater part of mankind ? Could not those superior principles Ue in vastly greater strength at first, and yet be capable of endless improvement ? And what should hinder its being so ordered by the Creator, that they should improve by vastly swifter dec^^rees than they do ? If we are Christians we must be forced to allow it to be possible in the nature of things, that the piinciples of hurpan nature should be so balanqed, that the consequence should be no propensity to sin, in the first beginning of a capacity of moral agency ; because vfc must own, that it was so in fact in Adam, when first created, and also in the man Christ Jesus ; though the faculties of the latter v/ere such as grew by culture and improvement, so thaj he increased in wisdom as he grew in stature.

Evasion' 5. Seeing men in this world are in a state of trial, it is fit that their virtue should meet with trials, and consequently that it should have opposition and temptation to overcome ; not only from without, but from within, in the animal passions and appetites we have to struggle with ; that by the conflict and victory our virtue may be refined and established. Agreeably to this, Dr. Taylor (p. 253.) says, "Without aright use and application of our powers, were they naturally ever so perfect, we could not be judged fit to enter into the kingdom of God. This gi^es a good reason why we are now in a state of trial and temptation, viz. to prove and discipline our minds, to season our virtue, and to fit us

♦ Mor. Phil, p. 3;i.

OTIGINAL SIN. ;ig

for the kingdom of God ; foi^vhich, in the judgment of inii-nite wisdom, we cannot be qualified, but by overcoming our present temptarlons.'* And in p. 78. .V. he says, " We are upon trial, and it is the will of our Father that our constitution should be attended with various passions and appetites, as well as our outward condition with various temptations." He s?.y3 the like in several other places. To the same purpose very often Dr. Turnbull, particularly Christian Philoso-phy, p. 310. " What merit (says he) except from combat? W^iat virtue without the encounter of such enemies, such temptations as arise both from within and from abroad ? To be virtuous, is to prefer the pleasures of virtue, to those which come into competition with it, and vice holds forth to tempt us ; and to dare to adhere to truth and goodness, whatever pains and hardships it may cost. There must tlierefore, in order to the formation and trial, in order to the very being of virtue, be pleasures of a certain kind to make temptations to vice.**

In reply to these things I would say, either the state of temptation, which is supposed to be ordered for men's trial, amounts on the whole to a prevailing tendency to that state of general wickedness and ruin, which has been proved to take place, or it does not. If it does not amount to a tendency to such an effect, then how does it account for it ? When it is inquired, by what cause such an effect should come to pass, is it not absurd to allege a cause, which is owned at the same, time to have no tendency to such an effect ? Which is as much as to confess, that it will not account for it. I think it has been demonstrated, that this effect must be owing to some prevailing tendency. If the other part of the dilemma be taken, and it be said, that this state of things does imply a prevailing tendency to that effect, which has been proved, viz. that all mankind, without the exception of so much as one, sin against God, to their own deserved and just, eternal ruin ; and not only so, but sin thus immediately, as soon as capable of it, and sin continually, and have more sin than \irtuc, and Lave guilt that infinitely outweighs the value of all the goodness any ever have, and that the p-encralitv of the world in

t20 ORIGINAL SIN.

all at^cs are extremely stupid and foolish, and of a wicked character, and actually perish for ever ; I say, if the state of temptation implies a natural tendency to siich an effect as this, it is a very evil, corrupt, and dreadful state of things, as has been already lar^^ely shewn.

Besides, such a state.has a tendency to defeat its own supposed end, which is to refine, ripen, and perfect virtue in mankind, and so to fit men for the greater eternal happiness and glory : Whereas, the effect it tends to, is the reverse of this, viz. general, eternal infamy and ruin, in all generations. It is supposed, that men's virtue must have passions and appe> tites to strugi^le with, in order to have the glory and reward of victory ; but the consequence is, a prevailing, continual and generally efiectuar tendency, not to men's victory over evil appetites and passions, and the glorious reward of that victory, but to the victory of evil appetites and lusts over men, and utterly and eternally destroying them. If a trial of virtue be requisite, yet the question is, v/hence comes so general a failing in the trial, if there be no depraviiy of nature ? If conflict and war be necessary, yet surely there is no necessity that there should be more cowards than good soldiers ; unless it be necessary that men should be overcome and destroyed : Especially it is not necessary that the whole world as it were should lie in wickedness, and so lie and die in cowardice.

I might also here observe, that Dr. TurnbuU is hot very consistent-, in supposing, that combat with temptation is requisite to the very bei7ig of virtue. For I think it clearly follows from his own notion of virtue, that virtue must have a. being prior to any virtuous or praiseworthy combat with temptation. For, by his prmciples, all virtue lies in good affection, and no actions can be virtuous, but Avhat proceed from good affection.* Therefore, surely the combat itself can have no virtue in it, unless it proceeds from virtuous affec-. tion ; and therefore virtue must have an existence before tb? combat, and be the cause of it.

CHAPTER II.

'Universal Mertality proves Original Sin; particularly the Death of Infants^ with its various circumstances.

THE universal reign of deaths over persons of all age* 'indiscriminately, with the awful circumstances and attendants of death, proves that men come sinful into the world.

It is needless here particularly to inquire, whether God has not a sovereign right to set bounds to the lives of his own creatures, be they sinful or not; and as he gives life, so to take it away when he pleases ? Or how far God has a right to bring extreme suffering and calamity on an innocent moral agent ? For death, with the pains and agonies with which it is usually brought on, is not merely a limiting of existence, but is a most terrible calamity ; and to such a creature as man, capable of conceiving of immortality, and made with so earnest a desire after it, and capable of foresight and of reflection on approaching death, and that has such an extreme dread of it, is a calamity above all others terrible, to such as are able to reflect upon it. I say, it is needless, elaborately to consider, whether God may not, consistent with his perfect lions, by absolute sovereignty, bring so great a calamity on mankind when perfectly innocent. It is sufficient, if we have good evidence from scripture, that it is not agreeable to God's manner of dealing with mankind so to do.

It is manifest, that mankind were not originally subject* cd to this calamity : God brought it on them afterwards, on occasion of man's sin, at a time of the manifestation of God's great displeasure for sin, and by ft denunciation and senicnco pronounced by him, as acting the part of a judge, «s Dr. XajTf

Q

lor often confesses. Sin entered into the "world, and death by sin, as the apostle says. Which certainly l^ads us to suppose, that this affair was ordered of,- God, not merely by the sovereignty of a Creator, but by the righteousness of a judge. And the sciipvure every where speaks of all great afflictions and calamities, which God in his providence brings on manic nc1, as testimonies of his displeasure for sin, in the subject of those calamities-} excepting those sufferings which are to atone for the sins of others. He ever taught his people to look on such calamities as" his vod^ the rod of his anger, his fror.-rs^ the hidings of his face in displeasure. Hence such 'calamities are in scripture so often called by the name of judgmentsy being what God brings on men as 2i judge, executing a righteous sentewce for transgression : Yea, they are often called by the name of nvrath^ especially calamities consisting or issuing in death.* And hence also is that which Tjr. Taylor would have us take so much notice of, that sometimes, in the scripture, calamiry and suffering is called by such names as sm, inicfuity, being guilty^ &c. which is evidently by a metonymy of the cause for the effect. It is not likely, that in the language in use of old among God's people, calamity or suffering would have been called even by the names of sin and guilt, if it had been so far from having any connexion with sin, that even death itself, which is always ^ spoken of as the most terrible of calamities, is not so much as any sign of the sinfulness of the subject, or any testi;- ony of God's displeasure for any guilt of his, as Dr. Taylor supposes.

Death is spoken of in scripture as the chief of calamities^ the most extreme and terrible of all those natural evils, which come on mankind in this world. Deadly destruction is spoken of as the most terrible destruction. 1 Sam. v. 11. Dead" ly sorroiVi as the most extreme sorrow. Isa. xvii. 11. Matth. xxvi. 38, and deadly enemicsy as the most bitter and terrible

• Sec Lcvit. X. 6. Numb. i. 53, and xvlii. 5. Josh. ix. 20. 2 ChroBi xxlv. 18, and xix. 2, lO, and xxviil, 13, and xxxii. 25. Ezra vii. 2g. Neh". xitir-t6. Zech.vii. la, and many other places.

ORIGINAL SIN. * tU

fcnemles. Psal. xvii. 9. The extremity of Christ's suffer-ings is represented by his suffering vnto death. Thilip. ii. 8, and other places. Hence the 'greatest testimonies of God*s anger for the sins of men in this world, have been by inflict-inj^ death : As on the sinners of the old ^\ orld, en the inhabitants of Sodom and Gonio. rah, on Onan, Phaiaoh, and the Egyptians, Nadab and Abihu, Korah and hii company, and the rest of the rebels in the wilderness, on the wicked ii,habitants of Canaan, on Hophni and Phinehas, Ananias and Sap-phira, the unbelieving Jews, upon whom wrath came to the uttermost, in the time of the last destruction of Jerusalem. This calamity is often spoken of as in a peculiar manner the fruit of the guilt of sin. Exod. xxviii. 43. " That they bear not iniquity and die." Levit. xxii. 9. '* Lest they bear sin for it and die.** So Numb, xviii. 22, compared with Levit. x. I, 2. The very light of nature, or tradition from ancient revelation, led the heathen to conceive of death as in a peculiar manner an evidence of divine vengeance. Thus we have an account, Acts xxviii. 4. That ivhen the Barbarians aaw the venomous beast hang en Paul's hand, they said among" thciw selves^ no doubt this man is a murderer, ivhom, ihough he hath escaped the seas^ yet vengeance suffereth ivU to live.

Calamities that are very small in comparison of the universal, temporal destruction of the whole world of mankind by death, are spoken of as manifest indications of God's great displeasure for the sinfulness of the subject; such as the destruction of particular ciiies, countries, or numbers of men, by war or pesiilence. Deut. xxix. 24. " All iiaiiuns shall sayi wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this lund ? Wiiat meaneth the heat of this great anger ?** Here compare Deut. xxxii, SO. 1 Kings ix- 8, and Jer. xxii. 8, 9. TjK'se calamities, thus spoken of as plain testimonies of God's great anger, consisted only in hastening on that death, which otherwise, by God's disposal, would most certainly have come in a short time. Now the taking off of thirty or forty years from seventy or eighty, (if we should suppose it to be so much, one with another, in the time of these extraordinary judg-^nents) is but a small matter, in comparison of God's first

making man tnorta!, cutting off his hoped for immortality^ subjecting him to inevitable death, which his nature so ex* ceedingly dreads ; and afterwards shortening his life further^ by cutting off more than eight hundred years of it; so bringing it to be less than a twelfth part of what it was in the first ages of the world. Besides that innumerable multitudes in the common course of things, without tiny extraordinary judgment, die in youth, in childhood, and infancy. Therefore how inconsiderable a thing is the additional or hastened destruction, that is sometimes brought on a particular city or country by war, compared with that universal havoc which death makes of the whole race of mankind, from generatior> to generation, without distinction of sex, age, quality, or con* dition, with all the infinitely various, dismal circumstances, torments, and agonies, which attend the death of old and young, adult persons and little infants ? If those particular and comparatively trivial calamities, extending perhaps not to more than the thousandth part of the men of one generaiionj are clear evidences of God's great anger ; certainly this universal, vast destruction, by which the whole world in all gen* crations is swallowed up, as by a flood, that nothing can resist, must be a most glaring manifestation of God's anger for the sinfulness of mankind. Yea, the scripture is express in it, that it is so. Psal. xc. 3, Sec. «' Thou turnest man to destruction, and sayest, return, ye children of men....Thou carri-cst them away as with a flood : They are as a sleep : In the morning they are like grass, which groweth up ; in the morning it flourisheth and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down and withereth. For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled. Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance. For all our days are passed away in thy wrath : We spend our years as a tale that is told. The days of our years are threescore years and ten ; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sor* row ; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Who knowcth the power of thine anger ? According to thy fear, so is thy v/rath. So teach vs to number, ouv days thnt we may apply

ptir hearts unto wisdom." How plain and full is this testlmo-|iy, that the general mortalitj- of mankind is an evidence of Ood*s anger for the sin of those who are tlie subjects of such d dispensation ?

Abimelcch sp«aks of it as a thinr^ which he had reason to conclude from God*s nature and perfection, that he nvouldnot slay a righteous nation. Gen. xx. 4. By righteous evidently meaning innocent. And if so, much less ivill God slay a right-cous worlds (consisting of so many nations.,..rep'^ating the great slaughter in every generation) or-subject the whole world of mankind to death, when they are considered as innocent, as Dr. Taylor supposes. We have from time to time 3n scripture such phrases as ivcrthy of death, and guilty nf death ; but certainly the righteous Judge of all the earth wiU not bring death on thousands of millions, not only that are not worthy of death, but are worthy of no punishment.

Dr. Taylor from time to time speaks of afPJction and death as a great benefit, as they increase the vanity of all earthly things, and tend,to excite sober reflections, and to induce us to be moderate in gratifying the appetites of the brwiy, and to mortify pride and ambition, &c.* To this I would say,

I. It is not denied but God may see it needful for mankind in their present state, that they should be mortal, and subject to outward afHictions, to restrain their lusts, and m.or-tify their piide and ambition. T-c. But then is it not an evidence of man*s depravity, that it is so ? Is it not an evidence of distemper of mind, yea, strong disease, when man stands in need of such sharp medicines, such severe and terrible Tneans to restrain his lusts, keep down his pride, and make him willing to be obedient to God ? It must be because of a corrupt and ungrateful heart, if the riches of Go<rs bounty, in bestowing life and prosperity, and things comfortable and pleasant, will not engage the heart to God, and to virtue, and childlike love and obedience, bn': that he must always have fbe rod held over him, and bcofien chastised, and held under

• Pages ci, 67, and of>rr places.

the apprehensions of deaihi to keep him froin ninnint^ w^ld in pride, contempt and rebellion, ungratefully using the blessings dealt forth froiji God's hand, in sir.ning ajjainst him, and serving his enemies. If man has no natural disingenuity of heart, it must be a mysti-rious thing indeed, that the sweet blessings of God*s bounty have not as powerful an influence ^ to restrain him from sinning against God, as tenible afTrictions. If any thing can be a proof of a perverse and vile di'^position, this must be a proof of ii, that men should be most apt to forpet and despise God, when his providence is most kind ; and that they should need to have God chastise them with great seventy, and even to kill them, to keep them in order.. 3f we were as mtich disposed to gratitude to God for his benefits, as we are to anger at our fellow creatures for injuries, as -we must be (so far as 1 can see) if we are not of a depraved -heart, the sweetness of the divine bounty, if continued in life, and the height of every enjoyment that is pleasant to innocent liuman nature, would be as powerful incentives to a proper regard to God, tending as much to promote religion and viriue, as to have the world lilled with calamity, and to have God (to use the language of Hezekiah, Isaiah xxxviii. 13, describing death and its agonies) as a lion^ breaking all our boiics^ and from day euen to night, 7naking an end of us.

Dr. Taylor himself, p. 252, says, " That our first parents ■ before the fail were placed in a condition proper to engage their gratitude, love and obedience.'* Which is as much as to say, proper to engage them to the exercise and practice of allreligion» And if the paradisaical stale was proper to engage to all religion and-duty, and men sill come into the world with hearts as good as the two first of the species, why is it not proper to engage them -to it still ? What need of so vastly changing man*s state, depriving him of all tjjose blessings, and instead of them allotting to him a world full of briai's and thorns, afHiclion, calamity and death, to engage him to it ? The taking away of life, and all those pleasant enjoyments man had at first, by a permanent constitution,, would be no stated benefit to mankind, unless there was a slated disposition in them to abuse buch blessings. The tak-

jjlg^ them away is supposed to be a benefit under the notion of tbeir being things that tend to lead men to sin ; but they would have no such tendency, at least in a stated mannn', unless there v.'as in men a fixed tendency to make that unreasonable misimprovemcnt of thcn\. Such a temper of mind as amounts.to a disposilion to make such a miiimprovemcnl of blessinp^s of that kind, is often spoken of in scripture, as most astonishingly vile and perverse. So concerning Israel's abusing the blessings of Canaan, that land flowing with milk and. honey ; their ini^raiitude in it is spoken of by the prophets, as enough to astonish all hcayen and earth, and as more tnan brutish stupidity and vileness. Jer. il, 7. " I brought thenit into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof, and the goodness thereof But when ye entered, ye defiled my land," Sec. See the following verses, especially verse 12. *' Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this." 80 Isaiah i. 2....4. ''Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth ; I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib, but my people doth not know, Israel doth not consider. Ah, sinful nation ! A people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil doers, child-^ ren that are corruptors.'* Compare Deut. xxxii. 6....19. If it shewed so great depravity, to be disposed thus to abuse tlie blessings of so fruitful and pleasant a land as Canaan, surely it "would be an evidence of a no less astonishing corruption, to be inclined to abuse the blessings of Eden, and the garden of God there.

2. If death be brought on mankind only as a benefit, and in that manner which Dr. Taylor mentions, viz. to mortify or moderate their carnal appetites and aifections, wean them from the world, excite them to sober reflections, and lead them to the fear and obedience of God, &c. is it not strange that it should fall so heavy on infants, who arc not capable of making any such improvement of it ; so that many more of mankind suffer death in infancy, than in any other equal part of the age of man ? Our author someiimcs hints, that the death of infants may be for the good of parents, and those that are <j|dult, and may be for the correction and punishment of

:he sins of parents : But hath God any need of such methods (o add to parents' afflictions ? Are there not ways enough that he might increase their trouble, without destroying thd lives of such multitudes of those that are perfectly innocent, and have in no respect any sin belonging to them ; on whom death comes at an age, when not only the subjects are not ca-pctble of any reflection or making any improvement of it, eith-er in the suffering or expectation of it ; but also at an age, vhen parents and friends, who alone can make a good improvement, and whom Dr. Taylor supposes alone to be punished by it, suffer least by being bereaved of them ; though the infants themselves sometimes suffer to great extremity ?

3. To suppose, as Dr. Taylor does, that death is brought on mankind in consequence of Adam's sin, not at all as a calamity, but only as a favor and benefit, is contrary to the doc* trine of the gospel, which teaches that when Christ, as the second Adam, comes to remove and destroy that death which came by the first Adam, he finds it not as a friend, but an enemy. 1 Cor. xv. 22. " For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive s" with verses 25 and 26. " For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his fect^ The last aieimj that shall be destroyed, is death.'*

Dr. Taylor urges that the afflictions which mankind are subjected to, and particularly their common mortality, are represented in scripture as the chastisements of our heavenly Father; and therefore are designed for our spiritual good, and consequently are not of the nature of punishments. So in p. 68, 69, 38, 39, S.

Though I think the thing asserted far from being true, viz. that the scripture represents the afflictions of mankind in general, and particularly their common mortality, as the chas-^ tisements of an heavenly father, yet it is needless to stand to dispute that matter ; for if it be so, it will be no argument that the afflictions and death of mankind are not evidences of their sinfulness. Those would be strange chastisements from the hand of a wise and good Father, which are wholly for nothing; especially such severe chastisements as to break the child's bones, when at the same time the Father docs wi.

fcvjppose any Cfullt, fault or offence in any respect belonj^ing to ihe child; but it is chastised in this terrible manner, only lor fear that it will be faulty hereafter. I say, these would be a strange sort of chastisements ; yea, thcucjh he should be able to make it up to the child afterwards. Dr. Tavlor tells of representations made by the whole current of scripture : i am cerrain it is not ai^reeable to the current of scripture, to represent divine, fatherly cha-oliscmenls after this manner. It is true, that the scripture supposes such chastcnlncfs to be the fruit of God's goodness ; yet at the same time it evermore represents them as bcini^ for the sin of the subject, and as evidences of the divine displeasure for its sinfulness. Thus the apostle in I Cor. xi. 30....32, speaks of God's chastenin:^ his people by mortal sickness, for their s^ood, that they might not be condanned with the ivorld^ and yet signifies that it was Jo?' their sin ; for this cause many are iveak and sickly amor.^ you^ atid many sleefi ': That is, lor the prfofaneness and bin?i;l disorder before mentioned. So Elihu, Job xxxiii. 16, £cc. speaks of the same cfidstcning by fickness, as for men's good, to withdravj man from his sinful/mr/iOse> a7id to hid ^ firide frovi man, and keep back his soul from the fiit ; that therefore God chastens man ivithpain on his bcd^ and the multitude of his bone a ivith strong pain. But these chastenings are for his sins, as appears by what follows, verse 28, where it is observed, that •ivhen God by this means has brought men to repent^ and humbly confess their sins, he delivers them. Again, the same E-Uhu, speaking of the unfailing love of God to the righteous, even when he chastens them^, and they are bound in fetters^ and holden in cords of affiiction^ chap, xxxvi. 7, 8cc. yet speaks of these chasteiiings as being for their sins, verse 9. '' Then he sheweth ihem their work, and their transgressions, that they have exceeded." So David, Psalm xxx speaks of God's chastening by sore afflictions, as bemg for his good, and issuing joyfully ; and yet being the fiuit of God's anger for his sin, verse 5. " God's anger endureth but for a moment," &&-Compare Psalm cxix. 67, 71, 75. God's fathcly chastisements are spoken of as being for sin. 2 Sam. vii. 14, 15. '* I vail be his Taiher, and he shall be my Son. If he com-R

init inkjuity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men, but my mercy shall not depart away from him." So the prophet Jeremiah speaks o€ the great affliction that God's people of the young generation suffered in the time of the captivity, as being for their good. Lam. iii. 25, &c. But yet these chastisements are spoken of as being for their sin, see especially verses 39, 40. So Christ says, Rev. iii. 19. "As many as I love, 1 rebuke and chasten." But the words following shew that these chastening* from love, are for sin that should be repented, of; "Be zealous, therefore, and repent.'* And though Christ tells us, they are blessed that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, and have reason to rejoice and be exceeding glad ; yet even tho persecutions of God's people, as ordered in divine Providence^ are spoken of as divine chastenings for sin, like the just corrections of a Father, when the children deserve them, Heb. xii. The apostle, there speaking to the Christians concerning the persecutions which they suffered, calls their sufferings by the name of divine rebukes^ which implies testifying against a fault ; and that they may not be discouraged, puts them in mind, that tvhovi the Lord loves he chaste?iS) and scourgeth ev.-> ery son that he receiveth. It is also very plain, that the persecutions of God's people, as they are from the disposing hand of God, are chastisements for shi, from I Pet. iv. \7, 18, compared with Prov. xi. 31. See also Psalm Ixix. 4....9.

If divine chastisements in general are certain evidences that the subjects are not wholly without sin, some way be-» longing to them, then in a peculiar manner is death so, for these reasons :

I. Because slaying, or delivering to death, is often spoken of as in general a more awful thing than the chastisements that are endured in this life. So Psalm cxviii. 17, 18. "I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord. The Lord hath chastened me sore, but he hath not given me over unto death." So the Psalmist, in Psalm Ixxxviii, 15, setting forth the extremity of his affliction, represents it by this, that it was next to death. " I am afflicted, and ready ^0 die : While I suffer thy terrors, I am distracted." S©

©avid, 1 Sam. xx. 3. So God's tenderness towards persons tinder chastisement, is from time to time set forth by that, that he did not proceed so far as to make an end of them by death, as in Psalm Ixxviii. 38, 39, Psalm ciii. 9, with verses 14, 15, Psalm XXX 2, 3, 9, and Job xxxiii. 22, 23, 24. So we have God's people often praying, when under great afiliction, that God would not proceed to this, as being the greatest ex-Iramlty. Psalrn xiii. 3. " Consider, and hear me, O Lord my God : Lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death.'*' So Job X, 9, Psalm vi. 1....5, Ixxxviii. 9, 10, 11, and cxliii. 7. Especially may death be looked upon as the most extreme of all temporal sufferings, when attended with such dreadful circumstances, and extreme pains, as those with which Providence sometimes brings it on infants, as on the children that were offered up to Moloch, and some other idols, who were tormented to death in burning brass, Dr. Taylor says, p. 83, 12S, S. « The Lord of all being can never want time, and place, and power, to compensate abundantly any sufferings infants now undergo in subserviency to his good>^providence." But there are no bounds to such a license, in evading evidences from fact. It might as well be said, that there is not and cannot be any such thing as evidence, from events of God's displeasure, which is most contrary to the whole current of scripture, as may appear in part from things which have been observed. This gentleman might as well go further still, and say that God may cast guiltless persons into hellfirc, to remain there in the most unutterable torments for agesof ages^. (which bear no greater i)roportion to eternity than a quarter of an hour) and if he does so, it is no evidence of God's displeasure, because he can ne\'er want time, place, and power, abundantly to compensate their sufferings afterwards. If it be so, it is not to the purpose, as long as the scripture docs so abundantly teach us to look on great calamities and sufferings •which God brings on men, especially death, as marks of his displeasure for sin, and for sin belonging to tliem that suffer. 2. Another thing which may well lead us to suppose death, in a peculiar manner, above other temporal sufferings, intended as a testimony of God's displeasure for sin, is, tlTTT*:

<kath is a tliin.s^ altended uith that awful appearance, that gloomy and terrible aspect, that naturally suggests to our minds God's awful displeasure Which is a thing that Dr. Taylor himself takes particular notice of- page 69, speaking of death, "Herein," says he, "have we before our eyes a striking demonstration that sin is infinitely hateful to God, and the corruption and ruin of our nature. Nothing is more proper than such a sight to give us the utmost abhorrence of all iniquity, SsC." Now if death be no testimony of God's displeasure for sin, no evidence that the subject is looked upon, by him who inflicts it, as any other than perfectly innocent, free from all manner of imputation of guilt, and treated* only as an object of favor, is it not strange, that God should annex to it such aifecting appearances of his hatred and anger for sin, more than to other chastisements ? Which yet the scripture teaches us are always for sin. These gloomy and striking manifestations of God's hatred of sin attending death, are equivalent to awful frowns of God attending the stroke of Lis hand. If we should see a wise and just father chastising his child, mixing terrible frowns with severe strokes, we should justly argue, that the father considered his child as having something in him displeasing to him, and that he did not thus treat his child only under a notion of mortifying him, and preventing his being faulty hereafter, and making it up to him afterwards, when he had been perfectly innocent, and without fault, either of action or disposition thereto.

We may well argue from these things, that infants are not looked upon by God as sinless, but that they are by nature children of wrath, seeing this terrible evil comes so heavily on mankind in infancy. But besides these things, which are observable concerning the mortality of infants in general, there arc some particular cases of the death of infants, which the sciip'urc sets before us, that are attended with circumstance?, in a peculiar manner giving evidences of the sinfuli ness of such, and their just exposedness to divine wrath. As particularly.

The destroying of the infants in Sodom, and the neighboring cities; which cities, destroyed in so extraordinary,

xjiiraculous, and awful a manner, are set fortli as a signal example, of God's dreadful venji^cance for sin, to the world in all gencralions ; agreeable to that of the aposilc, Jude, verse 7. God did not reprove, but manifestly countenanced Abraham, when he said, with respect to the destruction of 3ouom> (Gen. xviii. 25, 25.) " Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked ?....That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, and that the righieous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee. Shall not the judge of all the earth do right V* Abraham's words imply that God would not destroy the innocent with the guilty. We may well understand innocent as included in the word right' eous, according to the language usual in scripture, in speaking of such cases of judgment and punishment; as is plain ia Gen. XX. 4. Exod. xxiii. 7. Deut. xxv. 1. 2Sam.iv.il. 2 Chron. vi. 23, and Prov. xviii. 5. Eliphaz says. Job iv. 7. " Who ever perished, being innocent? Or where were the righteous cut off?'* We see wliat great care God took that Lot should not be involved, in that destruction. He was miraculously rescued by angels, sent on purpose ; who*laid hold on him, and brought him, and set him without the gates of the city ; and told him that they could do nothing till he was out of the way. Gen. xix. 22. And not only was he thus miraculously delivered, but his two wicked daughters for hi^ sake. The whole affair, both the de^itruc'ion, and tlic rescue of them that escaped, was miraculous ; and God could as easily have delivered the infants which were in those cities. And if they had been without sin, th.cir perfect innocency, one should think, would have pleaded njiich more strongly for them, than those lewd women's re]auon to Lot pleaded for them. When in such a case, we must suppose these infants much further from deserving to be involved in that destruction, than even Lot himself. To say here, that God could make it up to those infants in another world, must he an insufficient reply. For so he could as easily have made it up to Lot, or to ten or fifty righteous, if they had been destroyed in the same fire : Nevertheless it is plainly signified, that this

^vollIcl not have been aj^rceable to the wise and holy pro(|Bed» ings of the judge of all the earth.

Since God dechired, that if there had been found but tci]-TJ.G:hteous in Sodom, he would lir.ve spared the whole city for their sake, may we not well suppose, if infants are perfectly innocent, that he would liavo spared tlie old nvorku in which there were, without doubt, many hundred thousand infants, and in general one in every family, whose perfect innocence pleaded for its preservation ? l.>,peciaiiy when such vast care was taken to save Noah and his family, (some of whom, one at lerist, seem to have been none of the best) that they might not be involved in that destruction. If the perfect sinlessness of infants had been u notion entert^iincd among the people cf God of old, in the ages next following the fiood, handed down horn Noah and his children, who well knev/ that vast multitudes of infants perished in the fiood, is it likely that Eliphaz, who lived wi'hin a fcM- generations of Sheni and Noah, would have said to Job, as he does in that forementioned, Job iv. 7. «•' Who ever perished, being innocent? And when were the Tighteous cut off"?" Especially since in the same discourse (Chap. V. !.) he appeals to the tradition of the ancients for a confirmation of this very point; as he also does in Chap. xv. r....lO, and xxii. 15, 16. In which last place he mentions that very thing, the destruction of the wicked by the flood, as an instance of that perishing of the Avlcked, which he supposes to be peculiar to them, for Job's conviction ; in which the wicked nvere cut donvn out of time, their foundation being orverfin'xn ivith a Jiood, Where it is also observable, that he speaks of such an untimeliness of death as they suffered by the flood, as one evidence of guilt ; as he also does, Chap. xv. 52, 53. " It shall be accomplished before his time ; and his ])ranch shall not be green.'* But those that were destroyed by the flood in infancy, above all the rest were cut doivn out of time J when instead of living above nine hundred years, according to the common period of man's life, many were cut down before ihcy were one year old.

And when God executed vengeance on the ancient inhabitants of Canaan, not only did he not spare their cities and

^milies for the sake of the infants that were therein, nor tako any care that tliey should not be involved in the destruction ; but often with particular care repeated his express commands, that their infants should not be spared, but should be utterly destroyed, without any pity; while Uahab the/iar/or (wh^ had been far from innocence, though she expressed her faith in entertaining, and safely dismissing the spies) was prcserv-. ed, and all her friends for her sake. And when God executed his wrath on the Egyptians, by slaying their first born, though the children of Israel, who were most of thera wicked men, as was before shewn, were wonderfully spared by the; destroying angel, yet such first born of the Egyptians as were infants, were not spared. They not only were not rescued by the angel, and no miracle wrought to save them (as wa^i observed in the case of the infants of Sodom) but the angel destroyed them by his own immediate hand, and a miracle was wrought to kill them.

Here, not to stay to be particular concerning the command by Moses, respecting the - destruction of the infants of the Midianites, Num. xxxi. 17. And that given to Saul to destroy all the infants of the Amalekites, 1 Sam. xv. 3, and what is said concerning Edom, Psalm cxxxvii. 9. " Happy shall he be that takcth, and dasheth tliy little ones against the stones. I proceed to take notice of something remarkable concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, represented in Ezek. ix. when command was given to them, that had charge over the city, to destroy the inhabitants, verse 1....8 And this rea^ son is given for it, that their iniquity required it, and it was u just recompense of their sin, verse 9, 10. And Cod at the same time was most particular and exact in his care that such Sihould by no means be involved in the slaughter, as had proved by their behavior, that they were not partakers in the abominations of the city. Command was given to the angel to go through the city, and set a mark upon their foreheaclsr and the destroying angel had a strict charge not to come near any man, on whom was the mark ; yet the infants were not marked, nor a word said of sparing them : On the contrary, ^fants were exprcsisly mentioned as tho^e that should be utter-

ly destro> cdj without pity, verse 5, 6. « Go through the cftyy and smite : Let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity. Slay utterly old r.nd young^, both maids and little children ; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark.

And if any should suspect that such instances as these were peculiar to a more severe dispensation, under the Old Testament, let us consider a remarkable instance in the days ulthe glorious t^ospel of the grace of God ; even the last destruction of Jerusalem ; which was iar more terrible, and with greater testimonies of God's wrath and indignation, than the destruction of Sodom, or of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's lime, or any thing that ever had happened to any city or people, from the beginning of the world to that time : Agreeable to Matth. xxiv. 21, and Luke xxi. 22, 23. Cut at that time particular care was taken to distinguish and deliver God's people, as was foretold Dan. xii. 1. And we have in the New Testament a particular account of the care Christ took for the preservation of his followers : He gave them a sign, by which ihcy might know when the desolation of the city was nigh, iliat they that were in Jerusalem might flee to the mountains, and escape. And as history gives account, the Christians followed the directions given, and escaped to a place in the mountains called Pella, and were preserved. Yet no care was taken to preserve the infants of the city, in general; but, according to the predictions of that event, they were involved with others in that great destruction : So heavily did the calamity fall upon them, that those words were verified, Luke xxiii. 29. *' Behold the days are coming, in which they shall say. Blessed are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. And that prophecy in Deut. xxxii. 21....25, Mhich has undoubtedly special respect lo this very lime, and is so applied by the best Commentators. •' I will provoke them to jealousy, with those that are not a people ; for a fire is kindled in miiie anger ; and it shall bum to the lowest hell. 1 will heap mischiefs upon them : 1 will spend mine arrows upon them. They bhall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and bitter destruction. The sword withuut, and terror within, shall destroy

both the young man, and the virgin, the suckling also, with the man of grey hairs." And it appears by the history of that destruction, that at that time was a remarkable fulfilment of that in Deut. xxviii. 53....57, conQtrmne; fiarenta* eating their children in the siege ; and the tender and delicate woman eating her newborn child. And here it must be remembered, that these very destructions of that city and land are spoken of in those places foremenlioncd, as clear evidences of God*s wrath, to all nations which shall behold them. And if so, they were evidences of God's wrath towards infants ; who, equally with the rest, were the subjects of the destruction. If a particular kind or rank of persons, which made a very considerable part of the inhabitants, were from time to time partakers of the overthrow, without any distinction made in divine providence, and yet this was no evidetice at all of God*s displeasure with any of them ; then a being the subjects of such a calamity could not be an evidence of God*s wrath against any of the inhabitants, to the reason of all nations, or any nation^ or so tnuch as one person.

&

un ORIGINAL SIJ^^.

PART IL

Containing observations on particular farts oj the' Holy Scripture, -which prove the Doetrine oJ - Original Sin,

CHAPTER I.

Observations relating to things contained in the three first Chapters of Genesis, toith refers-ence to the Doctri?ie of Original Sin.

3FXTION I.

Concerning Original Righteousness; and whether our Jirst Parents were created ^ith Righteousness^ or moral recti-' tude of Heart ?

THE doctrine of Original Righteousness^ or the crea" tion of our first parents with holy principles and dispositions, has a close connexion, in several respects, with the doctrine of Original Sin. Dr Taylor was sensible of this ; and accordingly he strenuously opposes this doctrine, in his book against Original sin. And therefore in handling the subject, I would in the first place remove this authoi's main objection against this doctrine, and then shew how the doctrine may be inferred from the account which Moses gives us, in the three Jirst chapters oJ" Genesis.

Dr. Taylor's grand objection ftp^ainst this doctrine, ^vhicU Bfe abundantly insists on, is this : That it is utterly inconsistent with the nature of virtue, that it should be concreated with any person ; because, if so, it must be by an act of Cod's absolute power, without our knowledge or concurrence ; and that moral virtue, in its very nature implieth the choice and consent of the moral agent, without which it cannot be virtue and holiness : That a necessary holiness is no holiness. So p. 180, where he observes, "That Adam must exist, he must be created, yea he must exercise thought and reflection, before he was righteous.*' See also p. 250, *25l. In p. 161. o-he says, "To say, that God not only endowed Adam with a capacity of being righteous, but moreover that righteousness and true holiness were created with him, or wrought into his nature, at the same time he was made, is to affirm a contradiction, or what is inconsistent with the very nature of righteousness." And in like manner Dr. Turnbull in many places insists upon it, that it is necessary to the very being of virtue^ that it' be owing to our own choice, and diligent cuUare.

'' "VVith respect to this, I wou!d observe, that it consists in a notion of virtue quite inconsistent with the nature of things, and the common notions of mankind ; and also inconsistent with Dr. Taylor's own notions of virtue. Therefore if it be truly so, that to affirm that to be virtue or holiness, which is not the fruit of preceding thought, reflection and choice, is to affirm a contradiction, I shall shew plainly, that for him to af-iirm otherwise, is a contradiction to himself.

In the first place, I think it a coni.radlction to the nature of things, as judged of by the common sense of mankind. It is agreeable to the sense of the minds of men in all nations and ages, not only that the fruit or eflcct of a good choice is virtuous, but the good choice itself, from whence that effect proceeds ; yea, and not only so, but also the antecedent good disposition, temper, or affection of mind, from whence proceeds that good choice, is virtuous. This is the general notion, not that principles derive their goodness from actions, but that acUons derive their goodness from the principl<5**^

iFhencc they proceed; and so that the act of choosing that whidi is t^ood, is no further virtuous than it proceeds from a good principle, or virtuous disposition of mind. Which supposes, that a virtuous disposition pf mind may be before a virtuous act of choice ; and that therefore it is not necessary that there should first be thought, reflection and choice, before there can be any virtuous disposition. If the choice be first, before the existence of a good disposition of heart, what signifies that choice ? There can, according lo our natural notions, be no virtue in a choice which proceeds frqm no virtuous principle, but from mere selflove, ambition, or some animal appeiite ; and therefore a virtuous temper of mind may be before a good act of choice, as a tree may be before the fruity and the fountain before the stream which proceeds from it. The following things in Mr. Hutcheson*s inquiry con* cerning moral good and evil, are evidently agreeable to th^ nature of things, aud the voice of human sense and reason,. Section II. p. 132, 133. " Every action which we apprehend as either morally good or evil, is always supposed to fiow from some affections towards sensitiye natures. And whatever we call virtue or vice, is either soi^e such affection, or some action cor.sequent ujion it. All the actions counted religious in any country, are supposed by those who count them so, to Jlow from some afiections towards the Deity ; and whatever we call social virtue, we stjU suppose to Jlow from affections towards our fellow creatures. Prudence, if it is only employed in promoting private interest, is never imagined to be a virtUjB.** In these things Pr. Turnbull expressly agrees with Mr. Hutcheson, who is his admired author.* If a virtuous disposition or affection is before acts that proceed from it, then they are before those virtuous acts of choice which proceed from it. And therefore there is no necessity that all virtuous dispositions or affections should be the effect of choice : And so no such supposed necessity can be a good objection against such a disposition's being natural, or from ^ kind of instinct, implanted in the mind in its creation. Ar

<* Moral rkilosophy p, n2 115, p. 142, et alibi passiv}.

greeaMe to -Nvhat Mr. Hutcheson says, (Jb'id, Section III. p. 196, 197.) " I know not, says he, for what reason some will not allow that to be virtue, which flows from instinct or passions. But how do they help themselves? They say, virtue arises from reason. What is reason, but the sagacity we Jiave in prosccutinij any end ? The ultimate end proposed |)y common moralists, is the happiness of the a^ent himself. And this certainly he is determined to pursue from instinct, ^ow may not another instinct towards the public, or the good ©f others, be as proper a principle of viiiue, as the instinct to-vards private happiness ? If it be said, that actions from instinct are not the effect of prudence and choice, this objection will hold full as strongly against the actions which flow from sclflove.*'

And if we consider what Dr. Taylor declares as his own notion of the essence of virtue, we shall find, what he so confidently and often affirms, of its being essential to all virtue., that it should follow choice, and proceed from it, is no less repugnant to that, than it is to the nature of things, and the general notions of mankind. For it is his notion, as well as Mr. Hutcheson's, that the essence of virtue lies in good affection,, and particularly in benevolence or love ; as he very fully declares in these words in his Key,* ^' That the word that signifies goodness and mercy should also signify moral rectitude in general, will not seem strange, ii we consider that love is the fulfilling of the law. Goodness, according to the sense of scripture, and the nature of things,includes all moral rectitude^ which, I reckon, may every part of it, where it is true and genuine, be resolved into this single firincifileJ* If it be so indeed, then certainly no act whatsoever can have moral rec titude, but what proceeds from this firiiicifile. And consequently no act of volition or choice can b.ave any moral rectitude, that takes place before this principle exists. And yet he most confidently affirms, that thought, reflection and choice must go before virtue, and that all virtue or righteousness must be the fruit of preceding choice. This brings his

• Marginal Note annexed to.§ 358.

scheme to an evident contradiction. For no act of choice can be viriuous but what proceeds from a principle of benevolence or ijve ; for he insists that all genuine, moral rectitude, in every part of it, is resolved into this single principle ; and yet the principle of benevolence itself cannot be virtuous, unless it proceeds from choice* for he aflpirms, that nothing can have the nature of virtue but what comes from choice. So that virtuous love, as the principle of ail virtue, must go before virtuous choice, and be the principle or spring of it ; and yet virtuous choice must go before viriuous benevolence, and be the spring of that. If a virtuous act of choice goes before a principle of benevolence, and produces it, then this virtuous act is something distinct from that principle which follows it, and is its effect. So that here is at least one part of virtue, yea, the spring and source of all virtue, viz. a virtuous choice, that cannot be resolved into that single principle of love.

Here also it is worthy to be observed, that Dr. Taylor, p. 128, says, "The cause of every eifect is alone chargeable with the effect it produceth ; or which proccedeth from it -y And so he argues, thai if the effect be bad, the cause alone is sinful. According to which reasoning, when the effect is good, the cause alone is righteous or virtuous ; To the caase is to be ascribed all the praise of the good eifect it produceth. And by the same reasoning it will follow, that if, as Dr. Taylor says, Adam must choose to be righteous, before "he was righteous, and if it be essential to the nature of righteousness or moral rectitude, that it be the effect of choicej and hence a principle of benevolence cannot have moral rectitude, unless it proceeds from clioice ; then not to the principle of benevolence, which is the effect, but to the foregoing choice alone is to be ascribed all the virtue or righteousness that is in the case. And so, instead of all moral rectitude in every part of it, being resolved mto that single principle of benevolence, no moral rectitude, in any part of it, is to be resolved into that principle ; but all is to be resolved into the foregoing choice, which is the cause.

But yet it follows from these inconsistent principles, that :hcre is no moral rectitude or virtue in that first act of choice,

tKat la the cause oF all consequent virtue. This follows two "Ways : 1. Because every part of virtue lies in tlie benevolent principle, which is th» effect, and therefore no part of it can lie in the cause. 2. The choice of virtue, as to the first act at least, can have no virtue or righteousness at all, because it does not proceed from any forec^oing choice. For Dr. Taylor insists that a man must first have reflection and choice, Ixjfore he can have righteousness, and that it is essential to holines*; that it proceed from choice. So that the first choice of holiness, uhich holiness proceeds from, can have no virtue at all, because by the supposition it does not proceed from choice, being the first choice. Hence if it be essential to holiness, that it proceeds from choice, it must proceed from an unholy choice ; unless the first holy choice can be before itself, or there be a virtuous act of choice before that which is first of all.

And with respect to Adam, let us consider how, upon Dr. Taylor's principles, it was not possible he ever should have any such thing as righteousness, by any means at all. In the state wherein God created him, he could have no such thing as love to God, or any love or benevolence in his heart. For if so, there would have been original righteousness; there would have been ge^iuine moral rectitude : Nothing would have been wanting ; for our author says, True^ genuine, morat rectitude, in every part of it, is to be resolved into this singl'j firinciple. But if he were wholly without any such thing as love to God, or any virtuous love, how should he come by virtue ? The answer doubtless will be, by act of choice : He must first choose to be virtuous. But what if he did choose to be virtuous ? It could not be from love to God, or any virtuous principle, that he chose it; for, by the supposition, he has no such principle in his heart : And if he chooses it without such a principle, still, according to this author, there is no virtue in his choice ; for all virtue, he says, is to be resolved into that single pr nciple of love. Or will he say, there may be produced in the heart a virtuous benevolence by an act or acts of choice, that are not virtuous ? But this does not consist with what he implicitly asserts, that to the

cause alone is to be ascribed vrhat is in the effect. So ihfii there is no way that can possibly be devised, in consistence with Dr. Taylor's scheme, in which Arfam ever could have any righteousness, or could ever either obtain any principle of virtue, or perform any one virtuous act.

These confused, inconsistent assertion^, concerning virtue and iporal reciitude, arise from the absurd notions in vogue, concerning Freedom of Will, as if it consisted in the will's self-deter?7:im7igpo-wei\ su])]iosed to be necessary to moral agency, virtue and vice. The absurdities of which, with the grounds of these errors, and what the truth is respecting these matters, with the evidences of it, I have, according to my ability, fully and largely considered, in my Inquiry on that subject; to which I must refer the reader, who desires further satisfac-tidn, and is willing to give himself the trouble of reading that discourse.

Having considered this great argument, and pretended demonstration of Dr. Taylor's against original righteousness ? 1 proceed to the firoofs of the doctrine. And in the first place, I v;ould consider, whether there be not evidence of it in the three first chapters of Genesis: Or, whether the history there delivered, does not lead us to suppose, that our Jirst fiarents were created in a state of moral rectitude and ho* liness.

I. This history leads us to suppose, Adam's sin, with relation to the forbidden fruit, was the first sin he committed. Which could not have been, had he not always; till then, been perfectly righteous, righteous from the first moment of his existence, and consequently, created, or brought into existence righteous. In a moral agent, subject to moral obligations, it is the same thing to be perfectly mnotenty as to be perfectly righteous. It must be the same, because there can no more be any medium between sin and righteousness, or between a being right and being wrong,in amoral sense, than there can be a medium between straight and crooked, in a natural sense. Adam was brought into existence capable of acting immediately, as a moral agent, and therefore he was immediately under a rule of right ac-

taon : He ^vas ©bfiged as soon as he existed to acc right. And if he was obliged to act lii^ht as soon as he existed, he was Gbliged even then to be incliritd to act ri^ht. Dr. Taylor says, p. 166, 6\ '^ Adam could not sin without a sinful inclination ;"* And just for the same reason he could not do right<t without an inclination to light action. And as he was obliged to act ri^ht frcra the first moment of his existence, and did do so till he sinned in the affair of the forbidden fruit, he must have aa inclination or disposition of heart to do right the first mo-inent of his existence ; and that is the same as to be created or brought into existence, with an inclination to right action, or, which is the same thing, a virtuous and holy disposition of keart.

Here it will be in vain to say, it is true that it was Adam's duty to have a good disposition or inclination, as soon as ii was possible to be obtained, in the nature of things , but as it could not be without time to establish such an habit, which r^squires antecedent thought, refieclion, and repeated right afetion ; therefore all that Adam could be obliged to in the Srst place, was to reflect and consider things in a right manner, and apply himself to right action, in order to obtain a right disposition. For this supposes, that even this rcflec^ lion and consideration, which he was obliged to, was right action. Surely he was obliged to it no otherwise than as a thing that was right ; and therefore he must have an viclL^ nation to this right action immediately, before he could per-f form those first right actions. And as the inclination to them should be right, the principle or disposition from which be performed even these actions, must be good ; otherwise the actions would not be right m the sight ef him who looks at the heart ; nor would they answer the man's obligations, or be a doing his duty, if he had done them for some sinister end, and not from a regard to God and his duty. Therefore

• This is doubtless true ; for although there was no natural, sinful incli-pation in Adam, yet an inclination to that sin of eating the forbidden fruit, was begotten in him by the delusion and err .r he was led into» and this icir dination to eat the forbidden fruit, must precede his actual •ating, T

there must be a regard to God and his duty implanted in hir& at hii first existence ; otherwise it is certain he would have done nothing from a regard to God and his duty ; no, nor so-much as to rtilcct and consider, and try to obtain such a disposition. The Tery supposition of a disposition to rit^ht action being first obtained by repeated right action^ is grossly inconsistent with itself ; for it supposes a course of right action, brfore. there is a disposition to perform any right action. These are no invented quibbles or sophisms. If God expected of Adam any obedience or duty to him at all, when he first made him, whether it Avas in reflecting, considering, or any way exerting the faculties he had given him, then God expec'ed he should immediately exercise love and regard ta bim. For how could it be expected, that Adam should have a stiict and perfect regard to God*s commands and authority, and his duty to him, when he had no love nor regard to him in his hearty nor could it be expected he should have any ? If Adam from the beginning did his duty to God, and had more respect to the will of his Creator than to other things, and as much respect to him as he ought tt> have ; then fronv the beginning he had a supreme and perfect respect and love to God ; and if so, he was created with such a principle. There is no avoiding the consequence. Not only external duties, but internal duties-, such as summarily consist iiv love, must be immediately required of Adam, as soon as ho existed, if any duty at all was required. For it is most^ apparently absurd, to talk of a spiritual being, with the faculties of understanding and will, being required to perform external duties, without internal. Dr. Taylor himself observes, that iove is the fulfilling of the law, and that all moral rectitude^ even every pari of it^ must be rcsoh^ed bito that single firinciple. Therefore, if any morally right act at all, reflection, consideration, or any thing else, was required of Adam immediately, on his first existence, and was performed as required ; then he must, the first moment of his existence, have his heart possessed of that principle of divine love ; which implies the whole of moral rectitude in every part of it, according to our aulhor'6 own docu ine ; and so the whole of moral rectitude

or ri^^bteousness must begin with his existence ; "which is the thing taught iu the doctrine of Oiiginal Ris^hteousness.

And let us consider hovv it could be otherwise, than that Adam was always, in every itioment of his existence, obliged to exercise such regard or respect of heart towards every object or thin^, as was aj^reeable to the apparent nieiit of that object. For instance, would it not at any time have been a bf oominp: thin^; in Adam, on the exhibition to his mind of God's infinite goodness to him, for him to haflft exercised answerable graiitude, and the contrary have been unbecoming and odiou^ ? And if some^hinn: hinl been presented to Adam*s view, transcendently amiabl© -in i;seif, as for instance, the glorious perfection of the divine nature, would it not have become him to love, relish and delight in it I Would not such an object have merited this ? And if the view of an object so amiable in itself did not affect his mind with complacence, would it not, according to the plain dictates of our understanding, have shewn an unbecoming temper of mind ?

To say that he had not had time, by culture, to form and establish a good disposition or i^elish, is not what would have taken off the disagreeableness and odiousness of the temper. And if there had been never so much time, I do not see how it could be expected be should improve it aright, ifl order to obtain a good disposition, if he had not ah'eady some good dibposition to engage him to it.

That belonging to the will and disposiiion of the heart, which is in itself either odious or amiable, unbecoming or decent, always would have been Adam's virtue or sin, in any momtnt of his existence ; if there be any sucii thing as virtue or vice, by which nothing can be meant, but that in our moral disposition and behavior, which is becoming or unbecoming, amiable or odious. • Human nature must be created with some dispositions ; a disposiiion to relish some things as good and amiable, and to be averse to otiier things as odious and disagreeable ; otherwise it must be without any such thing as inclination or will : It must be perfectly indifferent, without preference, without choice or aversion towards atiy thing as agreeable or disa-

:48 ORIGINAL SIN*

greeable. But if it had any concreated dispositions at aij^ they must be either right or wrong, either agreeable or disa-trreeable to the nature of things. It man had at first the highest relish of those things that were m6st excellent and beautiful, a disposition to have the quickest and highest delight in those things that were most worthy of it, then his dis* positions were morally right and amiable, and never can be de« cent and excellent in a higher sense. But if he had a disposition to love most tlltese things that were inferior and less worthy, then his dispositions were vicious. And it is evident there can be no medium between these.

II. This notion of Adam's being crested without a prin-eiple of holiness in his heart, taken with the rest of Dr. Taylor's scheme, is inconsistent wuh what the history, in the beginning of Genesis, leads us to suppose of the great favors and smiles of heaven, which Adam enjoyed while he remained in innocency. The Mosaic account suggests to us that till Adam sinned he was in happy circumstances, surrounded with testimonies and fruits of God's favor. This is implicitly owned by Dr. Taylor, when he says, page 252. ''That in the dispen'^ation our first parents were under before the fall, they were placed in a condition proper to engage their gratitude, love and obedience." But it will follow on our author's principles, that Adam, while in innocency, was placed in far -Arorse circumstances than he was in after his disobedience, and infinitely worse than his posterity are in ; under unspeakably greater disadvantages for the avoiding of sin, and the performance of duty. For by his doctrine, Adam's posterity come into the world with their hearts as free from any propensity to sin as he, and he was made as destitute of any propensity to righteousness as they ; and yet God, in favor to them, does great things to restrain them from sin, and excite them to virtue, which ho never did for Adam in innocency, but li«id him, in the highest degree, under contrary disadvantages.

God, as an instance of his great favor, and fatherly love to man, since the fall, has denied him the ease and pleasures of t^ctradise, which gratified and allured his senses, and bodilv

Bkjipetites; that he might diminish his temptations to sin* And as a still greater means to restrain from sin, and promote virtue, has subjected him to lubor, toil and sorrow in the world ; and not only so, but as a means to promote his spiritual and eternal good far beyond this, has doomed him to death : And \tfticn all this was found insufficient, he, in further prosecution of the designs of his love, shortened men's lives exceedingly, made them twelve or thirteen tinr;es shorter than in the first ages. And yet this, with ali the innumerable calamities, which God in great fa^or to mankind has brought on the world, whereby their temptations are so vast-Jy cut short, and the means and inducements to virtue heaped one upon another, to so great a degree, all have proved insufficient, now for so many thousand years together, to restrain from wickedness in any considerable degree ; innocent human nature, all along, coming into the world with the same purity and harmless dispositions that our first parents had in Paradise. What vast disadvantages indeed then must Adam and Eve have been in, that had no more in their nature to keep them from sin, or incline them to virtue, than their posterity, and yet were without all those additional and extraordinary means 1 Not only without such exceeding great means as we now have, when our lives are made so very short, but having vastly less advantages than their antedilnvian posterity, who to prevent their being wicked, and to make them good, had so much labor and toil, sweat and sorrow, briers and thorns, with a body gradually decaying and returning to the dust; when our first parents had the extreme disadvantage d^ being placed in the midst of so many and exceeding great tempta--tions, not only without toil or sorrow, p:iin or disease, to humble and mortify them, and a sentence of death to wean them from the world, but in the midst of the most exquisite and alluring sensitive delights, the reverse in every respect, and to the highest degree, of that most gracious state of requisite means, and great advantages, which mankind now enjoy 1 If mankind now under these vast restraint*, and great advantages, are not restrained from gcr.eral, and as it were universal ''>icl;Gc]ness, how could it be expected that Adam and Eve,

created wih no better hearts than men bring into the world now, and destitute of all these advantages, and in the midst of all contrary disadvantages, should escape it ?

These things are not agreeable to Moses* account; -which represents an happy state of peculiar favors and blessings before the fall, and the curse coming aiterwards* but according to this scheme, the curse was before the fall, and the great favors and testimonies of love followed the apostacy. And the curse before the fall must be a curse with a witness, being to so high a degree the reverse of such means, meang so necessary for such a creature as innocent man, and in all their multitude and fulness proving too little* Paradise therefore must be a mere delusion ! There was indeed a great shew of favor, in placing man in the midst of such dclights-But this delightful garden, it seems, with all its »beauty and sweetness, was in its real tendency worse than the apples of Sodom : It was but a mere buit (God forbid the blasphemy) the more clTectually enticing by its beauty and delicious-ness, to Adam's eternal ruin ; which might be the more expected to be fatal to him, seeing that he was the first man that ever existed, having no superiority of capacity to his posterity, and wholly without the advantage ot the observations, experiences, and improvements of preceding generations ; which his posterity have.

I proceed now to take notice of an additional proof of the doctrine we are upon, from another part of the holy scripture. A very clear text for original righteousness is that-in F.ccles. vii. 29. ^ Lo, this only have I found, that God made man upright ; but they have sought out many inventions.'*

It is an observation of no weight which Dr. Taylor makes on this text, that the word man is commonly used to signify mankind in general, or mankind collectively taken. It is true, it often signifies the species of mankind ; but then it is used to signify the species, with regard to its duration and succession from its beginning, as well as with regard to its extent. The English word mankind is used to signify the species : liut what if it be so ? Would it be an improper or unintelligible way of speaking, to s-^y, that when God first made man-

ORIGINAL SIN. fit

"kind, he placed them in a pleasar.t paradise, (moaning; irt their first parents) hut now they live in the mi-lsi of briers and thorns ? And it is certain, that to speuk of God*3 making mankind in such a meaning* viz. his giving the species ait exist-ence in their first parents, at the creation of the world, is at^reeablc to the scripture use of such an expression. As ift Deut. iv. 32. *' Since the diiy ihjt God created man upon thtf ea'*tb.'* Job xx. 4. " Knowest thou not this of old, since man was placed upon the earth." Isa. xlv. 12. " I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens." Jcr. xxvii. 5. " I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power " All these texts speak of God's making man, by the word 7«a7i, signifying the species of mankind ; and yet they all plainly have respect to God*s makio?^ man at Jirst^ when God made the earth, and stretched out the heavenst and created tiic first parents of mankind. In all these places the same word Adam is iised, as here in Ecclesiastes; and in the last of them, used with he emfihaticum^ as it is here ; though Dr. Taylor omits it, when he tells us, he gives us a catalogue of all the places in scripture where the word is used. And it argues nothing to the doctor's purpose, that the pronoun they is used. They have sought out many inven* tions. Which is properly applied to the species, which God made at first upright: God having begun the species with more than one, and it being continued in a muUitnde. A% Christ speaks of the two sexes, in the relation of man and wife, as conti'iu^ha successive generations. Matth. xix. 4. « He that made them at the beginning, made them male and female ;" bavins; reference to Adam and Eve.

No less impertinent, and also very unfair, is his criticism on the word jashar^ translated iLfiright. Because the word sometimes signifies rights he would from thence infer, that it does not properly signify a moral rectitude, even when used to express the character of moral agents. He might as well insist, that the English viardufiright^ sometimes, and in its most original meaning, signifies right %ifi^ or in an erect posture, therefoi'e it does not properly signify any moral cJiarac-

ter, -when applied to moral agents ; and indeed less unreasoii-' ably ; lor it is known, that in the Hebrew language, in a peculiar manner, most words used to signify moral and spiritual thin's, arc taken from lhin^!;s external and natural. The word jaskar is used, as applied to moral agents, or to the words and actions of such, (if i have not misreckoned*) about an hundred and ten times in scripture ; and about an hundred of them, without all dispute, to signify virtue, or moral rectitude, though Dr. Taylor is pleased to say, the word does not generally signify a moral character) and for the most part it signifies true virtue^ or virtue in such a sense, as distinguishes it from all false appearances of virtue, or what is only virtue in some respects, but not truly so in the sight of God. It is used at least eighty times in this sense : And scarce any word can be found in the Hebrew language more significant of this. It is thus used constantly in Solomon's writings, (where it is often found) when used to express a character or property of moral agents. And it is beyond all controversy, that he uses it in this place, in the 7th of Ecclesiastes to signify a moral rectitude, or character of real virtue and integrity. For the wise man, in this context, is speaking of men with respect to their moral character, inquiring into the corruption and depravity of mankind (as is confessed p. 184) and he here declares, he had not found more than one among a thousand of the right stamp, truly and thoroughly virtuour> and upright; which appeared a strange thing ! But in ihis text he clears God, and lays the blame on man : Man was noi made thus at first. He was made of the right stamp, altogether good in his kind, (as all other things were) truly and thoroughly virtuous, as he ought to be ; but they have sought out many inventions. Which last expression signifies things sinful, or morally evil ; as is confessed, p. 185. And this expression, used to signify those moral evils he found in man, which he sets in opposition to the uprightness roan was made in, shews, that by uprightness he means the most true and

♦ Making use of Buxtorf's Concordance, which, according to the author's professed design, directs to all the plaecs where the word is used.

ORIGINAL SIN, M$

smcere goodness. The word rendered inventions, roost naturally and aptly sij^nifies the subtle devices, and crooked, deceitful ways of hypocrites, wherein they are of a character contrary to men of simplicity and godly sincerity ; wh«>i though wise in that which is good, are simple concerning evil. Thus the same wise man, in Prov. xii. 2, sets a t»'uly good man in opposition to a man of nvicked devices^ whom God will condemn. Solomon had occasion to observe many who put on an artful disguise and fair shew of goodness ; but on search* ing thoroughly, he found very few truly upright. As he says, Prov. XX. 6. ** Most met\ will proclaim every one his own goodness : But a faithful man who can find ?" So that it is exceeding plain, that by uprightness, in this place in Ecclesi-astes, Solomon means true n»ral goodness.

What our author urges concerning many inventions being spoken of, whereas Adam's eating the forbidden fruit was but one invention, is of as little weight as the resrof wliat he says on this text. For the many lusts and corruptions of mankind, appearing in innumerable ways of sinning, are all the consequence of that sin. The great corruption men are fallen in» to by the original apostasy^ appears in the multitude of wicked ways they are inclined to. And therefore these are property tnentioned as the fruits and evidences of the greatness of tha;; apostasy and corruption.

.*;.&i

SECTION XL

Concerning the kind of Death, threatened to our Jirst ParerHa^ if they should eat of the Forbidden Fruit.

BR. TAYLOR, in his observations on the three first chapters of Genesis, says, p. 7. " The threatening to man, in case cf transgression was, that he should surely die. Death V

\^ ORIGINAL SIN.

is the losing of IH'e. Death is opposed to life, and must be mklei.stood accoidinii^ to the nature of that life, to which it is opposed. Now the death here threatened can, with any cer-v;iinty, be opposed only to the life God gave Adam, when he created him, verse 7. Any thing besides this iiiust be pure conjecture, without solid foundation."

, To this 1 vould say, It is true, dea(/i is ofifioscd to l[fe^ and must be vndcrstcod according to the nature of that life^ to which it is ofifioscd : But doet* it therefore follow, that nothing can be meant by it but the loss of life ? Misery is opposed to happiness, and sorrow is in scripture often opposed to joy ; but can we conclude from thence, that nothing is meant in scripture by sorrow, but the loss of joy ? Or that there is no more in misery, than the loss or absence of happiness ? And if it be so, that the death threatened to Adam can, with certainty, be opposed pnly to the life given to ^da?n, ivheji God created him; 3 think, a state of perfect, perpetual and hopeless misery i« properly opposed to that state Mum ivas in, when God created him. For I suppose it will not be denied,, that the life Adaiii Jiad, was truly a hapfiij life ; happy in perfect innocency, in the favor of his maker, surrounded with the happy fruits and testiinouics of his love ; And I think it has been proved, that l}e also was happy in a state of perfect righteousness. And nothing is more manifest, than that it is agreeable to a very common acceptation of the word life^ in scripture, that it be ■ understood as signifying a stale of excellent and happy existence. jNow that which is most opposite to that life and state Adam nv'.is created in, is a state of total, confirmed wickedness, and perfect hopeless misery, under the divine displeasure and curse ; not excluding temporal death, or the destruction of the body, as an introduction to it.

And besides, that which is much more evident, than anything Dr. Taylor says on this head, is this, viz. that the death, which was to come on Adam, as the punishment of his disobedivncey was opposed to that life, which he would have had as the reward of his obedience in case he had not sinned. Obedience and dinobcdicncc are contraries : And the threaten^ ings and fij'omiscs, that are sanctions of a law, arc set in direct

ORIGINAL STN. r55

opposition ; and the firoiniscd rewards and threatened fiunish-7nfntny are what are most properly taken as each other's oppo-sites. But none will deny, that the life which would have been Adam's reward, if he had persisted in obedience, wa» eternal life. And therefore we ari^ue justly, that the death which stands ofi/ioscd to that life (Dr. Taylor himself being jud^, p. 120. S.) is manifestly eternal deaths a death ividcly different from the death ive now dic....{o use his own words. It**Adam, for his persevering obediencey vf^% to have had ever-lasting life a?id hap/iiness, in perfect holiness^ union witii his tnaker, and enjoyment of his favor^ and this was the life which >yas to be confirmed by the tree of life ; then doubtless the death threatened in case ot disol^edience, which stands in direct opposition to this, was a being given over to everlasting Kuickedness and 77iigeru', in sefyaration finym God^ and in ■endur'. ing his nvratk.

And it may with the ^-reatest reason be supposed, that when God first made mankind, and made known to them the methods of his moral government towards them, in the revelation he madeof himself to the natural head of the whole species ; and let him know, that obedience to him was expected as his duty ; and enforced this duty with the sanction of a threatened punishment, called by the name -o^ death ; I say, we may with the greatest reason suppose in such a case; that by death was meant that same death which God esteem>^d to be the most proper punishment of the sin of mankind, and which he speaks of under that name, throughout the scripture, as the proper wages of the sin of man, and was always ftom tlie beginning understood to be so in the chuvch of God. It would be strange indeed, if it should be otherwise. It would have been strange, if when the law of God was first given, and enforced by the threatening of a punishment, nothing at all had been mentioned of that great punisl>ment, ever spoken of under the name of death, (in the revelations which he has given to mankind from age to age) as ihe proper punishinent of the sin of mankind. And it would be no less strange, if "When the punishment which was mentioned and threatened on that occasion, was called by the same name, even deaths

Y^ OTIIGINAL SIN.

yet wc tnupt not understand it to mean the same thing, but something infinitely diverse, and infinitely more inconsider-

ftble.

But now let us consider what that death ia, which the scripture ever speaks of as the proper wages of the sin of mankind, and is spoken of as such by God's saints in all ages of the church, from the first beginning of a written revelation, to the conclusion of it. I will begin with the New Testament. When the Apostle Paul says, Rom. vi. 23. the ludgts of sin is death, Dr. Taylor tells us, p. 120. S. that " this means eternal death, the second death, a death widely different from the death we now die." The same apostle speaks of death as the proper punishment due for sin, in Rom. vii. «. and chap. viii. 13. 2 Cor. iii. 7. 1 Cor. xv. 56. In all which places, Dr. Taylor himself supposes the apostle to intend eternal death.* And when the Apostle Jarnes speaks of death as the proper reward, fruit, and end of sin. Jam. i. 15. ** Sin when it is finished bringeth forth death." It is manifest that our author supposes eternal destruction to be meant.f And the Apostle John, agreeable to Dr. Taylor's sense, speaks of the second death as that which sin unrepented of will bring all men to at last. Rev. ii. ll.xx. 6. 14. and xxi. 8. In the same sense the Apostle John uses the word in his 1st epistle, chap. iii. 14. " We know, that we have passed from deaCh to life, because we love the brethren : He that hateth his brother, abldeth in death.

In the same manner Christ used the word from time to time when he was on earth, and spake concerning the punishment and issue of sin. John v. 24. " He that heareth my -word, and believeth, &c. hath everlasting life ; and shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed from death to life." Where, according to Dr. Taylor's own way of arguing, it

♦ 5w p. 78. Note on Rom. vii. 5. and Note on verse 6. Note on Rom, ▼ , 20, Note on Rom. vii. 8.

+ By comparing what he says. p. 126, with what he often stys of that death and destruction which is the demerit and end of personal sin which

tannot be the death which we now die, that Christ speaks of, but eternal death, because it is set in opposition to everlastinp^ Hfe. John vi. 50. This is the bread which comcth down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die." Chap, viii. 51. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.** Chap. xi. 26. *' And who-soever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die." In which places it is plain Christ does not mean that believers shall never see temporal death. See also Matth. x. 28, and Luke X. 28. In like manner, the word was commonly used by the prophets of old, when they spake of death as the proper end and recompense-of sin. So, abundantly by the Prophet fc^zo^ kiel. Ezek. iii. 18. "When I say unto the wicked man, thou shalt surely die.** In the original it is, Dyi/jg- thou s/ialf die. The same form of expression, which God used in the threatening to Adam. We have the same words again, chap. xxxiii. 18. In chap, xviii. 4, it is said, The noul that sinnethy it shall iWe. To the like purpose are chap. iii. 19,20, and xviii. 4, 9, 13, 17....2 I, 24,:^6, 28, chap, xxxiii. 8, 9, 12, 14, 19. And that temporal death is not meant in these places is plain, because it is promised most absolutely, that the righteous sh^ll not die the death spoken of. Chap, xviii. 21. Ne ehatl surely live, he shall not die. So verses 9, 17, 19, and 22, and chap. iii. 21. And it is evident the Prophet Jeremiah uses the word in the same sense. Jer. xxxi. 30. Every one shall die/or his own iniquity. And the same death is spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah. Isai. xi. 4. IVith the breath of his lifin shall he slay the luicked. See also chap. Ixvi. 16, with verse 24. Solomon, who we must suppose was thoroughly acquainted with the sense in which the word was used by the wise, and by the ancients, continually speaks of death as the proper fruit, issue, and recompense of sin, using the word only in this sense. Prov. xi. 19. Js righteoumess tcndcth to life, 80 he tliat fmrsueth evil^ fiursueth it to his ovm death. So chap. V. 5, 6, 23, vii. 27, viii. 36, ix. 18, x. 21, xf. 19, xiv. 12, XV. 10, xviii. 21, xix. 16, xxi. 16, and xxiii. 13, 14. In these places he cannot mean temporal death, for he often speaks of it as a punishment of the wicked, wbciein the righteous shall

certainly be distinguished from them ; as in Prov. xii. 28. In the ivaxj of righteousness is Ufe^ and in the pathway thereof is no death. So in chap. x. 2, xi. 4, xiii. 14, xiv. 27, and many-other places. But we find th?s same wise man observes, that as to temporal death, and temporal events in general, there is TiO distinction, but that they happen alike to i^ood and bad. Eccl.ii. 14,15, 16, viii. 14, and ix.2,3. His words are remark* able in Eccl. vii. 15. " There is a just man ihut fierisheth in his I'i.^hleousness, and there is a wicked man thdii firolong-eth his life in his wickedness." So we find David, in the Book of Psalms, uses the v»-ord death in the same sense,'vvhen he speaks of it as the proper wages and issue of sin. Psal. xxxiv. 21. "Evil shall s/az/the wicked." He speaks of it as a certain thing, Psal. cxxxix. 19. « Surely thou wilt «/ay the wicked,

0 God." And he speaks of it as a thing wherein the^wicked are distinguished from the righteous. Psalm Ixix. 28. « Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be writ-\en with the righteous." And thus we find the word death used in the Pentateuch, or Books of Moses ; in which part of the Scripture it is, that we have the account of the threatening of death to Adam. When death, in these books, is spoken ot" as the proper fruit, and appointed reward of sin, it is to be understood of eternal death. So Deut. xxx. 15. " See,

1 have set before thee this dav life and good, and death and evil." Verse 19. "1 call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and deathy blessing and cursing." The life that is spoken of here, is doubtless the same that is spoken of in Levit. xviii. 5. " Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them." Tliis the apostle understands n{eternal ///<?, as is plain by Rom. x. 5, and Gal. iii. 12. But that the death threatened for sm in the law of Moses, meant eternal death, is what Dr. Taylor abundantly declares. So in his Note on Rom. v. 20, Par. p. 291. *' Such a constitution the law of Moses was, subjecting those who were under it to deaih for every transgression ; meaning by death eternal death.'* These are his words. I'he like he asserts in n»any other places. When it is said, in the place row men-

tioned, I have set before thee life and death, blccsinff and cursing, without doubt, the same blea»i7ig and cursing' is meant which God had aheady set before them with such solemnity, in the 27th and 28ih chapters, where we have the sum of the curses in those last words of the 27ih chapter," Cur-ied is every one, which confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.'* Which the apostle speaks of as a threateninir of eternal death, and with him Dr. Taylor himself.* In this sense also Job and his friends, spake of death, as the wages and end of sin, who lived before any written revelation, and had their rclii:^ion and their phraseology about the things of religion from the ancients.

If any should insist upon it as an objection against supposing that death was intended to signify eternal death in the threatening to Adam, that this use of the word is figurative ; I reply, that though this should be allowed, yet it is by no means so figurative as many other phrases used in the history contained in these three chapters ; as when it is said, God mid J Let there be light : God said, Let there be a firmament, &c. as though God spake such words with a voice. So when it is said, God called the light, day : God called the firmament, heaven, Sec. : God rested on the seventh day ; as though he had been weary, and then rested. And when it is said. They heard the i/o/c<? of God walking ; as tho-jgh the: Deity had two feet, and took steps on the ground. Dr. Taylor supposes, that when it is said of Adam and Eve, "* Their eyes were opened, and they saw that they were naked ;" by the word naked is meaui a state of guilt ; page 12. Which sense of the word naked^ is much further from the common use of the word, than the supposed sense of the word death. So this author supposes the promise concerning the seed oT the woman's bruisi?ig the serfient's head^ while the serpent should bruise his heel, is to be understood of " the Messiah's destroying the power and sovereignty of the Devil, and rc-receiving some slight hurt from him ;" pages 15, 16. Which makes the sentence full of figures, vastly more beside the common use of words. And why might not God deliver

• Note on Rom. v. 20. Par. p. 291—299.

ihre:ateniTi|;s to cur first parents in figurative cxpressionsi aft well as promises ? Many otlier strong figures are used in these chapters.

But indeed, there is no necessity of supposing the vford death, or the Hebrew word so iranshtted, if used in the manner that lias been supposed, to have been figurative at all. It does not appear but that this word, in its true and propei' meaning, might signiiy perfect misery, and sensible destruction, though the word was also applied to signify something more external and visible. There are many words in our language, such as hearty .ferisft view, discovery^ coneefitionflight., and many ethers, which are applied to signify external things, as that muscular part of llie body called heart ; external feeling, culled sense ; the sight of the bodily eye, called -uienv ; the finding of a thing by its being uncovered, called discovery ^ the first beginning of the foetus in the womb, called ronc^:"^-tion ; and the rays of the sun, called light : Yet these words do as truly and properly signify other things of a more spiritual, internal nature, as those : Such as the disposition, affection, perception, and thought of the mind, and manifestation and evidence to the soul. Common use, which governs the propiiety of language, makes the latter things to be as rfiuch signified by those words, in their proper meaning, as the former. It is especially common in the Hebrew, and I »nppo?c, other oriental languages, that the same word that signifies something external, does no less properly and usually signify something more spiritual. So the Hebrew words \!sed for breath, have such a double signification ; jVe^hama signifies both breaih and the noul, and the latter as commonly as the former. Ruach is used for breath or wmrf,but yet more commonly signifies sfiint. Xcfihesh is used for breath., but yet more commonly signifies safuL So the word Icbh^ hearty no kbs properly signifies I'ne aoiil, especially with regard to the will and afl'ections, than that part of the body so called. The word .s7ia/o7n, which we render/?i?ace, no less properly signifies prosperity and happiness, than mutual agreement. The word translated Itfe, signifies the natural life of the body, and :i:-o the perfect and happy stale of sensible, active being*

bttrciNAL Sim wj:

fjtld the latter as properly as the forTner. So the word f/carA fei?i»ifies deslruclion, as to outward sensibility^ activity and enjoyment ; but it has most evidently another si'unification, Which, in the Hebrew tongue, is no less proper, \\z* iierfect^ se?i.ubky hoficless ruin and misery,

I" is therefore wholly without reason uri^ed, that death properly signifies only the loss of this present life ; and that therefore nothinp: else was meant by that death which was threatened for eatini< the forbidden fruit. Nor does it at all appear but that Adam, who, from what God said concerning the seed of the woman, that was so very fi<j;urative, could understand, that relief was promised as to the death which was • threatened, (as Dr. Taylor himself supposes) understood the death that was threatened in the more important sense ; especially seein^;^ temporal death, as it is ori8;mally, and in itself- is evermore, excepting as changed by divine grace, an introduction or entrance into that gloomy, dismal state of mia-ery, winch is shadowed forth by the dark and awful circumstances of this death, naturally sugc^esiing to the mind the most dreadful state of hopeless, sensible ruin.

As to that objection which some have made, that the phrase, dying thou shalt die^ is several times used in the Books of Moses, to signify temporal death, it can be of no force ; For it has been shewn already, that the same phrase is sometimes used in scripture to signify eternal death, in instances much more parallel with 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 v/ord 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 of it, or the certainty of it, &c. When we would signify and impress these, we commonly put an emphasi ^^n ouF words : Instead of this, the Hebrews, when they wo^.d 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 W

loi ORIGINAL SIN.

implies the solemnity and importance of the threatemTigi But God may denounce either etemal or temporal death with pcrcmplorincss 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 ihrca'ening is much to be regarded. Though it be true, that it might in an especial manner be expected that a threat* cning of eternal death^would be denounced with great emphasis, such a threattniiig being infmitely important, and to be J egardcd above all others.

SECTION III.

UVierein it ia inquired^ %vhether there be any thing in the hist or'^ of the three first cliajUers of Geiusis^ which should lead us to iiUfifiose that Godj in his constitution with Adam.^ dealt with, mankind in general, as included in their hrst father, and that the thrtatcriing ofdeath^ in case he should eat the for" bidden fruit, had resjiect not only to him, but his posterity ?

DR. TAYLOR, rehearsing that threatening to Adam, Thou shall nurely dic^ and giving us his paraphrase of it, p. T, 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 Lve, 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 werds 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 fe as much of a luord of his posterity in that threateninj;, as ir\ those words, verse 29. " Behold, I have given you every herb beaiint^ seed....and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed," &c. Even when (iod 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,'* Sec. And, what is more remarkable, there is as much of a word said about Adam'^s posterity in the threatening of ^eath, ns there is in that sentence, Gen- iii. 19. " Unto dust shaltthou return." Which Dr. Taylor himself supposes to fee a sent-ence pronounced for the execution of that very threatening, " Thou shalt surely die ;" and which sentence \iC himself also oft-en speaks of as including Adam's posterity j and what is much more remarkable still, is a sentence which Dr. Taylor himself often speaks of, as including his posterity^ €s a sentence of condemnation^ as a judicial sentence, and a sentence which God proiwunced with regard to Adam's/ios-terity^ aciing the part ofaJudge^ 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 be7i('Jit of the liighest nature upon them.*

But I shall shew that I do not in any of these things falsely charge, or misrepresent Dr. Taylor. He speaks of the sentence in chap. iii. 19, as pronounced in pursuance of the threatening in the former chapter, in these words, pages 17, 18. « The sentence upon man, verses ir, 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 labor, till he should die, and drop into the ground, from whence he was taken. Thus death entered by

♦Page 27,5,

sin into t^e world, anci pian became mortal,** qccording tc fhs^ Mveaiening in the former chapter ^ Now, if mankind becomes inoria!, and must die, according to the ihreaieninj; in the foi> Hicr chapter, then doubtless the threatenintj: in the former chapter, Thnu shult llifj had respect not only to 7\(lam, but tq jnankind, and included Adam's posterity. Yea, and Dr. Taylor is express in it, and very often so, 'hat the sentence concerning droppino^ into the i^round, or returning to the dustj did include Adam's posterity. So, page 20, speaking there of that sentence, *' Observe, (says he) that we their posterity arc in fact sybjected to the same affliction and mortality, here by sentence inflicted upon cur first parents. Page 42, Note, But yet men through that long tract, were all subject to death, therefore they must be included in the semesnce.'^ The. same he affirms in innumerable other places, some of which I shall have occasion to mention presently.

The sentence wliich is founded on the threatening, and^ fts Dr. Taylor says, according! to (he threcitening, extends to a5 many as were included in the threatening, and to no more, Ifihe sentence be upon a collective subject, infinitely, (as it -were) the greatest part of which were not included in the threatening, nor were ever threatened at all by any threatening whatsoever, then certainly this sentence is not according tc the threatening^ nor built upon ir. If the sentence be ac" cording to the threatening, then we may justly explain the threatening by the sentence ; and if we find the sentenca spoken to the same person, to whom the threatening was spoken, and spoken in the second person singular, in like manner with the tlireatening, nm\ founded on the threatening, and according to the threatening ; 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 peprescntativc of his posterity.

• Tlx •uhscqufnt part of the quotation, the rooaer will not meet with io Cx Ihird edition of Dr. Taylor, but in the fccood of 1741,

' And we may also further infer from it, in [inother respect iireclly contrary to Dr. Taylor's tloctrine, tliat the sentence "Virhich included .4dam-s posterity, was to deaih^as apunUhiyumi to that posterity, as well as to Adam hinyielf. For a sentcnc» pronounced in execution of a thrcjjtening. is to a punish-nentw Threatenings are of punishments. ^Jeither (iod nor man aro vont to threaten others ^vith favors and benefits.

But lest any of this author's admirers should stand toity that it may very properly, be said, God threatened mr.'.nkind with bestowina; great kindness upon them, I would observe^* ^at Dr. Taylor often speaks of this sentence as prononnced by God on all mankind as condemning- them, speaks of it as tL sentence of condemnation judicially fti^onouricedii or a sentence ■which God pronounced ,on ail mankind acting as their judgcp and in a judicial firoceeding. Which 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 afBiction and mortality, he calls it a judicial act of condemnation. « The judicial act of condenmation (says he) clearly implies, a taking him to pieces, and turning him to the ground fsonn 'whence he was taken." And p. 28, 29, Note. " in all the scripture froni one end to the other, there is recorded but one judifment to condemnation^ Vk^hich came upon all me?i, and that is, Gen. iii. 17... 19. Dust thou art," Sec. P. 40, speakino- of ihe same, he says, ^^ all men 2iVQ brought under condemnation." In p. 27, 28. " By judgment, judgment to condemnation, it ap-pearcth evidently to me? he (Paul) means the being adj^idged to the forementioned death ; he mc'^ns the sentence of death, of a general mortality, pro?iounced ujion mankind^ in consequence Qf Adam's first transgression. And the condemnation inflicted by \hejudg^nent of God, answeveth to, and is in effect the same thing with being dead." P. 50. " The many, that is mankinds were subject to death by the judicial act of God.'* P. 31. "Being made dinners, may very well signifj'', being adjudged^ or condenmed to death. For the Hebrew word &c. signifies to make one a sinner by 2i judicial se?itence, or to condemn.** P. 178. Par. on Rom. v. 19. " Upon the account of <aijie man's disobedience, mankind were judicially constituted

ainmrs ; that is, subiected to death, by the sentence of iGo3 t^ejudge" And there are many other places where he repeats ihe same thing. And it is pretty remarkable, that in p. 48,49, immediately after citinc^ Prov. xvii. 15. "He that justifii th the vicked, and he that condemneth the ju5t, are both an ahominntion to the Lord ;" and v/hen he is careful in citing these words to pr.t us in mind, that it is meant of ayw-dicial 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 condsmnatiofi^ is death's coming upon alliven^ by the judicial act of God^ upon occasion of Adam's transgression : So, S?.c." And it is very remarkable, that in p. 3, 4,7. «S, he insists, " That in scripture no action is said to be imputed, reckoned, or accounted to any person for right** eousness 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 Jiidgc<f even to condomiation, &xid judicially constituted sinners, and so subjected to 2^ judicial sentence of covdemr,ation^ on occasion of Adam's sin ; and all according to the threatening denounced to Adam, thou shall surely die : Though he supposes Adam's posterity were not included in the threatening, and are looked upon as perfectly innocent, and treated wholly ag such.

I am sensible Dr. Taylor does not run into all this incon« slstencc, 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 5th 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 v/erc made sinners." And I am ulso 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 threaten-

!ng6f the Taw, and into the hands of the judpjc, to be disposed of as he should tliink fit: And that this is the ground of the judgment-to condemnation, cominj> upon all men."* But this is trifling, to a great degree : For,

1. Suffering deaih, and failing of possible existence, are entirely different things. If there had never been any sucb 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 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 dy Jdam's ^in, the possible existence of his fiostcrityfell into the hands of the judge^ to b: disfiosed of as he should think ft. But there was no need of any sin of Adam's, or anybody's 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 by God's sovereign appointment, infinite numbers of possible beings, "without any relation to Adam, or any other sinning being, do fail of their possible existence. And if Adam had never sin-Tied, 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 un^ reasonable 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 in that case, it "would not have been possible, that any other persons of his posterity should ever have existed, than those individual persons, who now actually fall under that sentence of suffering death, and returning 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

* Page go, gi 95.

Ui OtllGlNAL SIJ?.

possible posterity of nil them that were destroyed by the^oo^^ and the possible postcuiy of the innumerable nniliitudes which we read of in scripture, destroyed l)v sword, pestilence, &C. And if the threatening to Ad.im reached his posterity in no other respect than this, that they were liable to be deprived by it of il'.cir possible existence, ihen these instances are niuch more properly a fulfilment of that threatenine^, than the suffering of death by siich as actually come into e:%istence ; and so is that which is most properly the judgment to condem-rotion, executed by the sentence of the judge, proceeding on the foot of that threatening. But where do we ever find thifi so represented in scripture ? We read of multitudes cut off for their personal sins, who thereby failed of their possible posterity. And these arc mentioned as God's judgments on them, and effects of God's condemnation of them : But when arc they ever spoken of as God'sjudicially proceeding against, and ccndcmnine; their possible posterity ?

4. Dr. Taylor, in what he says concerning- this matterj speaks of the threatening of the law delivered to Adam, which the possible existence of his posterity fell under, cs the ground flf the judgment to condemnation coming upon all men. But herein he is exceedins; inconsistent with himself; for he af-lirms in a place forecited, that the scripture never speaks of any sentence of condemnation coming upon all men, but that sentence in the third of Genesis, concerning man's turning to dust. But according to him, the threatening of the law delivered to Adam, could not be the ground of that sentence ; for he greatly insists upon it, that that law was entirely abrogated before that sentence was pronounced, that this law at that time was not in beings had no existence to have any such influence, as might procure a sentence of death ; and that therefore this sentence was introduced entirely «n another foot, viz. on the foot of a new dispensation of grace. The reader mny see this matter strenuously urged, and particularly argued by hini,p. 113...220. 8. So that this sentence could not, according to him, have the threatening of that law for its ground, as he supposes ; for it never stood upon that ground. It could not be called a judgment of condemnation imder any

DftlGINAt StN. m

auch view ; for it could not be viewed under circumstances \inder which it never existed.

5. If it be as our author supposes, that the sentence of death on all mon comes under the notion of a judgttient to condemnation by this means, viz. that the threatening to Adam was in some respect the ground of it; then it also comes under the notion of a punishment: For threatenings annexed to breaches of laws, are to punishments ; and a judgment of condemnation to the thing threatened, must be to punishment ; and the thing condemned to, must have as much the notion of a punishment, as the sentence has the notion of a judgment to condemnation. I^ut this, Dr. Taylor wholly denies : He denies that the death sentenced to, comes as any punishment at all, but insists that it comes only as afavor and benefit, and a fruit of fatherly love to Adam's posterity, respected, not as guilty, but wholly innocent. So that his scheme will not admit of its coming under the notion of a sentence to condemnation in any respect Whatsoever. Our author's supposition, that the possible existence of Adam's posterity comes under the threatening of the law, and into the hands of the judge, and is the ground of the condemnation of all men to death, implies, that death, by this sentence, is appointed to mankind as an evil, at least negatively so ; as it is a privation of good r For he manifestly speaks of a nonexistence as a negative evil. But herein he is inconsistent with himself: For he continually insists, that mankind are subjected to death only as a beji' efit^ as has been before shewn. According to him, death is not appointed to mankind as a negative evil, as any cessation of existence, as any cessation or even diminution of good ; but on the contrary, as a means of a more hafifiy existence^ and a great increase of good.

So that thio evasion, or salvo of Dr. Taylor's, is so far from helping the matter, or salving the inconsistence, that it increases it.

And that the constitution or law, with the threatening of

death annexed, which was given to Adan>, was to him as the

head of mankind, and to his posterity as included in him, not

only follows from some of our author's own assertions^ and

the plain and full declarations of the apostle, in the fifth of Romans (of which more afterwards) which drove Dr. Taylof into such gross inconsistencies : But the account given in the three first chapters of Genesis, directly and inevitably leads U3 to such a conclusion.

Though the sentence, Gen. iii. 19. Unto dust thou shaU rcttim^ be not of equal extent with the threatening in the foregoing chapter, or an execution of the main curse of the law therein denounced ; for, that it should have been so, would have been inconsistent with the intimations of mercy just before given : Yet it is plain, this sentence is in pursuance of that threatening, being to something that was included in it. The words of the sentence were delivered to the same per-bon, with the words of the threatening, and in the same manlier, in like singular terms, as much without any express mention of his posterity ; And yet it manifestly appears by the consequence, as well as all circumstances, that his posterity were included in the words of the sentence ; as is confessed on all hands. And as the words were apparently delivered in the form of the sentence of a judge, condemning for something that he was displeased with, and ought to be condemned, viz. sin ; and as the sentence to him and his posterity was but one, dooming to the same suffering, under the same circumstances, both the one and the other sentenced in the same v'ords, spoken but once, and immediately to but one person^ we hence justly infer, that it was the same thing to both ; and not as Dr. Taylor suggests, p. 67, a sentence to a proper punishment to Adam, but a mere promise of favor tp his posterity.

Indeed, sometimes our author seems to suppose, that God meant the thing denounced in this sentence, as a favor both to Adam and his posterity.* But to his posterity, or mankind in general, who are the main subject, he ever insists, that it was purely intended as a favor. And therefore, one would have thought the sentence should have been delivered, with manifestations and appearances of favor, and not of an-

* Page £5, 45, ^6. S,

^er. How could Adam understand it as a promise of great favor, considering the manner and circumstances of the denunciation ? How could he think, that God would go about to delude him, by clothing himself with garments of vengeance, .using words of displeasure and rebuke, setting forth the hci-iiousness of his crime, attended with cherubimsand a flaming sword ; when all that he meant was only higher testimonies of favor, than he had before in a state of innocence, and to manifest fatherly love and kindness, in promises of great blessings ? If this was the case, God's words to Adam must be understood thus : " Because thou hast done so wickedly, bast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it; therefore I will be more kind to thee than I was in thy state of innocence, and do now appoint for thee the following great favors : Cursed be the ground for thy sake^" &c. And thus Adam must understand what was said, unless any will say (and God forbid.that any should be so blasphemous) that God clothed himself with appearances of displeasure, to deceive Adam, and make him believe the contrary of what he intended, and lead him to expect a dismal train of evils on his posterity, contrary to all reason and justice, implying the most horribly unrighteous treatment of millions of perfectly innocent creatures. It is certain there is not the least appearance in what God said, or the manner of it, as Moses gives us the account, of any other, than that God was now testifying displeasure, condemning the subject of the sentence he was pronouncing, as justly exposed to punishment for sin, and for that sin which he mentions.

When God was pronouncing this sentence, Adam doubtless understood, that God had respect to his posterity, as well as himself, though God spake wholly in ihc second person singular, << Because thou hast eaten....In sorrow shalt thou eat ....Unto the dust shalt thou return." But he had as much reason to understand God as having respect to his posterity, when he directed his speech to him in like manner in the threatening. Thou shalt surely die. The sentence plainly refers to the threatening, and results from it. The threatening

says, Jf thou caty thou shalt die : The sentence says, Be^ cause thou hast eaten^ thou shalt die. And Moses, who wrote the account, had no reason to doubt but that the affair would be thus understood by his readers ; for such a way oi speaking; was well understood in those days : The history he gives us of the origin of things, abounds with it. Such a manner of speaking to the first of the kind, or heads pf the race, having respect to the progeny, is not only used in almost every thing that God said to Adam and Eve, but even in what he said to ihc very birds and fishes, Gen. i, 22 ; and also in what he said afterwards to Noah, Gen. ix. and to Shem, Ham and Japhelh, and Canaan, Gen. ix. 25....27. So in promises made to Abraham, in which God directed his speech to him, and spake in the second person singular, from time to tinie, but meant chiefly his posterity : *< To thee will I give this land. In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed," &c. See. And in what is said of Ishmael, as of his person, but m.eant chiefly of his posterity. Gen. xvi. 12, and xvii. 20. And so in what Isaac said to Esau and Jacob, in his blessing ; in which he spake to them in the second person singular, but meant chiefly their posterity. And so for the most part in the proni-ises made to Isaac and Jacob, and in Jacob's blessing of Eph-^ raim and Manasseh, and of his twelve sons.

But I shall take notice of one or two things further, shewing that Adam's posterity were included in God's establishment with him, and the threatening denounced for his sin ; and that the calamines which come upon them in consequence of his sin, are brought on thcra as punishments.

This is evident from the curse on the ground ; which, if it be any curse at all, comes equally on Adam's posterity with Ijimsclf. And if it be a curse, then against whomsoever it is desigfied and on whomsoever it terminates, it comes as a punishment, and not as a blesiing, so far as it comes in conse* quence of that sentence.

Dr Taylor, page 19, says, " A curse is pronounced upon the gror.j.d, but no curse upon the woman and the man." And in pages 45, 46, 6'. he in^isls that the ground only was cursed, and not the man ; just as though a curse oould ter^

Xninate on lifeless, senseless earth I To understand this curse otherwise than as terminating upon man through the ground, would be as senseless as to suppose the meaning to be, The ground shall be fiunishetU a^^d shall be mifierable for thy sake. Our author interprets the curse on the ground, of its being incumbered with noxious weeds ; but would these weeds have been any curse on the ground, if there had been no inhabitants, or if the inhabitants had been of s\ich a nature, that these weeds would not have been noxious, but useful to them ? It is said, Deut. xxviii. 17, « Cursed shall be thy gasket, and thy store ;" and would he not be thought to talk very ridiculously, who should say, " Here is a curse upon the basket, but not a word of any curse upon the owner ; and therefore we have no reason at all to look upon it, as any punishment upon him, or any testimony of God's displeasure towards him." How plain is it, that when lifeless things, which are not capable of either benefit or suffering, are said to be cursed or blessed with regard to sensible beings, that Vse or possess these things or have connexion with them, the meaning must be, that these sensible beings are cursed or blessed in the other, or with respect to them ! In Exod. xxiii. 35, it is said, " He shall bless thy bread and thy water." And I suppose, never any body yet proceeded to such a degree of Bubtilty in distinguishing, as to say, " Here is a blessing on the bread and the water, which went into the possessors* mouths, but no blessing on them." To make such a distinction with regard to the curse God pronounced on the ground, would in some respects be more unreasonable, be-jcause God is express in explaining the matter, declaring that it was/or 7nan*s sake, expressly referring this curse to hifn^ as being with respect to him, and for the sake of his guilt, and as consisting in the sorrow and suffering he should have from it. ♦' In sorrow shalt thou eat of it. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee." So that God*s own words tell us where the curse terminates. The words are parallel with those in Deut. xxviii. 16, but only more plain and explicit, "Cursed ishalt thou be in the field," or in the ground.

If this part of the sentence was pronounced under no no* tion of any curse or punishment at all upon mankind, but on the contrary, as making an alteration in the ground, that should be for the better^ as to them ; that instead of the sweet, but tempting, pernicious fruits of paradise, it might produce wholesome fruits, more for the health of the soul ; that it might bring forth thorns and thistles, as excellent medicines, to prevent or cure moral distempers, diseases which would issue in eternal death ; 1 say, if what was pronounced was under this notion, then it was a blessing on the ground, and not a curse ; and it might more properly have been said, " Blessed shall the ground be for thy sake. I will make a happy change in it, that it may be a habitation more fit for a creature so infirm, and so apt to be overcome with temptation, as thou art." ' '

The event makes it evident, that in pronouncing this curse, God had as much respect to Adam's posterity, as to himself: And so it was understood by his pious posterity before the ilood ; as appears by what Lamech, the father of Noah, says, Gen. V. 29. « And he called his name Aba/z, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our'work, and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed,^^

Another thing Which argues, that Adam's posterity were included in the threatening of death, and that our first parents tinderstood, when fallen, that the tempter, jn persuading them to eat the forbidden fruit, had aimed at the punishment and ruin of both them and their posterity, and had procured it, is Adam's immediately giving his wife that new name. Eve, or X//"f, on the promise or intimation of the disappointment and overthrow of the tempter in that matter, by her seed, which' Adam understood to be by his procuring life, not only for themselves, but for many of their posterity, and thereby delivering them from that death and ruin which the serpent had brought upon them. Those that should be thus delivered, and obtain life, Adam calls the livhig ; and because he observed, by what God had said, that deliverance and life were 10 be by the seed of the woman, he therefore remarks tha^

ORIGINAL SIM. m

ih is the mother of all living; and thereupon gives her a new name, calls her Chavahy life, Gen. iii. 20.

There is a great deal of evidence, that this is the occasion of Adam's giving his wife her new name. This was her new honor, and the greatest honor, at least in her present state, that the lledeemer was to be of her seed. New names were wont to be given for something that v/as the person's peculiar honor. So it was with regard to the new names of Abraham, Sarah, and Israel. Dr. Taylor himself observes,* that they who are saved by Christ, are called the livers, o» ^uvreci^ 2 Cor. iv. 11, the living, or they that live. So we find in the Old Testament, the righteous are called by the name of Mc livingy Psalm Ixix. 28. " Let them be blotted out of the book of tfie livings and not be written with the righteous.? If what Adam meant by her being the ?nother of all livingy was only her being the mother of mankind, and gave her the name life upon that account; it were much the most likely that he would have given her this name at first, when God first united them, under that blessing, " Be fruitful and multiply," and when he had a prospect of her being the mother of mankind in a state of immortality ^ living indeed, livings and never dying. But that Adam should at that time give her only the name of Isha, and then immediately on that melancholy change, by their coming under the sentence of deaths with all their posterity, having now a new, awful prospect of her being the mother of nothing but a dying race, all from gen-eralion to generation turning to dust, through her folly ; I sav, that immediately on this, he should change her name into life, calling her now the mother o[ all living is perfectly unaccountable. Besides, it is manifest that it was not her being the mother of all mankind, or her relation as a mother, which she stood in to her posterity, but the quality of those she was to be the mother of, which was the thing Adam had in view, in giving his wife this new name ; as appears by the name itself, which signifies life. And if it had been only a natural and mortal life which he had in view, this v;as

• Note annexed to ^ 287.

hothing distinguishing of her posterity from the brutes ; fof the very same name oUiving ones, or/m?7^ things, is given from time to time in this liooh of Genesis to them ; as in chap. i. 21, 24, 28, ii. 19, vi. 19, vii. 23, viii. I, and many other places in the Bible. And besides, if by life the quality of her posterity was not meant, there was nothing in it to dis-tini^uish her from Adam ; for thus she was no more the •mother of all living, than he was the father of all living ; and she could no more properly be called by the name bnife oil any such account, than he ; but names are f^iven for distinction. Doubtless Adam took notice of something distinguish-m^ concerning her, that occasioned his giving her this new rame. And I think it is exceeding natural to suppose, that as Adam had given her htv^/irst name from the manner of her creation^ so he gave her her new name from redcmfiiioriy and as it were, neiv creation, through a Redeemer, of her seed ; and that he should give her this name from that v.'hich comforted him, with respect to the curse thai God had pronounced on him and the earth, as Lamech named Noah, Gen. v. 29, « Saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work, and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.'* Accordingly he gave her this new name, not at her first creation, but immediately after the promise of a Redeemer, of her seed. See Gen. iii. 15....20.

No^v as to the consequence which I infer from Adam's "•iving his wife this name, on the intimation which God had given, that Satan should by her seed be overthrown and disappointed, as to his malicious design, in that deed'of his which God then spake of, viz. his tempting the woman. Adam infers from it, that great numbers of mankind should be saved, ■whom he calls the living ; they should be saved from the effects of tliis malicious design of the old serpent, and from that ruin which he had brought upon them by tempting their first parents to sin ; and so the serpent would be, with respect to them, disappointed and overthrown in his design-But how is any death or ruin, or indeed any calamity at alJ, brought upon their posterity by Satan's malice in that temptation, if instead of that, all the death and sorrow that was con-

ORIGINAL StN. \7i

^equent, >vas the Crult of God's fatherly love, ard.not Satan's malice, and was an instance of God's free and sovereign favor', such favor as Satan could not possibly foresee ? And if multitudes of Eve's posterity arc saved, from either spiiiuial or temporal death, by a Redeemer, of her seed, how is that any disappointment ofSatan's desip;n in tempting our first parents ? How came he to have any such thing in view, as the death of Adam's and Eve's posterity, by tempting them to sin, or any expectation that their death would be tlie consequence, unless he knew that they were included in the threatening ?

Some have objected against Adam's posterity's being included in the threatening delivered to Adam, that the threatening itself was inconsistent with his having any posterity ; it being that he should die on the day that hr sinned.

To this I answer, that the threatening was not inconsistent with his having posterity, on two accounts.

Those words, " In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalC surely die," according to the use of such like expressions a-mong the Hebrews, do not signify immediate death, or that the^txecution shall be within twentyfour hours from the commission of the fact ; nor did God, by those words, limit himself as to the time of executing the threatened punishment, but that was still left to God's pleasure. Such a phrase, according to the idiom of the Hebrew tongue, signifies no more than these two things :

1. A real connexion between the sin and the punishmeni. So Ezek. xxxiii. 12, 13. "The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression. As for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his ^Vickedness ; neither shall the righteous be able to live in the day that he sinneth ; But for his iniquity that he hath commi'ted, he shall die for it." Here it is said, that in the day he sinneth, he shall not be able to live, but he shall die ; not signifying ihc time v, hen death shall be executed upon him, but the connexion between his sin and death ; such a connexion as in ou'' present common use of language is signified by the adverb of time, when / Y

as if one should say, « According to the laws of our natioft*-so long as a man behaves himself as a good subject, he may live ; but when he turns rebel, he must die :" Not signifying the hour, day or month in \vhich he must be executed, but only the connexion between his crime and death.

'2. Another thing which seems to be signified by such an expression, is, that Adam should be exposed to death for o7ie transgrcssioTiy without waiting on him to try him the second time. If he eat ©f that tree, he should immediately fall under condemnation, though afterwards he might abstain ever so strictly. In this respect the words are much of the same force with those words of Solomon to Shimei, 1 Kings ii. ^7. " For it shall be that on the day that thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certaiuy that thou shalt fiurelij die." Not meaning that he should certainly be executed on that day, but that he should be assuredly liable to death for the first ofTence, and that he should not have another trial to see whether he would go over the brook Kidron a second time.

And then besides,

II. If the words had implied that Adam should'die that very day, within twentyfour or twelve hours, or that moment that he transgressed, yet it will by no means follow, that God obliged himself to execute the punishment in its utmost ex-tefit on that day. The sentence was in great part executed immediately : He then died spiritually : He lost his innocence and original righteousness, arid the favor of God ; a dismal alteration was made in his soul, by the loss of that holy, divine principle, which was in the highest sense the life of the soul. In this he was truly ruined and undone that very day, becoming cc^^rrupt, miserable and helpless. And I thinh it has been shewn/that such a spiritual death v/as one great thing implied in the threatening. And the alteration then made in his body and external state, was the beginning of temporal death. Grievous, external calamity is called by the name of dcofh in scripture, Exod. x. 17. " Intreat the Lord that he may take away this death.'* Not only was Adam's soul ruined that day, but his body was ruined : It lost its

r'pcauty Jind vigor, and became a poor, dull, decaying, dying thing. And besides all this, Adam was that day undone in a more dreadful sense : He immediately fell under the curse of the law, and condemnation to eternal perdition. In the language of scripture, he is dead, that is, in a state of condemnation to death ; even as our author often explains this language in his exposition upon Komans. In scripture language, he that believes in Christ, immediately receives life. He passes at that time from death to life, and thenceforward {to use the Apostle .Tohn's phrase) " has eternal life abiding in him," But yet he does not then receive eternal life in its highest completion ; he has but th-e beginning of it, and receives it in a vastly greater degree at death ; but the proper time for the complete fulness is not till the day of judgment. When the angels sinned? their punishment was immediately executed in a degree ; but their full punishment is not until the end of the world. And there is nothing in God^s threatening to Adam that bound him to execute his full punishment at once, nor any thing which deterrnines that he should have no posterity. The law or constitution which God established and declared, determined that if he sinned, and had posterity, he and they should die ; but there was no constitution determining concerning the actual being of his posterity in this case ; what posterity he should have, how many, or whether any at all. All these things God had reserved in his own power : The law and its sanction intermeddled not with the jmatter.

It may be proper in this place also to take some notice of that objection of Dr. Taylor's, against Adam's being supposed to be a federal head for his posterity, that it gives him greater honor than Christ, as it supposes that all his posterity would have had eternaMife by his obedience, if he had stood ; and so a greater number would have had the benefit of his obedience, than are saved by Christ.* I think a very little consideration is sufficient to shew that there is no

»Page 120, &c,S.

weight in this objection ; for the benefit ofChribL'b mciivi may nevertheless be vastly beyond that which would have been by the obedience of Adam. For those that arc saved by-Christ, are not merely advanced to happiness by his merits, but arc saved from the infinitely dreadful efiects of Adam's sin, and many from immense guilt, pollution and misery, by personal sins ; also brought to a holy and happy state, as it wtre through infinite obstacles, and are exalted to a far greater degree of dignity, felicity and glory, than would have been due for Adam's obedience, for aught I know, many thousand limes so great. And there is enough in the gospel dispensation, clearly to manifest the sufficiency of Christ's merits for buch tftects in all mankind. And how great the number will be, that shall actually be the subjects of them, or how great a proportion of the whole race, considering the vast succesti of the gospel, that shall be in that future, extraordinary and glorious season, often spoken of, none can telL And the honor of these two federal heads arises not yo much from what was proposed to each for his trial, as from their success, and the good actually obtained, and also the manner of obtaining. Christ obtains the benefits men have through him by proper jntrit of condigniiy.-and a true purchase by an equivalent ; which would not have been the case wjth Adam, if he ha4 obeyed.

I have now particularly considered the account which Mo-bes gives us in the bei^-inning of the Bible, of our first parents, and Go(J*s dealings with them, the constitution he established with them, their transgression, and What followed. And on the whole, if we consider the manner in which God apparently speaks to Adam from time to time j and particularly, if We consider how plairdy and undeniably his posterity are included in the sentence of death pronounced on Adam after his fall, founded on the foregoing threatening ; and consider the curse denounced on the ground for liis sake, and for his and his posterity's sorrow : And also consider what is evidently the occa-bion of his giving his wife the new name of Eve, and his meaning in it, and withal consider apparent fact in constant and ^nivei'sal events, with relation to the state of our first parents,

fcnd their posterity from that time forward, through all ages of the world ; I cannot but think, it must appear to every impartial person, that Mosps* account docs, with sufficient evidence, lead all mankind, to whom his account is communicated, to understand, that God, in his constitution with Adam, dealt with him as a public person, and as the head of the human species, and had respect to his posterity, as included in liim : And that this history is given by divine dii'ection, in the beginning of the first written revelation, to exhibit to our view the origin of the present, sinful, miserable state of mankind, that we might see what that was, which first gave occasion for all those consequent, wonderful dispensations of divine mercy and grace towards mankind, which are the great subject of the scriptures, both'of the Old and New Testament: And that these things are not obscurely and doubtfully pointed forth, but delivered in a plain account of things, which easily and naturally exhibits them to our understandings.

And by what follows in this discourse, we may have, in some measure, opportunity to see how other things in the Holy Scripture agree with what has been now observed from .the three first chapters of Genesis,

CHAPTER II.

Observations on other parts of the Holy Scriptures^ chiejly in the Old Testament, that prove the doctrine of Original Sin.

ORIGINAL depravity may well be argued, from wickedness being often spoken of in scripture, as a thing belonr^in;^ to the race of mankind, and as if it i^cre a firojiertij of the n/ic-cics. So in Psal. xiv. 2, 3. « The Lord looked down from

tsj ORIGINAL SIN.

Iicavcn upon the children ofmcn^ to see if iher^ vere any tJift did undcrsiaiul, and seek God. They are all gone aside; thty arc together become filthy : There is none that doeth good ; no, not one." TUe like ve have again, Psal. liii. 2, S. Dr. Tavlor says, p. J04, 105. <'The Holy Spirit does not jpean this of every individual; because in the very same psalm, he speaks of some that were righteous, ver. 5, Goi is in the generation of the rii^'hteous." But how little is this observation to the purpose ? For who ever supposed, that no unrighteous men were ever cUanp^ed .by divine grace, and afterwards made righteous ? The Psalmist is speaking of what men are as they are the d^iildren of men, born of tlie corrupt human race ; and not as born of God, whereby they come to be the children of God, and of the generation of the righteous. The Apostle Paul cites" this place in Rom. iii. 10, 11, 12, tb prove the universal corruption of mankind ; but yet in tjie same chapter he supposes these same persons here spoken of as wicked, may become righteous, through the righteousness and grace of God,

So wickedness is spoken of in other places in the Book of Psalms, as a thing that belongs to men, as of the human race-, as so7isof7nen. Thus in Psal. iv. 2. " O ye sons ofmcn^ how long will ye turn my glory into shame ? How long will yc love vanity ?" &c. Psal. Ivii. 4. " I lie among them that are set on fire, even the soils ofmen^ whose teeth are spears and ar-rovrs, and their tongue a sharp sword.*^' Psal. Iviii. 1,2. « Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation ? Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men ? Yea, in heart ye wdrk wickedness ; ye weigh out the violence of your hands in the earth.'* Our author, mentioning these places, says p. 105, Note, << There was a strong party in Israel disaffected to David*s person and government, and sometimes he chooselh to denote them by the sons or children of men." But it would have been worth his while to have inquired, Why the Psalmist fihould choose to denote the wickedest and worst men in Israel by this name ? Why he should choose thus to disgrace the human race, us if the compellation of sons of men most properly belonged to such as were of the vilest character,

ORIGINAL SI^. M

aUc! as if all the sons of men, even every one of them, were of such a character, and none of ihem did good ; no, not one ? Is it not strange, that the righteous should not be thought worthy to be called so7is ofjnen, and ranked with that noble race of beings, who are born into the world wholly right and innocent! It is a good, easy, and natural reason, why he chooscth to call the wicketl, so?is of men, as a proper name for them, that by being of the sons of men, or of the corrupt, ruined race of mankind, they come by their depravity. And the Psalmist himself leads us to this very reason, Psal. Iviii, at the beginning. " Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons ofw.cn ■■ Yea, in heart ye work wickedness, ye weigh out the violence of your hands. The wicked are estranged from the womb,'* 3cc. of which I shall speak more by and by.

Agreeable to these places is Prov. xxi. S, " The way of manis froward and strange ; but as for the pure,his work is right." He that is perverse in his walk, is here called by the name of man, as distinguished from the pure : Which I think is absolutely unaccountable, if all mankind by nature are pure-, and perfectly innocent, and all such as are froward and strange in their ways, therein depart from the native purity of all mankind. The words naturally lead us to suppose the contrary ; that depravity and perverseness properly belong t» mankind as they are naturally, and that a being made pure, is by an afterwork, by which some are delivered from nativ'e pollution, and distinguished from mankind in general ; which is perfectly agreeable to the -i^presentation in Rev. xiv. 4, where we have an account of a number that iver-e riot clfjilrd, but were pure, and foUoived the Lamb ; of whom it is said, These were redeemed from among men.

To these things agree Jer. xvii. 5, 9. In ver. 5, it is said, " Cursed is he that trusteth in man** And in ver. 9, this reason is given, " The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked ; who can know it ?" What heart is this so wicked and deceitful ? Why, evidently the heart ofhim^ whom, it nvas said before, nve must not trust; and that is man. It alters not the case, as to the present argument, whether the deceitfulness of the heart here spoken of, be its deceitfuiness

\^i ORIGINAL SI A

to the man himself, or to others. So Eccl. ix. 3. " Maclne^S IS in tljc heart of the .<^0725 ofvien^ while they live." And those words of Christ to Peter, Malth. xvi. 23. " Get thee behind me» Satan, for thou savorest not the things that 1x5 of God, but the things that bcof?"e/z." Signifying plainly, that to be carnal and vain, and opposite to what is spiritual and divine, is what properly belongs to mm in their present state. The same thing is supposed in that of the apostle, 1 Cor. iii. 3. «' For ye are yet. carnal. For whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men P" And that in Hos. \i. 7. <' But they like mcvy have transgressed the covenant.'* To these places may be added Matth. vii. 11, *' If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts." Jam. iv. 5. « Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dnvelleth iv. ns^ Im^tcth to C72vy ?'^ 1 Pet. iv. 2. "That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the lusts of men^ but to-the will of God." Yet above all, that in Job xv. 16. « How much more abominable and filthy is -maji^rjlio drinkcth iniqid-^ ty like ti-ctcr ? Of which more presently.

Now what account can be given of these things, on Dr. Taylor's scheme ? How strange is it, that we should have such descriptions, all over the Bible, of man^ and the soris of men ' Why should man be so continually spoken of as evil, carnal, perverse, deceitful, and desperately wicked, if all men are by nature as perfectly innocent, and free from any propensity to evil, as Adam was the first moment of his creation, all made rit^/it^ as our author would have us understand, Eccl. vii. 29 ? Why, on the contrary, is it not said, at least as often, and with equal reason, that the heart of man ts right and pure ; that the ivay of man ist innoeent and holy ; and that /ic nvho savors true virtue and nvisdom^ savor/i the things that be of men ? Yea, and why might itnot as well have been said, The Lord looked doii'nfrom I,raven on the stonn rf men^ to see if there ivere any that did vndrrstand, and did feek after God ; and they were all right, altogether purey there ivas jwne inclined to do ivickednessy no, not one ?

Of the like import wit1i the texts mentioned are those which represent wickedness as what properly belongs to tbc

ORIGINAL SIN. \93

W&rld; and that they who arc other\Visc, are \taved frorh the fvorldy and callrd one of it. As John vii. 7. '* The world can-not hate you ; but me it hateth ; because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." Chap. viii. 23. *» Ye are of this ivorld: I am not of this ivorld." Chap. xiv. 17. « The spirit of truth, whom the ivoHd cannot receive; because it seeth him not, neither knoAveth him : But ye know him." Chap.' XV. 18, 19. " If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hatedyou. If ye were of the world, the vjorld •would love its o^Vn : But because ye are not of the world, but I liave chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." Rev. xiv. 3, 4. " These are they which were redeemed from the «°a7*/'A....redeemed from amoni^ men." Jolm xvii. 9. « I pray not for the world, but for them whicli ihon hast given me." Ver. 14. " I have p^iven them tiiy word ; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the worldy even as I am not of the world.*' I John iii. 13. " Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." Chap. iv. 5 " Thej' are of the lOorld, therefore speak they of ihe world, and ihe world heareth them." Chap. v. 19« " We are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickednes-j." It is evident, that in these places, by the world is meant the world of mankind ; not the habitation, but the inhabitants : For it is the world spoken of as loving, hating, doing evil worksy afieaking, hearm inffj See.

It shews the same thin£»;» that wickedness is often spoken «f as heinp^ man's own, in contradistinction from virtue and holiness So men's lusts are ofien called their own heart's lusts, and their practisinf^ wickedness is called walking in their own "ways, walking in their own counsels, in the imagination of their own heart, and in the sight of their own eyes, accordinij to their 07172 devices, &c. These things denote wickedness to be a quality belonging properly to the character and nature of mankind in their present state : As, when Christ would represent that lying is remarkably the character and the very nature of the devil in his present state, he expresses it thus, John viii. 44. " When lic speaketh rx lie, he speaketh of hift own : For he is a liar, and the father of it." 2

X%^ ORIGINAL SIN.

, And that wickedness belongs to ihe nature of mankind jnF their present state, may be argued from those places which ftp^ak of mankind as being wicked in their childhood^ or from their childhood. So, that in Prov. xxii. 15. " Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child ; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.'* Nothing is more manifest, than that the wise man in this book continually uses the word folly, or foolishness, for wickedness : And that this is what he means in this place, the words themselves do she^v : For the rod of correction is proper to drive away no other foolishness, than that which is of a moral nature. The word rendered bounds •jignifics, as is observed in PooVs ^ynofisis^ a close and firm union. The'same word is used in chap. vi. 21. " BindK\i^vs\ continually upon thy heart." And chap. vii. S. « Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart.*" To the like purpose is qhap. iii. 3, and Deut, xi. 18, where this word is used. The same verb is used, 1 Sam. xviii. 1. « The soul al Jonathan was knit {pxhoTmd), to the soul oi Da* t/J, idwd Jonathan loved him as his own soul." But how comes wickedness to be so firmly bound, and strongly fixed, in the hearts of children, if it be not there naturally ? Thejr having had no time firmly to fix habits of sin, by long custom in actual wickedness, as those that have lived many years in the world. '

The same thing is signified in that noted place, Gen. viih 1\. «'For the imagin'ation of man's heart is evil, yrom Ae> youth^^ It alters not the case, w^hethcr it be translated ybr or thoufrh the imagination of man*s heart is evil from his youth, as Dr; Taylb^ would have it; Still the words suppose it to be so as is said. 'The word translated youths signifies Ihe whole of the former part of the age of man, which com-Vncrccs from the beginning of life. The word, in its derivation, has reference to the birth or beginning of existence. . It coTPCs from J^'a^nar^ which signifies to shake off, as a tree shupve'.s off its ripe fruit, or a plant its seed : The birth of thi'drcn beino; commonly represented by a tree's yielding 1tu!% or'fl pHmt's yielding seed. So that the word here translated youth, comprehends not* dnlj'^what we in English most

commonly call the lime of" youth, but also childhood and in-fancyj and is very often used to signify these latter. A word of the same root is used to signify a yoz:;/^ c////^, or a littk child^ in the following places ; 1 Sam. i. 24, 25, 27 ; 1 Kings iii. 7, and xi. 17 ; 2 Kings ii. 23 ; Job xxxiii. 25 ; Prov. xxii. €, xxiii. 13, and xxix. 21 ; Isai. x. 19, xi. 6, and lxv.20 ; llos. xi. 1. The same word is used to signify an infant^ in Exod. ii. 6, and x. 9 ; Judg. xiii. 5, 7, 8, 24 ;. 1 Sam. i. 22, and iv. 21 ; 2 Kings v. 14 ; Isai. vii. 16, and viii. 4.

Dr. Taylor says, p. 124, Note, that he " conceives, from the youths is a phrase signifying the greatness^ or long duration of a thing." But if by long duration he means any thing else than y/hat is literally expressed, viz. from the beginning of life, he has no reason to conceive so ; neither has what he offers, so much as the shadow of a reason for his conception. There is no appearance in the words of the two or three texts he mentions, of their meaning any thing else than what is most literally signified. And it is certain, that what he suggests is not the ordinary import of such a phrase among the Hebrews : But that thereby is meant from the beginning, or early time of life, or existence ; as may be seen in the places following, where the same word in the Hebrew is used, as in this place in the 8th of Genesis. I vSam. xii. 2. '* I am old, and gray headed...and I have walked before you from my childhood unto this day ;'* where the original word is the same. Psal. Ixxi. 5, 6. « Thou art my trust/rom my youth : By thee have I been holden up from the womb. Thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels." Ver. 17, 18. " O God, thou hast taught me from my youth ; and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works : Now also, when 1 am old and gray headed, forsake me not," Psal. cxxix. 1, 2. '• Many a time have they afflicted me from my youchy may Israel now say : Many a time have they afflicted mcfrom my youth ; yet have they not prevailed against me." Isai. xlvii. 12. « Stand now with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein, thou hast labored,/rom My yowr//." So ver. 15, and 2 Sam. xix. 7. " That will be worse unto thee, than all the evil that bcfef '.YitC: from thy youth Mx\\i\ now." Jer. iii. 24, 25, « Sham©

hath devoured the labor of onr fathers, /rom our youth, Wd have sinned against the- Lord our God/ro7n our zjouth, even t© this day." So Gen. xlvi. 34 ; Job xxxi. 18 ; Jer, xxxii. 30, and xlviii. 11 ; Ezek. iv. 14 ; Zech. xiii. 5.

And it is to be observed, that according to the manner of the Hebrew lant^iiage, when it is said, such a thing has been

from youths or the first part of existence, the phrase is to be understood as including that first time of existence. So, Josh. vi. 21. " They utterly destroyed all, from the young to the old,** (so it is in the Hebrew) i. e. including both. So Gen. xix. 4, and Esther ill. 13.

And as mankind are represented in scripture, as being of a wicked heart from their youths so in other places they are spoken of as being thusy7*om the womb. Psal. Iviii. 3. " The wicked are estrangedyro77z the nvomb : They go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." It is observable, that the Psalmist mentions this as what belongs to the wicked, as the iions of men : For, these are the preceding M'ords : " Do ye judge uprightly, O t/e" 50«6" o/"7/2en.? Yea, in heart ye work wickedness." (A phrase of the like import wiih that in Gen. viii. 21. The imagination, or operation, as it might have been rendered, of his heart is evil.) Then it follows, The nvicked are estrani^ed from the womb, kc. The next verse is, Their

jioison is like the poisoji of a serficnt. It is so remarkably, as

-the very nature of a serpent is poison : Serpents are poison^ ous as soon as they come into the world : They derive a poisonous nature by their generation. Dr. Taylor, p. 134, 135, says, " It is evident that this is a scriptural figurative way of aggravating wickedness on the one hand, and of signifying early and settled habits of virtue on the other, to speak of it as beingyVowi the nvomh** And as a probable instance of the latter, he cites that in Isai. xlix. I. " The Lord hath called me

from the tvomb ; from the bowels of my mother he made mention of my name.'* But I apprehend, that in order to

. seeing thib to be either evident or probable, a man must have eyes peculiuriy affected. I humbly conceive that such phra-

•bes as that in the 49th of Isaiah, of God's calling the prophet

/rD?n the vj.ombf are evidently not of the import, which he sup^

^ses ; but mean truly from the bcginninp; of existence, and are manifestly of like sii^nification with that which is said of the prophet Jeremiah, Jer. i. 5. « Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee : Before thou earnest out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Which surely means something else besides a high degree of virtue : It plainly signifies that he was, from his first existence, set apart by God for a prophet. And it would be as unreasonable to understand it otlierwise, as to suppose the angel meant any other than that Samson was set apart to be a Nazarite from the beginning of his life, when he says to his mother, " Behold, thou shalt conceive and bear a son : And now drink no wine, nor strong drink, &c. For the child shall be a Nazarite to God,./7-om the luomb^ to the day of his death." By these instances it is plain, that the phrase, frovt the ivomby as the other, frc7n the youths as used in scripture, properly signifies from the beginning of iife.

Very remarkable is that place, Job xv. 14, 15, 16. " What js man, that he should be clean ? And he that is born of a ttDoman^ that he should be righteous ? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; Yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight ? How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinkelh iniquity like water i" And no less remarkable is our author's method of managing it. The sixteenth verse expresses an exceeding degree of wickedness, in as plain and emphalical terms, almost, as can be invented ; every word representing this in the strongest manner : '» How much more abominable and filthy is man, that drinketh iniquity like water ?" I cannot now rec oliect where we have a sentence equal to it in the whole Bible, for an emphatical, lively and strong representation of great wickedness of heart. Any one of the words, as such words are used in scripture, would represent great wickedness : If it had been only said, "* How much more abominable is man ?" Or, " How much more filthy is man ?" Or, " Man that drinketh iniq\jity." But all these are accumulated with the addition o{..,.Ukc water .,.JLht further to represent the boldness or greediness of men

men in wickedness ; though iniquity be the most deaclly poij^ on, yet men drink it c's boldly as the^' drink water, are as familiar with it as with their common drink, and djink it with like greediness, as he that is thirsty drinks water. That boldness and eagerness in persecuting the saints, by wliich the gi-eal degree of the depravity of man's heart often appears, is represented thus, Psal. xiv. 4. " Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread?** And the greatest eagerness of thirst is represented by thirsting as an animal thirsts after water, Psalm xlii. 1.

Now let us see the soft, easy, light manner, in which Dr« Taylor treats this place, p. 143. « How much more abominable and filthy is man, in coni^iarison of the divine /lurity, who drinketh iniquity like water ? Who is attended with so many sensual appetites, and so apt to indulge them. You see the argument, man, in his present weak and fleshly state, cannot be clean before God. Why so ? Because he is conceived and born in sin, by reason of Adam's sin : No such thing. But because, if the purest creatures are not pure, in compart" son of God, much less a being subject to so many i7i^r?miie&^ as a mortal man. Which is a demonstration to me, not only that Job and his friends did not intend to establish the doctrine we are now examining, but that they were wholly strangers to it." Thus this author endeavors to reconcile' this text with his doctrine of the perfect, native innocence of man-'liinU ; in which we have a notable specimen of his demonstrations, as well as of that great impartiality and, fairness in examining and expounding the scripture, which he makes so often a profession of.

In t])is place we are not only told how wicked man's heart is, but also how men come by such wickedness ; even by being of the race of mankind, by ordinary generation* " What is man, that he should be clean ? And he that is born of a woman, that he should be rii;hteous :" Our author, pages 141, .42, represents man's being born of a woman, as a periphrasis, to signify man ; and that there is no design in the words to give a reason, why man is not clean and righteous. But the case is most evidently otherwise, if wc may interpret

ORIGINAL Siy. \n

the Book of Job by itself : It is most plain, that man's being born of a woman is given as a reason of his not being clean, chap. xiv. 14. « Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ?'* Job is speaking there expressly of man's being born of a woman, as appears in verse 1. And here how plain is it, that tliis is given as a reason of man's not being clean ? Concerning this Dr. Taylor says, « That this has no respect to any moral uncleanness, but only common frailty,'* Sec. But how evidently is this also otherwise? When that uncleanness, which a man has by being born of a woman, is expressly explained of unrighteousness, in the next chapter at verse 14. " What is man that he should be clean ? And he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous ?'* And also in chap. xxv. 4. <' How then can man be justified with God ? And how can he be clean that is born of a woman ?" It is a moral cleanness Bildad is speaking of, which a man needs in order to being justified. His design is, to convince Job of his moral impurity, and from thence of God's righteousness in his severe judgrnents upon him ; and not of his natural frailty.

And without doubt, David has respect to this same way of derivation of wiclujdness of heart, when he says, Psalm li. 5. *' Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." It alters net the case as to the argument we are upon, whether the word translated conceive, signifies conceive, or nurse ; which latter our author takes so much pains to prove : For when he has done all, he speaks of it as a just translation of the words to render them thus : " I was born in iniquity, and in sin did my mother nurse me," page 135. If it is owned that man is born in sin, it is not worth the while to dispute whether it is expressly asserted that he is conceived in sin. But Dr. Taylor after his manner insists, that such expressions, as being born in sin, being transgressors from the 'ufomb, and the like, are only phrases figuratively to denote aggravation and high degree of wickedness. But the contrary has been already demonstrated, from many plain scripture instances. Nor is one instance produced, in which there is any evidence that

such a phrase is used in such a manner. A poetical seh^ tence out of Virgil's iEneids, has here been produced, and made much of by some, as parallel with this, in what Dido fcays to uEneas in these lines :

Nee tlbi diva parens, generis nee Dardanus auetor, Perfide : Sed duris genuit te cauubus horrens Caueasus, hyrcanaeque admorunt ubera tygres.

In which she tells JEneas, that not a goddess was his mother:* Dor Anchises his father ; but that he had been brought forth by a horrid, rocky mountain, and nursed at the dugs of ty-gers, to represent the greatness of his cruelty to her. But how unlike and unparallel is this ? Nothing could be more natural than for a woman, overpowered with the passion of love, and distracted v/ith raging jealousy and disappointment, ihinking herself treated with brutish perfidy and cruelly, by a lover, whose highest fame had been his being the son of a p;oddess, to aggravate his inhumanity and hardheartedness with this, that iiis behavior was not worthy the son of a goddess, nor becoming one v.hose father was an illustrious prince; and that he acted more as if he had been brought forth by hard, unrelenting rocks, and had sucked the dugs of tygers. But what is there in the case of David parallel, or at all in like njanner leading him to speak of himself as born in sin, in any such sense ? He is not speaking himself, nor anjjr one else speaking to him, of any excellent and divine father and mother, that he was born of; nor is there any appear-;ince of his aggravating his sin by its being unworthy of his high birth. There is nothing else visible in David's case, to lead him to take notice of his being born in sin, but only his having such experience of the continuance and power of indwelling sin, after so long a lime, and so many great means to engage him to holiness ; which shewed that sin was inbred, and in his very nature.

Dr. Taylor r)ften objects to these and other texts, brought by divines to pi ove Oiginal Sin, tj-iat xhc.vc is no mention made in them of Adam, nor of his sin. He cries out," Here

ORIGINAL sin; l^s

Js not the least tncntlon or intimation of Adam, or any ill eC«

iccts of his sin upon us Here is not one word, nor the least

hint of Adam, or any consequences of his sin, Sec. Sec.* He saysjt " If -Tob apd his fiiends had known and believed the. doctrine of a corrupt nature, derived Irom Adam's sin only, tlley oup;ht ifi reason and truth to have given this as the true and only reason of the human imperfection and unclcanncss they mention." But these ol)jeclions and exclamations arc made no less impertinently, than they are frequently. It is ijo.more a proof, that corruption of nature did not come by Adam's sin, because many limejs when it is mentioned, Adam's sin is not expr&ssly mentioned as the cause of it, than that death did not come by Adam's sin (as Dr. Taylor says ic did) because though death, as incident to mankind, is mentioned so often in the Old Testament, and by our Saviour in his discnurses, yet Adam's sin is not once expressly nlenlion-ed, after the three first chapters of Genesis, any where in all the Old Testament, or the four evanijelists, as the occasion of it.

What Christian has there ever been, that believed the moral corruption of the nature of mankind, whoever doubted that it carae tha» way, which the apostle speaks of, when he-says, << Bij one wan sin entered into the world, and death by sin" ? Nor indeed have they any more reason to doubt of it, than to doubt of the whole history of our first parents, be-cause Adam's name is so rarely mentioned, on any occasiort in scripture, after that first account of him, and Eve's never at jftU ; ai d because we have no more any express mention of the particular manner, in which mankind were first brought into beinp", either with respect to the creation of Adam or Eve. Tt is sufficient, that the abiding, most visible effects of these thine^, remain in the view of mankind in all ages, and ire often spoken of in scripture ; and that the particular manner of iheir being introduced, is once plainly set forth in the beginning of the Bible, in that history which gives us an ac-

♦ Pa?e 5; S4, gfi 97 98, 10a »o8. H2, i\8, xaO, xtB, IB7, ia8, 13^ i4«, X43, 149, i5», 155, 229. t 142.

CGunt of the origin oT all things. And doubtless it was expected, by the great author of the Bible, that the account in the three first chapters of Genesis should be taken as a plain ncceunt of the introduction of both natural and moral evil into the world, as it has been shewn to be so indeed. The history of Adam's sin, with its circumstances, God's threatening, and the sentence pronounced upon him after his transgression, and the iirimediate consequences, consisting in so vast an alteration in his state, and the state of the world, which abides still, with respect to all his posterity, do most directly and sufficiently lead to an understanding of the rise of calamity, sin and death, in this sinful, miserable world.

It is fit we all should know, that it does not became us t6 tell the Most High, how often he shall particularly explain and give the reason of any doctrine which he teaches, in order to our believing what he says. If he has at all given us evidence that it is a doctrine agreeable to his mind, it be* comes us to receive it with full credit and submission ; and not sullenly to reject it, because our notions and humors are not suited in the manner, and number of times, of his partic-uln;ly explainin?]^ it to us. How often is pardon of sins prom* ised in the Old Testament to repenting and returning' sinners ? How many hundred times is God's special favor there promised to the sincerely righteous, without any express mention of these benefits being through Christ ? Would it thererorc be becoming us to say, that, inasmuch as our dependence on Christ: for these benefits, is a doctrin*, which, if true, is of such importance, God ought expressly to have mentioned Christ's merits as the reason and ground of the benefits, if he knew they were the ground of them, and should have plainly declared it sooner, and more frequently, if ever he expected we should believe him, when he did tell us of it t How often is vengeance and misery threatened in the Old Testament to the wicked, without any clear and express signification of any such thing intended, as that everlasting fire, where there is v.ailintj and gnashing of teeth, in another world, which C'hrist so often speaks of as the punishment ap-.pointed for all the wicked ? Would it now become a Christ-

■Jan, to object and say, that if God really meant any such thing, he ought in reason and truth lo have declared it plainly and fully ; and not to have been so silent about a matter of •such vast importance to all mankind, lor four thousand years together.

.CHAPTER lli;

^hservaliens on various^othtr Places of Scripture^ principally of the New Testament, j5rot;z??^ the Dectrine ^Original Sin.

ryECTION I.

Observations on John iii. 6, in connexion with some other fias-sages in the .A''cw Testament,

THOSE words of Christ, giviijg a reason to Nicode-'snus, why we mubt be born again, John iii. 0, " That which is born of the flesh, is fiesh ; and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit; have not, without f;ood reason, been produced by divines, as a proof of the doctrine of original sin ; supposing, that by Jiesh here is meant ihe human nature in a debased and corrufit state. Yet Dr. Taylor, p. 144, thus explains these words, That ivhich is born of the Jleshf is ftth : ^' That which is born by natural descent and propagation, is a man, consisting of body and soul, or the mere constitution and powers of a man in their natural state." But the constant use of these terms, Jesh and sfiirit, in other parts of the New Testament, when thus set in opposition one to another,

mnd the latter said to be produced by the Spirit of God, 39 hcr^» and when speaking oiT the same thing, which Christ is )iere speakings of to Nicodemus, viz. the requisite qualifications to salvation, will fully vindicate the sense of our divines. Thus in the 7th and Sth chapters of Romans, where these termsjlfsh and spirit (cap^ and mnvfAot) are abundantly repeated, and set in o])po'^ii.in, as here So, chap. vii. 14. The law is spirinial (xpnv(ji»rix^) but I am carnal {capiHK'^) sold under sin. He catinoi only n>€an, *' I am a man, consisting of body and soul, and havinp: the powers of a man." Vcr. 18. <' I Icnow that in mc, that is in my f-esh^ dwelleth no good thing." He does not mean to condemn his frame, as consisting of body and soul; and to assert, that in his human constitution^ nvith the ^lonvcrs of a nmn, dwells no good thing. And when he sjys in the last verse of the chapter, " Wi'h the mind, I myself serve the law of God, but with the^e.?^, the law of siri ;** he cannot mean, " J myself serve the law of God ; but with iny innocent human constitution, as having the powers of a man, / nerve the law o/sin.** And when he says in the next words in the beginning of the 8th chapter, '• There is no condemnation to them, that walk not after ihejlesh, but after the s/iirit ;" and ver. 4, " The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, \vho walk not after the flesh ;" he cannot mean, " There is no condemnation to them that walk not according to the powers of a man^^ Sec. And v/hen he says, ver, 5 and 6, " They that are after \\\^ flesh.) do mind the things of ihc flesh ; and to be carnally minded is death ;" he docs not intend, " They tha* are according to the human constitution, and ihe powers of a man, do mind the things of the human constitution and jiowtrs ; and to mind these, is death." And when he says, Ver. 7 and 8, " The carnal (or fcshlu) mind is enmity against God, and is not sul^ject to the law of God, neither indeed can be ; so that they that arc in \\\tjlcsh, cannot please Gcd ;" he cannot mean, that, " to mind the things which arc agreeal^le Xc^Wg powers and constitution of a man,'*-(who, a^ our author say, is constituted or made right) " is enmity against God ; and that a mind which is agreeable to thi;* right human constitution, as God hath r;iade it, is not siil)jcct to Iho lav; at

pod, nor indeed can be ; and that they who are according to such a constitution, cannot please God.'* And when it is said, ver. 9, t^ Ye are not in ihc Jlrsh, but in the .s-/iirit ;" the apostle cannqt mean, « Ye arc not in the hmnaii nature^ an connti' ■tuted of body and soul, and luith the fwvjrrn of a inayi" It is most manifest, that by ihefcsh here, the apostle means some nature that is corrupt, and of an evil tendency, and directly-opposite to the law, and holy nature of God ; so that to be* and walk according to it, and to have a mind conformed lo it, is to be an utter enemy to God and his law, in a perfect inconsistence with being subject to God, and pleasing God ; and in a sure and infallible tendency to death, and utter destruction. And it is plain, that here by bchig and wolHing after, oi according to ihe flesh, is meant the same thing as being and walking according to a corrupt and sinful nature ; and to be and walk according to the sfiirit, is to be and walk according to a holy and divine nature, or principle : And to be carnallu minded, is the same as bcjng viciously and corruptly minded ; and to be spiritually minded, is to be of a virtuous and holy-disposition,

When Christ says, John iii. 6. " That which is born of the fesh, is fcsh,'* he represents the frsh not merely as a quality ; for it would be incongruous, to speak of a quality as A thing born : It is a person, or man, that is born. Therefore man, as in his whole nature corrupt, is called fesh: Which is agreeable to other scripture.representations, where the corrupt nature is called the old man, the body of sin, and the body of death. Agreeable to this are those representations in the 7th and 8th chapters of Romans : ThereJ^c'.sA is figuratively represented as a person, according to the apostle's manner, observed by Mr. Locke, and after him by Dr. Taylor, who takes notice, that the apostle, in the 6th and 7ih of Romans, represents sin as a person ; and that he fit;ura-tively distinguishes in himself two persons, speaking of flesh as his person. For I knoiu that in me, that is in 7ny flesh, dwclleth no good tldng. And it may be observed, that in liie 8th chapter he still continues this representation, speaking ot* fh(^ flc&h ar. a person : And accordingly in the 6th and 7lli

:9& ORIGINAL SIN.

verses, speaks of the mind of the Jicshy C>go»»3^« o-apn^j and di the mind of the spirit^ <J>^oj}/*a tenvyucix^ ; as if the flesh and epirit were two opposite persons, each having a mind contrary to the mind of the oth^r. Dr. Taylor interprets this mind of the feshj and mi^id of the sfiirit^ as though ihejleah and the spirit were here spoken of as the dilTerent object^., about which the mind spoken of is conversant. Which is plainly beside the apostle*s sense ; who speaks of the flesh and spirit as the subjects and agents, in which the mind spoken of is ; and not the objects about which it acts. We have the same phrase again, ver. 27. He that searcheth the heart q^ knoweth what is the mind of the spirit^ ^^\ir,yM. 'c:^yiv{ixr^ ; the mind of the spiritual nature in the saints being the same with the mind of the Spirit of God himself, who imparts and actuates that spiritual nature ; here the spirit is the subject ^nd agent, and not the object. The same apostle in like manner uses the word, »«••, in Col. ii. 18. Vainiy puffed up by hia fieshly mind, awo tw m®-T>}{ aet^n^ uvrti, by the mind of his fes/i. And this agent so often called fleshy represented by the apostle, as altogether evil, without any good thing dwelling in it, or belonging 1^ it; yea, perfectly contrary to God and his law, and tending only to death and ruin, and directly opposite to the spirit, is •what Christ speaks of to Nicodemus as born in the first birth, as giving a reason M'hy there is a necessity of a new birth, in order to a better production.

. One thing is particularly observable in that discourse olT the apostle, in the 7th and 8th of Romans, in which he so often uses the ieriufesh, as opposite to spirit^ which, as well as many other things in his discourse, makes it plain, that by flesh he means something in itsclf^orrupt and sinful, and tliat is, that he expressly calls it sinful fcsh, Rom. viii. 3. It is manifest, that by smful fesh he means the same thing with that flesh spoken of in the immediately foregoing and following words, and in all the context: And that when it is said, Christ was made in the likeness oi sinfdfleshy the expression is equipollent v/iih those that speak of Christ as vmde siriy and '^lade a curse for us.

Flesh and sfilrit are opposed to one another in Gal. v. in the same manner as in the 8th of Romans : And there, by ^flesh cannot be meant only the human nature of body and soul^ or the mere constitution and powers of a man^ aa in its natural state, innocent and right. In the 16th ver. the apostle says, " Walk in the s/iirit^ and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the fesh :'* Where the flesh is spoken of as a thing of an evil inclination, desire or lust. But this is more strongly signified in the next words: " For Xhcfesh histeth against the spirit, and the spiric against ihe^/ksk ; and these are contrary the one to the other." What could have been said more plainly, to shew that -what the apostle means by fcsh, is something very evil in its nature, and an irreconcileable enemy to all goodness ? And it may be observed, that in these words, and those that follow, the apostle still figuratively represents ihejlesh as a person or agent, desiring, acting, having lusts, and performing works. And by works o^ the Jlesh, and fruits of the s/iirit, which are opposed to each other, from ver. 19, to the end, are plainly meant the same as works of a sinful nature, and fruits of a holy, renewed nature. Now the works of the fesh arc manifest, which are these : Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, &c. But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, See. The apostle, by fleshy does not mean any thing that is innocent and good in itself, that only needs to be restrained, and kept in proper bounds ; but something altogelhq|r evil, which is to be destroyed, and not merely restrained. I Cor. v. 5. "To deliver such an one to Satan, for the destruction of the Jleah, We must have no mercy on it; we cannot be too cruel to it ; it must even be crucified** Gal, v. 24. " They that are Christ's, have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts."

The Apostle John, the same apostle that writes the account of what Christ said tn Nicodemus, by the spirit means the same thing as a new, divine, and holy nature, exerting itself in a principle of divine love, which is the sum of all Christian holiness. 1 John iii. 23, 24. « And that we should

'g(J& ORIGINAL SIKT.

love one another, as he gave us commandinent ; and h'Stha^ kcepcth his cornvnaDdnienls, dwelleth in him, and he in him :: And herehy we know that he abideth in us, by the spirit that he hath given us." With clVap. iv. 12, 13. *' If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us t Hereby know we, that we dwell in him, because he hath given us of his s/iij-rt." The spiritual principle in us being as it >vere a communication of the spirit of God to us.

And as by nunvucc is meant a holy nature, so by the epithet, c7ViV[Ji.aru<^, {-pirituaU is meant the same as truly virtuous and holy. Gal. vi. 1. " Ye that are spiritual^ restore such an one in the spirit of meekness." The apostle refers to what he had just said, in the end of the foregoing chapter, where he had mentioned meekness^ as a fruit of the spirit^ And so by carval^ or f.e^hly^ ra^xjx©', is meant the same as sinfuK Rom. vii. 14. " The law is spiritual (i, e. holy) but I am car-^ nal, sold under sin."

And it is evident, that by ,^€slh as the word is used in the New Testament, and opposed to spirit, when speaking of the qualifications for eternal salvation, is not meant only what is •now vulpiarly called the sins of the fiesh, consisting in inordinate appetites of the body, and their indulgence ; but the •whole body of sin, implying those lusts that are most subtle, and furthest from any relation to the body ; such as pride, rnaiice, envy, &c. When the nvorks ofthe^flesh are enumerated, Gal. V. 19, 20, 21, they are vices of the latter kind chiefly,' that are mlpitioned; idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance; emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings. Sci pride of heart is the effect or operation of the j9<".9/;. Col. ii. 18. *' Vainly puffed up by hhjfcrh/y ?nind :** }n the Greek, by the mind ofihefesh. So, pride, envyiTJg, strife and division, are spoken of as works of \\\e flesh. 1 Cor. iii. 3. 4. " For ye are yet carnal (era^xixct^ fleshly J For whereas there is en-' vyingj and strife, and division, arc ye net caryiaU and walk as men ? For while one saith, 1 am of Paw/, and another, I am of yJfifJlos, are ye not ccn^ial P" Such kind of lusts do not dc"' pend on the bodv, or external senses ; for the devil himself

lias them in the highest degree, who has not, nor ever had, any body or external senses to gratify.

Here, if it should be inquired, how corruption or depravity in general, or the nature of man as corrupt and sinful, came to be cSiUcdJifsh ; and not only that corruption \vhich consists in inordinate bodily appetites, I think, Nthat the apos-t)e says in the last cited place, *^7-e ye not carnal^ and 'xalk as 7)icn? Loads us to the true reason. It is because a corrupt and sinful nature is v/hat properly belongs to mankind, or the race of Adam, as they are in themselves, and as they are by ■mature. The wov^fcsh is often used in both Old Testament and New, to signify mankind in their present state. To enumerate all the places, would be very tedious ; I shall therefore only mention a few places in the New Testament. Matth, xxiv. 22. <' Except those days should be shortened, no Jlesh should be saved.'* Luke iii. 6. « A\\ Jlesh shall see the salvation of God." John xvii. 2. " Thou hast given him power over all fiesh:* See also Acts ii. 17, Rom. iii. 20, 1 Cor. i. 29, Gal. ii. 16. Man's nature, being left to itself, forsaken of the Spirit of God, as it was when man fell, and consequently forsaken of divine and holy principles, of itself became exceeding corrupt, utterly depraved and ruined : And so the word ,/fes/if which signifies man, came to be used to signifv man as he is in himself, in his natural state, debased, corrupt and ruined : And on the other hand, the v/ord s/urit came to be used to signify a divine and holy principle, or new nature ; because that is not ofman^ but of God., by the indwelling and vital influence of his Spirit. And thus to be corruiit, and to be carnal^ ovjleshly, and to walk as men, are the same thing with the apostle. And so in other parts of the scripture, to savor the things that be of men, and to savor things which arc corrufit^ are the same ; and sons of men, and wicked men, also are the same, as was observed before. And on the other hand, Xo savor the things that be of God, and to receive the things of the S/iirit of God, are phrases that signify as much as relishing and embracing true holiness or divine virtue.

All these things confirm what we have supposed to be Christ's meaning, in saying, " That which is born Qf the 3B

£02 ORIGINAL SIN.

flesh, is flesh ; and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit.*^ His speech implies, that what is born in the first birth of man, is nothing but man as he is of himself, without any thing di-\ine in him ; depraved, debased, sinful, ruined man, utterly-unfit to enter into the kingdom of God, and incapable of the spiritual, divine happiness of that kingdom : But that which is born in the new birth, of the Spirit of God, is a spiritual principle, and holy and divine nature, meet for the divine and heavenly kingdom. It is a confirmation that this is the true meaning, that it is not only evidently agreeable to the constant language of the Spirit of Christ in the New Testament; hut the words understood in this sense, contain the proper and true reason, why a man must be born again, in order to enter into the kingdom of God ; the reason that is given every where in other parts of the scripture for the necessity of a renovation, a change of mind, a new heart, &c. in order to salvation : To give a reason of which to Nicodemus, is plainly Christ's design in the words which have been insisted on.

Before I proceed, I would observe one thing as a corolla--ry from what has been said.

CoROLL. If by flesh and spirit, vVheft spoken 6f in the New Testament, and opposed to each other, in discourses on' the necessary qualifications for salvation, we are to understand what has been now supposed, it will not only follow^ that men by nature are corrupt, but Kvholly corrupt^ without any good thing. If by flesh is meant man's nature, as he receives it in his first birth, then therein dwelleth no-good thing ; as appears by Rom. vii. 18. It is wholly opposite to God, •and to subjecliou to his law, as appears by Rom. viii, 7, 8. It is directly contrary to true holiness, and wholly opposes it, and holiness is opposite to that ; as appears by Gal. v. 17. So long as men are in their natural state, they not only have no good thing, but it is impossible they should have or do any good thing ; as appears by Rom. viii. 8. There is nothing; in their nature, as they have it by the first birth, whence should arise any true subjection to God ; as appears by Rom. viii, 7. If there were any thing truly good in xhtjlesh^ or in 7nan*8 nature^ or natural disposition, under a moral view, then

5t should only be amended ; but the scripture represents as though we were to be enemies lo It, and were to seek nothing short of its entire destruction, as lias been observed. And elsewhere the apostle directs not to the amending of the old man^ but. fiutting it off^ and putting on the neix) man ; and seeks not to have the body of death made belter, but to he delivered from it, and says, " That if any man be in Christ, he is a new-creature (which doubtless means the same as a man neiv born) old things are (not amended) but passed away, and all things ^re become new."

But this will.be further evident, if we ])articularly consider the apostle's discourse in the latter part of tbe second chapter of 1 Cor. and the beginning of the third. There the apostle speaks of the natural many and the spiritual man ; where natural and sfiiritiuU are opposed just in the same manner, as I liave observed carnal ^nd spiritual oiiGW are." In chap. ii. 14, 15, he says, " The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: For they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, because they are spiriuially discerned. But he that is spiritual, judgeth all things." And not onlv .does the apostle here oppose natural ond s/dritualy just as he elsewhere does carnal and spiritual^ but his following discourse evidently shews, that he means the very same distinction, the same two distinct and opposite tilings. For immediately on his thus speaking of the dKTerence between the natural and the spiritual man, he turns to the Corinthians, in the first words of the next chapter, connected with this, and says, " And I, brethren, could not si^eak nnto you as unto spiritual^ but as unto carnal" Referring manifestly to what he had been saying, in the immediately preceding discourse, about spiritual and natural men, and evidently using the word carnal, as synonymous with natural. By whicii it is put out of all reasonable dispute, that the apostle by natural men jneans the same as men in that cariial, sinful state, that they are in by their first birth ; notwithstanding all the glosses and criticisms, by which modern writers have endeavored to palm upon us another sense of this phrase ; and so to deprive us of the clear instruction the apostle gives in that 14th verse,

^Oi ORIGINAL SIK.

concerning the sinful, miserable state of man by nature. Df. Tavlor saysj by ^vxi>t^t is meant the animal man^ the man vho maketh sense and appetite the law of his action. If he aims to limit the meanint,' of the v.ord to external sense, and bodily appetite, his meaning is certainly not the apostle's. For the apostle in his sense includes the more spiritual vices of envy, strife, Sec. as appears by the four first verses of the next chapter ; where, as I have observed, he substitutes the word carnal in the place of •4/y;^4it(^. So the Apostle Jude uses the word in like manner, opposing it to spiritual^ or liav* ing the sfiira, ver. 19. '' These are they that separate themselves, sensual, (^uxiy-oi) not having the spirit." The vices he had been just speaking of, were chiefly of the more spiritual kind. Ver. 16. '< These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts ; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration, because of advantage." The vices mentioned are much of the same kind with those of the Corinthians, for which he calls them carnal, envying^ strife and divisions^ and saying, Ia7n of Paul^ and / ofAfioitos ; and being jiufftd ufifor one against another. We have the same word again, Jam. iii. 14, 15. " If ye have bitter envying and strife, glory not, and lie not against the truth : This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual (4'«%»«»») and devilish ;" where also the vices tho apostle speaks of are of the more spiritual kind.

^o that on the whole, there is sufficient reason to under-atand the apostle, when he speaks of the natural-man in that 1 Cor. ii. 14, as meaning man in his native, corrupt state. And his words represent him as totally corrupt, wholly a btranger and enemy to true virtue or holiness, and things appertaining to it, which it appears are commonly intended in the New Testament by things Kfiiritual, and are doubtless here meant by things of the Spirit of God. These words also represent that it is impoRsiblc man should be otherwise, while in his natural state. The expressions are very strong : The natural man rcceivcth not the things of the Spirit of God, is not gusceplible of things of that kind, neither can he know them, can have no true sense or relish of theni> or notion of their

Iftai nature and true excellency, because thnj are sfiirituaUy discerned : They arc not discerned by means of any principle in nature, but altogether by a principle that is divine, tomething introduced by the grace oi" God's Holy Spirit, vhich is above all that is natural. The words are in a con^ siderable de|>rec parallel with those of our Saviour, John xiv. 16, 17. "He shall give you the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither know-€th him ; but ye know him, for he dwellcth with you, and {Shall be in you."

SECTION II.

Observations on Romans iii. 9....24.

IF the scriptures represent all mankind as wicked in their first state, before they are made partakers of the benefits of Christ's redemption, then they are wicked by nature ; for doubtless men's first state is their native slate, or the state they come into the world in. But the scriptures do thus represent all mankind.

Before I mention particular texts to this purpose, I would observe that it alters not the case as to the argument in hand, whether we suppose these texts speak directly of infants, or only of such as are capable of some understanding, so as to understand something of their own duty and state. For if it be so with all mankind, thai as soon as ever they are capable of reflecting and knowing their own moral state, they find themselves wicked, this proves that they are wicked by nature ; either born wicked, or born with an infallible disposi-lon to be wicked as soon as possible, if there be any differ-

S06 ORIGINAL SIN.

cnce between these, and either of them will prove men tp be born exceedingly depraved. I have before proved, that a nar tive propensity to sin certainly follows from many things said in the scripture of mankind ; but what I intend now, is something more direct, to prove by direct scripture testimony, that all mankind, in their first state, are really of a wicked character.

To this purpose is exceeding full, express, and abundant that passage of the apostle, in Rom. iii. beginning with the 9th verse to the end of the 24th ; which I shall set down at large, distinguishing the universal terms which are here so often repeated, by a distinct cliaracter. The apostle, having in the first chapter, verse 16, 17, laid down his proposition, that none can be save4 in any other way than through the righteousness of God, by faith in Jesus Christ, proceeds to prove this point, by shewing particularly rhat all are in themselves wicked, and without rny righteousness of their own. First, he insists on the wickedneiss of the Gentiles, in the first chapter, and next, on the wickedness of the Jews, in the second chapter. And then in this place, he comes to sum lip the matter, and draw the conclusion in the words following : " What then, are we better than they ? No, in no •wise ; for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin ; as it is written, There is nor\e righteous, no, not one ; there is 7ione that understandeth ; there is none that seeketh after God ; they are all gone out of the way ; they are together become unprofitable ; there js -AQjie that doth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre ; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips ; whose ixiouth is full of cursing and bitterness ; their feet are swift to shed blood ; destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known ; there is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that whatsoever things the law sailh, it sailh to them thr.t are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall ao fiesh be justified in his sight ; for by the law is the knowl-

^flge of sin. But now the rij^hteoiisness of God without the law, is manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets ; even the ripihteousness of God, which is by faith of Je* sus Christ, unto all, and upon a//them that believe ; for there is no difference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ."

Here the thing which I would prove, viz. that mankind in their first state, before they are interested in the benefits of Christ's redemption, are universally wicked, is declared with tile utmost possible fulness and precision. So that if herc^ <his matter be not set forth plainly, expressly, and fully, it must be because no words can do it, and it is not in the power of language, or any manner of terms and phrases, however contrived and heaped up one upon another, determinately to signify any such thing.

Dr. Taylor, to take off the force of the v/hole, would have us to understand, pages 104...107, that these passages, quoted from the I^salms, and other parts of the Old Testament, do not speak of all mankind, nor of all the Jews ; but only of ■ theryi of whom they were true. He observes, there were many that were innocent and righteous ; though there were also many, a strong party, that were wicked, corrupt, &c. of whom these texts were to be understood. Concerning which I would observe the following things ;

1. According to this, the universality of the terms that are found in these places, which the apostle cites from the Old Testament, to prove that all the world, both Jews and Gentiles, are under sin, is nothing to his purpose. The apostle uses universal terms in his proposition, and in his conclusion, that all are under sin, that every mouth is stopped, all the world guilty....that by the deeds of the law no f.esh can be justified. And he chooses out a number of universal sayings or clauses out of the Old Testarrent, to confirm this universality ; as, " There is none righteous, no, not one : They are all gone out of the way : There is none that undcrstand-eth," &c. But yet the universality of these expressions is nothing to this purpose, because the universal terms found

.J08 dRIGINAL SIN.

in them have indeed no reference to any such universality aii^ this the apostle speaks of, nor any thing akin to it; they mean no universality, either in the collective sense, or personal sense ; no universality of the nations of the world, or of particular persons in those nations, or in any one nation in the world : " But only of those of whom they are true/' That is, there are none of them righteous, of whom it is true that they arc not righteous, no, not one : There are none that understand, of whom it is tri-c, that they understand not: They are all gone out of the way, of whom it is h^ue, that they arc gone out of the way, Sec. Or if these expressions are to be understood concerning that strong party in Israel, in David's and Solomon's days, and in the prophets' days, they are to be understood of them universally. And what is that to the apostle*s purpose ? How does such an universality of wickedness as this....that all were wicked in Israel, who were wicked ; or that there was a particular evil party, all of which were v.ickcd, confirm that universality which the apostle would prove, viz. that all Jews and Gentiles, and the whole world, were wicked, and every mouth stopped, and that no fi^sh could be justified by their own righteousness.

Here nothing can be said to abate the nonsense but this, that the apostle would convince the Jews that they were capable of being wicked, as well as other nations ; and to prove it, he mentions some texts, which shew that there was a wicked party in Israel a thousand years ago ; and that as to the universal terms which happened to be in these texts, the apostle had no respect to these ; but his reciting them is as it were accidental, they happened to be in some texts which speak of an evil party in Israel, and the apostle cites them as they are, not because they are any more to his purpose for the universal terms, which happen to be in them* But let the reader look on the words of the apostle, and observe the violence of such a supposition. Particularly let the words of the 9th and 10th verses, and their connexion, be observed. " All are under,sin : As it is written, There is .none righteous ; no, not one." How plain is it, that the apostle cites that latter universal clause out of the 14th Psalm, to confirm

the preceding tiniversal words of his own propositioo ? And yet it will follow from the thinj^s which Dr. Taylor supposes, that the universality of the terms in the last words, There is none righteous ; no, not one, hath no relation at all to that universality he speaks of in the pi'ecedini; clause, to which they are joined, all are under sin ; and is no more a confirmation of it, than if the words were thus : " There arc some, or there are many in Israel, that are not righteous."

2. To suppose the apostle's design in citing these passages, was only to prove to the Jews, that of old there was a considerable number of their nation that were wicked men, is to suppose him to have gone about to prove what none of the Jews denied, or made the least doubt of. Even the Pharisees, the most selfrighteous sect of them, who went furthest in glorying in the dijiiinction of their nation from other nations, as a holy people, knew it and owned it : They openly confessed that their forefathers killed the firofihets, Matth. xxiii. 29....31. And if the apostle's desi^jn had been only to refresh their memojies, to put them in mind of the ancient wickedness of their nation, to lead to reflection on themselves as guilty of the like wickedness, (as Stephen does, Acts vii) what need had the apostle to go so fur about to prove this ; gathering up many sentences here and there, which prove that their scriptures did speak of some as wicked men, and then, in the next place, to prove that the wicked men spoken of must be of the naiion of the Jews, by this argument, "That v/hat things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law," or that whatsoever the books of the Old Testament said, it must be understood of that people that had the Old Testament ? What need had the apostle of such an ambages or fetch as this, to prove to the Jews, that tjiere had been many of their nation in some of the ancient ages, which were wicked men ; when the Old Testament was full of passages that asscited ihio cxprcs,ly, not only of a strong party, but of the nation in general ? How much more would it have been to such a purpose, to have put them in mind of the wickedness of the people in general, in worshipping the golden calf, and the unbi-2 C

lief, murmurinp:, and pervei seness of the whole congregation in the wilderness, for forty years, as Stephen does I ^Vhich things he had no need to prove to be spoken of their nation, by any such indirect argument, as that, « Whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to thena that are under the law."

3. It would have been impertinent to the apostle's purpose, even as our author understands his purpose, for him to have gone about to convince the Jews that there had been a strong party of bad men in David*s, Solomon's, and the prophet's times. For Dr. Taylor supposes, the apostle's aim is to prove the great corruption of both Jews and Gentiles at that day, when Christ came into the world.*

In order the more fully to evade the clear and abundant testimonies to the doctrine of Original Sin, contained in this part of the holy scripture, our author says, "The apostle is here speaking of bodies of people, of Jews and Gentiles in a collective sense, as two great bodies into which mankind arc divided ; speaking of them in their collective capacity, and not with respect to particular persons ; that the apostle's design is to prove, neither of these two great collective bodies, in their collective sense, can be justified by law, because both were corrupt; and so that no more is implied, than that the generality of both were wicked."!

On liiis I observe, . (I.) That this supposed sense disagrees extremely with the terms and language which the apostle here makes use of. For according to this, we must understand, either,

First, That the apostle means no universality at all, but only the far greater part. But if the words which the apostle uses, do not most fully and detcrminately signify an universality., no words ever used in the Bible are sufficient to do it. I mighi ciiallcngc any man to produce any one paragraph in the scripture, from the beginning to the end, where there is such a repetition and accumulation of terms, so strongly and

» Spc Key, ^ 307, 310. + Pa^e 102, 104, 117, 119, 120, and Note on Rom, iii. 10....19,

emphatically and carefully, lo express the most perfect and absolute universality, or any place to be compared to it. What instance is there in the scripture, or indeed any olhcr writing, when the mcanintr is only the much greater pari, where this leaning is signified in such a manner, by repeating such expressions, "They are all....they are all....they arc all...together....every one....all the world,'* joined to mulii[)liL'd negative terms, to shew the uiiiversality to be without exception, saying, "There is no flesh... .there is none....there is none.... there is none....there is none, four times over; besides the addition of" No, not one....no, not one," once and again !

Or, secondly,if any universality at all be allowed, it is only of the collective bodies spoken of; and these collective bodies but two, as Dr. Taylor reckons them, viz. the Jewish nation, and the Gentile world ; supposing the aposlle is here representing each of these parts of mankind as being wicked. But is this the way of men's using language, when speaking of but two things, to express themselves in universal terms of such a sort, and in such annanncr, and when they mean no more than that the thing affirmed is predicated of both of them ? If a man, speaking of his two feet as both lame, should say, " All my feet are lame, they are t.ll lame, all together are become weak : None of my feet are strong, none of them are sound, no, not one ;" would not he be thought to be lame in his understanding, as well as his feet ? When the apostle says, that every mouth may be sto/i/ied, must we suppose, that he speaks only of these two great collective bodies, figuratively ascribing to each of them a mouth, and means that these two mouths are stoi)ped !

And besides, according to our author's own interpretation, the universal terms used in these texts cited from the Old Testament, have no respect to those two great collective bodies, nor indeed lo either of them, but to .^■o?ne in Israel, a particular disaffected p rly in that one nation, which was made up of wicked men. So that his interpretation is every way absurd and inconsistent.

(2.) If the aposlle is speaking only of the wickedness or guilt of great collective bodies, then it will follow, thai al-

so Ihe justification he here treats of, is no other than the justification of such collective bodies. For they are the same he speaks of as p:uilty and wicked, that he argues cannot be jtiatijird by the works of the law, by reason of their being nvickcd. Otherwise his argument is wholly disannulled. If the guilt he speaks of be only of collective bodies, then what he argues from that truilt, must be only that collective bodies cannot be justified by the works of the law, having no respect to the justification of particular persons. And indeed, this is Dr. Taylor's declared opinion. He supposes the apostle here, and in other parts of this epistle, is speaking of men's justification considered only as in their collective cafjacity* But the contrary is most manifest. The 26th and 28th verses of this third chapter cannot, without the utmost violence, be understood otherwise than of the justification of particular persons. " That he might be just, and the justificr of him that believeth in Jesus. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law." So chap. iv. 5. " But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." And what the apostle cites in the 61 h, 7th and 8th verses from the Book ot Psalms, evidently shews that he is speaking of the justification of particular persons. *' Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeih righteousness without works, saying. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." David says these things in the 32d Psalin, with a special respect to his own particular case ; there expressing the great distress he was in, while under a sense of the guilt of his personal sin, and the great joy he had when God forgave him.

And then, it is very plain in that paragraph of the 3d chapter, which we have been upon, that it is the justification of piw'ticular persons that the apostle speaks of by that place in the Old Testament, wliich he refers to in ver. 20. '' Therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified

* Sec Note on Rom. iii. iO.,..i9, chap, v, ii, and ix. 30, 31.

in his sight." He refers to that in Psal. cxliii. 2. « Enter not into judgment with thy ser\ani; for in thy si.^Mit shall no man llvi7ig be justified." Here the Psalmist \^ not speaking of the justification of a nation, as a colleciive body, or of one of the two parts of the world, but of a panicular man. And it is further manifest, that the apostle is here speaking of pergonal justification, inasmuch as this place is evidently parallel with that. Gal. iii. 10, 11, " For as many as are of the woiks of the law, are under the curse : For it is wiiuen. Cursed is rv-ery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the works of the law, is evident; for the just shall live bv faith." It is plain, that this place is parallel with that in the 3d of Romans, not only as the thing asserted is the same, and the argument by which it is proved here, is the same as there, viz. that all are guilty, and exposed to be condemned by the law : But the same saying of the Old Testament is cited here in the be{2;inning of this discourse in Galatians; chap, ii, 16. And many other thing.s demonstrate, that the apostle is speaking of the same justification in both places, which I . omit for brevity's sake.

And besides all these things, our author's interpretation makes the apostle's argument wholly void another way. The apostle is speaking of a certain subject, which cannot be justified by the works of the law ; and his argument is, that that same subject is guilty, and is condemned by the law. If he means, that one subject, suppose a collective body or bodies, cannot be justified by the law, because another subject, another collective body, is condemned by the law, it is plain, the argument would be quite vain and impertinent. Yet thus the argument must s'and according to Dr. Taylor's interpretation. The collective bodies, wl.ich he supposes are spoken of as wicked, and condemned by the law, cowsidcreil as in their colleciive capacity, are those two, the .Tewish nation, and the Heathen woild : But the c<illective body which he supposes the :ipusile speaks of as justified wiiliout the deeds of the law, is neither of these, but tlie Christian chuich, or body of believers ; which is a new collective body, a new

creature, and a new man ("according to our author*s understanding of such phrases) which never had any existence before it was justified, and therefore never was wicked or condemned, unless it was with regard to the individuals of M'hich it was constituted ; and it does not appear, according to our author's scheme, that thc?e individuals had before been generally wicked. For according to him, there was a number both among the Jews and Gentiles, that were righteous before. And how does it appear, but that the comparatively few Jews and Gentiles, of which this new created collective body was constituted, were chiefly of the best of each ?

So that in every view, this author's way of explaining this passage in the third of Romans, appears vain and absurd. And so clearly and fully has the apostle expressed himself, that it is doubtless impossible to invent any other sense to put upon his words, than that which will imply, that all man-kiiid, even every individual of the whole race, but their Redeemer himself, are in their first original state, corrupt and wicked.

Before I leave this passage of the apostle, it may be proper to observe, that it not only is a most clear and full testimony to the native depravity of mankind, but also plainly declares that natural depravity to be total and exceeding great. It is the apostle's manifest design in these citations from the Old Testament, to shew these three things. 1. That alt viankind are by nature corrufit. 2. That every one is altogether corrufit^ and, as it were, depraved in every part. S. That they are in every part corrtifu in an exceeding degree. With respect to the second of these, that every one is wholly, and, as it were, in every part corrupt, it is plain the apostle chooses out, and puts together those particular passages of the Old Testament, wherein most of those members of the body are mentioned, that are the soul's chief instruments or organs of external action. The hands (implicitly) in those expressions, TV/q/ are together become unfirofitahky There is r.one that doth good. The throat, tongue, lips and moutli, the organs of speech ; in those words, " Their throat is an open sepulchre : With their tongues they have used deceit; The

poison of asps is under their lifm ; \vhose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." The feet in those words, ver. 15, " Their feet are swift to shed blood.'* The^e thinf^s together signify, that man is, as it were, all over corrupt in every part. And not only is the total corruption thus intimated, by enumerating the several parts, but by denyin.y:of all good ; any true understanding or spiritual knowledge, any virtuous action, or so much as truly virtuous desire, or seeking after God. There is none that understandeth : There is none that secketh after God : There is none that doth good : The way of peace have they not known. And in general, by denying all true piety or religion in men in tlieir first state, ver. 18. " There is no fair of God before their eyes." The expressions also are evidently chosen to denote a most extreme and desperate wickedness of heart. An exceeding depravity is ascribed to every part: To the throat, the scent of an ofien scjiulchrc ; to the tongue and lips, deceit^ and the pcisoii ofasjis ; to the mouth, cursing and bitterness ; of their feet it is said, they arc sivift ta shed blood : And with regard- to the whole man, it is said, dc structio7i ^ud misery are in their ways. The representation .is very strong of each of these things, viz. That all mankind are corrupt ; that every one is rjholly and altogether corrupt; and also extremely and desperately corrupt. And it is plain, it is not accidental, that wc have here such a collection of such strong exprcssioiis, so emphatically signifying these things ; but that they are chosen of the apostle on design, as being directly and fully to his purpose ; which purpose appears in all his discourse in the whole of this chapter, and indeed from the beginning of the epistle.

SECTION III.

Observations on "Rom^ins V. 6.. ..10^ and Ephesians li. 3, with the Context^ and Romans vii.

ANOTHER passage of this apostle in the same epistle to the Romans, which shews that all that are made partakers of the benefits of Christ's redemption, are in their first state wicked, and desperately wicked, is that, chap. v. 6 ...10. " For ■when we were yet without strength^ in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die ; yet peradventnre fbi* a good man, some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners^ Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from nvrath through him. For if while we were enemies^ we were reconciled to God through the dea h of his Son ; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

Here all that Christ died for, and that are saved by him, are spoken of as being in their first state sinners^ ungodly^ enemies to God, exposed to divine nvrath^ and without strength-^ without ability to help themselves, or deliver their souls from this miserable state.

Dr. Taylor says. The apostle here speaks of the Gentiles only in their heathen state^ in contradistinction to the Jews ; and that not of particular persons among the heathen Gentiles, or as to the state they were in personally ; but only of the Gentiles collectively taken, or of the miserable stale of that great collective body, the heathen world : And that these appellations, sinncrsi ungodly^ enemies, &c. were names by which the apostles in their writings were wont to sigTiify and distin-tinguish the heathen world, in opposition to the Jews ; and that in this sense these appellations are to be taken in tiieir epistles, and in this place in particular.* And it is observa-

• Page 114....120. Set- also Dv. Taylor's Paraph, and Notes o» the placr.

ble, that this way of interpreting tliese phrases in the apostolic writings, is become tashicnublc with many late wiiteis; ■whereby they not only evade several clear testimonies to the doctrine of orip;inal '.in, but make void ^rcai pan of ihc New Testament; on which account it deserves the more particular consideration.

It is allowed to have been long common and cu«itomary among the Jews, in Christ's and the apostle's days, ebpcrially those of the sect of the Pharisees, in their pride and confidence in their privileges, as the peculiar people of God, to exalt themselves exceedingly above other nations, and greatly to despise the Gentiles, and call them by such names as sinnera^ enemies^ doga^ Sec. as notes of distinction from themselves, whom they accounted in general (excepting the publicans, and the notoriously proHigute) as xhafritnds^ specialyw-zi/onVr*, and childrtn of God ; because they were the children of Abraham, were circumcised, and had the law of Moses, as their peculiar privilege, and as a wall of partition between them and the Gentiles.

But it is very remarkable, that a Christian divine, who has studied the New Testament, and the epistle to the Romans in particular, so diligently as Dr. Taylor, should be strong in an imagination, that the apostles of Jesus Christ should so far countenance, and do so much to cherish these selfexalting, uncharitable dispositions and notions of the Jews, which gave rise to such a custom, as to fall in with that custom, and adopt that language of their pride and contempt; and especially that the Apostle Paul should do it. It is a most unreasonable imagination on many accounts.

1. The whole gospel dispensation is calculated entiicly to overthrow and abolish every thing to which this seifdisiin-guishing, selfexalting language of t'^e Je^'s was owing. It was calculate ' wholly to exchide sucli boasiing, and \o destroy that pride and self righteousness that were the causes of it : It was calculated to tibolish the enmity, and break vvri the partition wall between Jews and Gentiles, and oftrj;ain to make one new man^ ao makinic ficace ; to destroy al' di-position* in nations and particular persons to dcipise one au')thcr^ wf 9D

say one to another, Stand by thyself^ come not near to inc ; foi* I am holier than thou ; and to establish the contrary principles of humility, mutual esteemj honor and love, and universal union, in the most firm and perfect manner.

2. Christ, when on earth, set himself, throuj^h the course of his ministry, to militate against this pharisaical spirit, practice, and language of the Jews ; appearing in such representations, names, and epithets, so customary among them ; by M'hich they shewed so much contempt of the Gentiles, publicans, and such as were openly lewd and vicious, and so exalted themselves above them ; calling them n'mners and enemies^ and themselves holy and God*s children; not allowing the Gentile to be their neighbor, Sec. He condemned the Pharisees for not esteeming themselves si?iners^ as well as the publicans ; trusting in themselves that they were righteous, and despising others. He militated against these things in his own treatment of some Gentiles, publicans, and others, whom they called sinnersy and in what he said on those occasions.*

He opposed these notions and manners of the Jews in his parables,t and in his instructions to his disciples how to treat the unbelieving Jev/s \\ and in what he says to Nicodemus about the necessity of a new birth, even for the Jews, as well as the unclean Gentiles, wit^ regard to their proselytism, w hich some of the Jews looked upon as a ncrj birth : And in opposition to their notions of their being the children of God, because the children of Abraham, but the Gentiles by nature sinners and children of wrath, he tells ihem that even they were children of the deviL\\

♦ Matth. viu.5...i3. Chap. ix. 9...13. Chap. xi. 19 ..24. Chap, xv« ii...28. Luke vii. 37, to the end. Chap, xvii 1 2, .19. Chap. xix. i.,.xo. lohn iv. 9, &:c. ver. 39, &c. Compare Luke x. 29, &c. '* + Matth. xxi. 28...32, Chap. xxii. 1...10. Luke xiv. 16.,,24. Compare Luke xiii. 28, 29, 30. % Matth. x. 14, 15 |1 John viii. 33 ..44.

U may lilso be observed, that John the Baptist greatly contradicted the Tews' opinion of themselves, as being a holy people, and accepted of God» because they ■were the children of Abraham, and on that account better thau thchcaihcn, whom they called kinutrs, tncmies, unclean, 5cc. in baptizing iIk'

3. Though we should suppose the aposlles not to have been thoroughly brought ofF from such notions, manners and language of the Jews, till after Christ's ascension ; yet after the pouring out of the Spirit on the day of pentecost, or ut least, after the calling of the Gentiles, l>cgun in the conversion of Cornelius, ihcy were fully indoctrinated in ihis matter, and effectually taught no longer to call the Geniilcs unclean, as a note of distinction from the Jews, Acts x. 28, which was before any of the apostolic epistles were written.

4. Of all the apostles, none were more perfectly instructed in this matter, and none so abundant in instruciing others in it, as Paul, the great Apostle of the Gentiles. He had abundance to do in this matter «• None of the apostles had so much occasion to exert themselves against the fore mentioned notions and languap:^; of the Jews, in opposition to Jewish teachers, and judaizing Christians, that strove to keep up tiie separation wall between Jews and Gentiles, and to exalt the former, and set the latter a* nought.

5. This apostle does especially strive in this matter in his epistle to.the Romans, above all his other writings ; exerting himself in a most elaborate manner, and with his utmost skill and power, to bring the Jewish Christians off from every thing of this kind ; endeavoring by all means that there might no longer be in them any remains of these old notions they had been educated in, of such a great distinction between Jews and Gentiles, as were expressed in the names they used to dislhiguish them by, calling the Jews holy, chilJren of Abraham, friends and children of God ; but the Gentiles sin-ners, unclean, enemies, and the like. He makes it almost his whole business, from the beginning of the epistle, to this passage in the 5th chapter, whicli we are upon, to convince them that there was no ground for any such distinction, and

Jews as a polluted ^to^\t, and sinntrs, as the Jews used to baptize proselytes from among the heathen ; calling them to repentance as sinners, saying, " Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for 1 say unto >ou, that God is able, of these stones, to raise up children unto Abiaham ;" and teaching the Pharisees, that instead of their being a holy generation, a«d children of God, as they called thcmsclvcj, they were a gemrjtion o( lif'rrf.

to prove Ihat in common, both Jews and Gentiles, all wert desperately wicked, and none rigiUeous ; no, not one. He tells them, chap. iii. 9, that the Jews were by no means better than the Gentiles ; and (in what follows in that chapter) that there was no difTercncc between Jews and Gentiles ; and represents all as without strength, or any sufficiency of their own in the affair of justification and redemption : And in the continuation of the same discourse, in the 4th chapter, teaches that all that were justified by Christ, were in themselves ungodly; and that being the children of Abraham was not peculiar to the jews. In this 5th chapter, siill in continuation of the same discourse, on the same subject and argument of justification through Christ, and by faith in him, he speaks of Christ's dying for the uyigodly and sinners, and those that were without strength or sufficiency for their own salvation, &s he had done all along before. But now,it seems, the apos* tie by sinners and wigodly must not be understood according as he used these words before ; hut must be supposed to mean only the Gentiles as distinguished from the Jews ; adopting the language of those selfrighteous, selfexalting, disdainful, judaizing teachers, whom he was with all his might opposing ; countenancing the Very same thing in them, which he had been from the beginning of the epistle discountenancing and endeavoring to discourage, and utterly to abolish, with all his art and strength.

• One reason why the Jews looked on themselves better than the Gentiles, and called themselves holy^ andjhe Gentiles ainners^ was, that they had the law of Moses. They made thcf)- boast of the laiv. But the apostle shews them, that this was so far from making them better, thi^t it condemned them, and was an occasion of their being sinners, in a higher degree, and more aggravated manner, and more effect;rally and dreadfully dmd in, and by sin, chap. vii. 4... 13, agreeable to those words of Christ, John v. 45.

It cannot be justly objected here, that this apostle did indeed use this language, and call the Gentiles sinners, in contradistinction to the Jews, in what he said to Peter, which he himself gives an account of in Gal. ii. l5, 16. " We who

ORIGINAL SIN. nfi

are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by feith in Jesus Christ " II is true that the apostle here refers k) this distinction, as what was usually made by the selfripht-IBOUS Jews, between themselves and the Gentiles, but not i^ such a manner as to adopt or favor it ; but on the contrary, so as plainly to shew his disapprobation of it ; 7. d. " Though we were born'Jews, and by nature are of that people which are wont to make their boasi of the law, expecting to be justified by it, and trust in themselves that they are righteous, despising others, calling the Gentiles ainnera^ in distinction from themselves; yet we, being now instructed in the gospel of Christ, know better. We now know that a man is not justified by the works of the law ; that we are all justified only by faith in Christ, in whom there is no difference, no distinction of Greek or Gentile and Jew, but all are one in Christ Jesus.'* And this is the very thing he there speaks of, ■which he blamed Peter for ; that by his withdrawing and separating himself from the Gentiles, refusing to eat with them, fee. he had countenanced this selfexalting, seitdistin-guishing, separating spirit and custom of the Jews, whereby they treated the Gentiles, as in a distinguishing manner, 5m-ners and unclean^ and not fit to come near them who were a holy people.

6. The words themselves of the apostle in this place, shew plainly, that he here uses the word minersy not as signifying Gentiles, in opposition to Jews, but as denoting the morally evil, in opposition to such as are righteous or good : Because this latter opposition or distinction between sinners and righteous is here expressed in plain terms. " Scarcely for a righteous man will one die ; yet peradveuture for a good man some would even dare to die ; but God commended his !ove towards us, in that while we were yei sinners, Christ died for us.** By righteous men are doubtless meant the same tiiat are meant by such a phrase, throughout this apostle's writings, and throughout the New Testament, and throughout the Bible. Will any one pretend, that by the righteous man, whom rnen would scarcely die for, and by the good man, ♦hat per*

^ <^<l ORIGINAL SIN,

haps some might even dare to die for, is meant a Jew ? Dr. Taylor himself does not explain it so, in his exposition of this epistle, and therefore is not very consistent with himself, in supposing; that in the other part of the distinction the apostle means Gentiles, as distine^uished from the Jews. The apostle himself had been laboring abundantly, in the preceding part of the epistle, to prove that the Jews were sinners in this sense, namely, in opposition to righteous ; that all had mnned, that all were under sin, and therefore could not be justified, could not be accepted as righteous by their own righteousness.

7. Another thing which makes it evident that the apostle, when he speaks in this place of the sinners and enemies which Christ died for, does not mean only the Gentiles, is that he includes himself amon^ them, saying, while ive were sinners, and when xve were enemies.

Our author from time to time says,« The apostle, though lie speaks only of the Gentiles in their Heathen state, yet puts himaplf ivith therriy because he 'was the afiostle of the Geti-tiles** But this is very violent and unreasonable. There is no more sense in it than there would be in a father's ranking himself among his children, when speaking to his children of the benefits they have by being begotten by himself, and saying, We children....ox in a physician's ranking himself v.ith his patients, when talking to them of their diseases

and cure, saying, IVe sick folks Paul being the apostle of

the Gentiles, to save them from their Heathenism, is so far from being a reason for him to reckon himself among the Heathen, that on the contrary, it^ is the very thing that would render it in a peculiar manner unnatural and absurd for him so to do. Because, as the apostle of the Gentiles, he appears as their healer and deliverer from Heathenism ; and therefore in that capacity does in a peculiar manner appear in his distinction from the Heathen, and in opposition to the state of Heathenism. For it is by the most opposite qualities only, that he is fitted to be an apostle of the Heathen, and recovcrcr from Hcathcnisn;. As the clear light of the sun is the thing which makes i: a proper restorative from

darkness; and therefore the sun's bcinp; spoken of as such a remedy, none would suppose to be a good reason why it should he ranked wi-h darkness, or amont; dark thin;rs. And besides (whici' luakts this supposition of Dr. Taylor's appear more violent) the apostle in this epistle, docs expressly rank himself with the Jews, when he speaks of them as distinguished from the Cientiles, as in chapter iii. 9. *' What then ? Are -nr better than they ?'* Tliat is, arc w<- Jcivs better than the Gentilea ?

It cannot justly be allej^ed in opposition to this, thai^ the Apostle P^er puts himself with the heathen, I Pet. iv. 3. " For'the time past of our life may sufiice us to have wroui'-ht the will of the Gentiles; when w^ walked in lascivioiisness, lusts, excess of wine, rcvcllings, banquctint^js, and abominable idolatries. For the Apostle Peter, (who by tlie wav was not an apostle of the Gentiles) here does not speak of himself as (Uie of the Heathen, but as one of the church of Christ in general, made up of those that had been Jews, Proselytes, and Heathens, who were now all one body, of which bodv he was a metr.ber. It is thisi society therefore, and no; ;!ie Gentiles, that he refers to in the pronoun us. He is speaking of the wickedness that the members of this body or society had lived in before their conversion ; not that every member had lived in all those vices here mentioned, but some in one, others in another. Very parallel with that of the Apostle Paul to Titus, chap. iii. 3. " For ivc ourselves also (i. e. we of the Christian church) were sonjetimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, (some one lust and pleasure, others another) living in malice, envy, hateful and hating one another,*' Sec. There is nothing in this, but what is very natural. That the apostle, speaking to the Christian church, and cf that church, confessing its former sins, should speak ol himself as one of that society, and yet mention some sins that he personally had not been v,'^ui!ty of, and among others. Heathenish idolatry, is quite a different ihiui;' from wluit it would iiave been for the apostle, expressly distinguishing those of the Christians which had bceu

«i24 ORIGINAL SIN.

Heathen, from those which had been Jews, to have ranked biniiielf with the formei, though he was truly of the lattei*.

If a minister in some congregation in England, speaking in a sermon of the sins of the nation, being himself of the nation, shoiald say, " JVe have greatly corrupted ourselvesj and provoked God by our deism, blasphemy, profane swearing, lasciviousness, venality,** See. speaking in the first person plural, though he himself never had been a deist, and perhaps none of his hearers, and they might also have been generally free from other sins he mentioned ; yet there "would be nothing unnatural in his thus expressing himself. But it would be a quite different thing, if one part of the British dominions, suppose our king's American dominions, had universally apostatised from Christianity to deism, and had long been in such a state, and if one that had been born and brought up in England among Christians, the country being universally Christian, should be sent among them to shew them the folly and great evil of deism, and convert them to Christianity ; and this missionary, when making a distinction between Enp:lish Christians, and these deists, shoul4 rank himself with the latter, and say,»' JVe American deists, <ive foolish, blind infidels,'* Sec. this indeed would be very unnatural and absurd.

Another passage of the apostle, to the like purpose v^ith that which we have been considering in the 5th of Romans, is that in Eph. ii. 3. " And were by nature children of ^vrath, even as others." This remains a plain testimony to the doctrine of Original Sin, as held by those that used tQ be called orthodox Christians, after all the pains and art used to torture and pervert it. This doctrine is here not only plainly and fully taught, but abundantly so, il we take the words with the cf)ntext, where Christians are once and again represented as being, in their first state, dead in .sm, and as quickened-dmX rained uji from such a state of death, in a most marvellous display of free and rich grace and lo-vcy and exceed-* ing greatness of the power of God,, Sec.

With respect to those words, jj^asv TJKta (pyc-ci o§y>};, We were hy tiature children ofivra'.h.^ Dr. Taylor says, pages 112..,.114.

^'< The apostle means no more by this, than truly or really children of wrath ; nainej a inctaphorical expression, borrowed fiom ihci word that is used to si>i;nify a trne and genuine child of a family, in dislincuon from one that is a child only by adoption.'* In which il is owned, that the prop, er sense of the phrase is, beinj;; a child by naiure, in the same sense as a chrld by birth or natural generation ; but only he supposes that here the word is used mrtafihorically Tlie instance he produces as parallel, to contnm liis supposed nieta-'phorical sense of the phrase, as meaning only tridu- really., or firoperly children of wrath, viz. the Apostle Paul's calling Timothy his oivn son in the faiths jtriamt texw», is so far from confirming his sense, that it is rather «Jirectly agiiinst it. For doubtless the apostle uses the word y»)<7»o> in its original sig. nification here, meaninc; his btgotien son^ ymr*©* being the adjective from yoj-tj, oftspring, or the verb ymau-i to beget ; as much as to say, Timothy^ my btgotten son in the faith ; only allowing for the two ways of being begotten, spoken of in the New Testament, one natural, and the other spiritual ; one being the first generation, the other regeneration ; the one a being begotten as to the human nature, the other a being begotten in the faith, begotten in Christ, or as to onc*8 Christianity. The apostle expressly signifies which of theae he means in this place, Timothy my begotten son in the faitij, in the same manner as he says to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. iv. 15. '' In Christ Je^usI have begotten you through the gospel." To say the apostle uses the word (pv7H, in Eph. ii. 3, only as signifying reel, true, and proper, is a most arbitrary interpretation, having nothing to warrant it in the whole Bible. The word (py<7K is no where used in this sense in the New Testament.*

Another thing which our author alleges to evade the force of this, is that the word rendered nature^ sometimes signifies habit contracted by custom^ or an acquired nature. But this is not the proper meaning of the v/ord. And it is plain the

'* The following are ail ihe other places whcic ihe word is usc<i, Ri-m i. i6, ii. 14, 27, xi. 21, 24, tKrice in that verse, i Cor. xi. 14. G V. 8. y.'nie<i ill. 7, twice in thjt v r -• ^^.A " P *. i 4,

5> F.

'^^■b

ORIGINAL SIN.

M'ovd in its common use, in the New Testament, signifief what we properly express in English by the word nature*-'J'hpre is but one place wiiere tliere can be the least pretext for supposing- it can be used otherwise; and that is 1 Cor. xi. 14. " Doth not even rza^z/rr itself teach you, that if a man liavc loni; hair, it is a shame unto him ?" And even here there is, I think, no manner of reason for understanding na-/?/rr otherwise than in the proper sense. The emphasis used avrv n <pv(Ti;, nature itself^ shews that the apostle does not ihcan custom^ but nature in the proper sense. It is true, it was long custom, that made having the head covered a token of subjection, and a feminine habit or appearance ; as it is custom that makes any outward action or word a sign or signification of any tlung ; but nature itself^ nature in its proper sense, leaches that it is a shame for a man to appear with the established signs of the female 6ex, and with significations of inferiority, &:c. As nature itself shews it to be a shame for a father to bow down or kneel to his own child or servant, or for men to bow to an idol, because bowing down is by custom an established token or sign of subjection and submission ; such a sight, therefore, would be unnatural, shocking to a man's very nature. So nature would teach that it is a shame for a woman to use such and such lascivious words or gestures, though it be custom, that establishes the unclean signification of those gestures and sounds.

It is pariicularly unnatural and unreasonable, to understand the phrase, Tjjcva (pvcet, in this place, any otherwise than in the proper sense, on the following accounts.

1. It may be observed that both the words rsxyat and (pvcri^^ in their original signification, have refererlce to the birth or jjeneration. So the word <pyo-»j, which comes from Ovw, which signifies to beget, or bring forth young, or to put forth, or bud forth as a plant that brings forth young buds and branches. And so the word Tmvov comes from tiKtu^ which signifies to bring forth children.

'2. As though the apostle took care by the word used here, to signify what we arc by birih, he changes the word he used before for children. In the preceding vcMse lie used

uot, speakinp: of the children of disobedience ; but hci'c TSK»a, which is a word derived, as was now ohscivcd, from T»xTw, to brinLi^ forth a chikl, and more propcily signilics a begotten or born child.

3. It is natural to suppose that the uposile here speaks in opposition to the pride of some, especially the Jews, (for the church in Kphesus was made up partly of Jews, as well as the church in Rome) who exalted themselves in the privileges they had by birth, because they were bow t'ne chiicireu of Abraham, and were Jews by vaiurr^ <pv(T$i IbJaiot, as the phrase is, Gal. ii. 15. In opposition to this proud conceit, he teaches the Jews, that notwithstanding this^ they were by nature children of wrath, even as others^ i. c. as well as the Gentiles, which the Jews had been lau'^ht to look upon as fiinners^ and out of favor with God by ?iaturry and b'jim c/iiidrer •f wrath.

4. It is more plain, that the apostle uses the word natnrt in its proper sense here, because he sets what they were by nature, in opposition to what they are by grace. In this verse, the apostle shews what they are by nature, viz. children of wrath ; and in the following verses he shews how very different their state is by grace, saying, verse 5, By grace ye are saved, repeating it again, verse 8, By grace ye are saved. But if by being children of wrath by nature, were meant no more than only their being really and truly children of wrath, as Dr. Taylor supposes, there would be no opposition in the signilicalion of these phrases ; for in this sense they were by nature in a state of salvation, as much as by naturr thildrcn of nvrath ; for they were truly, really, and firofurlij in a state of salvation.

If we take these words with the context, the whole a-bundantly proves that by nature wc are totally corrupt, without any good thing in us. I'or if we allow the plain scope of the place, without attempting to hide it, by extreme violence used with the apostle's words and expressions, the de«>ign here is strongly to establish thii point ; that what Christians have that is good in them, or in their state, is in no ftart of it naturallv in ihemsclves, or from themselves, hut is t^Vvc//.;

from dhnne grace, all the f^fi of God^ and his ivorkmanshifi^ih^ effect of his power, and free and wonderful love : None of our j>^ood works are prinaarilv from ourselves, but with res* peel to thein all, 'we are God's ivorkmanshifi^ created unto good tvorks^ as it were out of nothinej: Not so much 2i% faith itself the fiist principle of t^ood works in Christians, is of themselves, but that is the gift of God.

Therefore the apostle compares the work of God, in forming Christians to true virtue anrl holiness, not only to a near creation^hvit 2k resurrection^ ov rAHiTi^ from the dead, ver. I. ** You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." And again, ver. 5. " Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ." In speaking of Christians being quickened with Christ, the apostle has reference to what he had said before, in the latter part of the foregoing chapter, of God's manifesting the exceeding greatness of his flower towards Christian converts in their conversion, agreeable to the operation of his mighty fio'iver^ when he raised Christ from the dead. So that it is plain by every thing in this discourse, the apostle would signify, that by nature we have no goodness ; but are as destitute oi it as a dead corpse is of life : And that all goodness, all good works, and faith the principle of all, are perfectly the gift of God's grace, and the work of his great, almighty, and exceeding excellent power. I think, there can be vi^.^A of nothing but reading tiie chapter^ and minding what is read, 'o convince all who have common \inderstanding, of this; whatever any of the most subtle crit-ics have done, w ever can do, to twist, rack, perplex, and pervert the words and phrai>es here used.

Dr. Tayh^r here again insists, that the apostle speaks only _ of tiie Gentiles in their heathen stale, when he speaks of those that were dead in sin, and by nature children of wrath; and that though he seems to include himself among these, saying, " We were by nauire ciiildren of wrath, we were dead in sins ;" yet he only puis himself among them because he wa:^ the apostle ol the (it.niilos. The gross absurdity of which may appear from what was said before. But besides the things which have been alrea^ly observed, there arc some

thin^ which make it peculhrly unreasonable to understand it so here. It is true, the greater part of the church of £ph©-sus had been heathens, and therefore the aposile often has reference to their heathen state, in this epistle. But the \»ords in this chap. ii. 3, plainly shew, that he means himself «Uid other Jews in distinction from the Gentiles ; for the distinction is fully expressed- After he had told the Ephcsiani, ■who had been generally heathen, that they had l>cen dead in sin, and had walked according to the course of thia world, 8cc. ver. 1 and 2, he makes a distinction, and says, " Among whom life also had our conversation, &c. and were by nature children of wrath, even as others,** Here first he changes the per(k>n ; whereas, before he had spoken in the second person, " Ye were dead....y"e in time past walked,'* &c. Now he changes ?<lile, and uses the first person, in a most manifest distinction, *» Among whom lue also** that is, lue Jeivs, as well as yc Gen^ 4iles: Not only changing the person, but adding a particle of distinction, also; which would be nonsense, if he meant the same without distinction. And besides all this, more fully to express the distinction, the apostle further adds a pronoun of distinction : " IVe also, even as others** or, we as well as others : Most evidently having respect to the notions, so generally entertained by the Jews, of their being much better than the Gentiles, in being Jews by nature, children of Abraham, and children of God ; when they supposed the Gentiles to be utterly cast off, as born aliens, and by nature children ofii^rath : In opposition to this, the apostle says, " We Jews, after all our glorying in our distinction, luere by riature children of v>rath, as luell as the rest of the ivorld.'* And a yet further evidence, that the apostle here means to include the Jews, and even himself, is the universal term he uses, " Among whom also we all had our conversation," €cc. Though wickedness was supposed by the Jews to be the course of this ^voorlcl, as to the generality of mankind, yet they supposed themselves an exempt people, at least the Pharisees, and the devout observers of the law of Moses, and traditions of the elders ; whatever might be thought of publicans and harlots. But in oppo* sition to this, the apostle asserts, that they rU were no belter

by nature than others, but were to be reckoned among the

children of disobedience, and children of ivrath.

And then besides, if the apostle chooses to put himself among the Gentiles, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, I would ask, why does he not do so in the 11th verse of the same chapter, where he speaks of their Gentile state expressly ? Remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh. Why does he here make a distinction between the Gentiles and himself? Why did he not say, Let us remember, that we being in times past Gentiles ? And why does the same apostle, even universally, make the same distinction, speaking either in the second or third person, and never in the first, where he expressly speaks of the Gentilism of those that he wrote to ; or speaks of them with reference to their distinction from the Jews ? So every where in this same epistle ; as in chap. i. 12, 13, where the distinction is made just in the same manner as here, by the change of the person, and by the distinguishing particle, also. " That ive should be to the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ (the first believers in Christ being of the Jews, before the Gentile* were called) in whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation," And in all the following part of this second chapter, as ver. 11, 17, 19, and 22, in which last verse the same distinguishing particle again is used : " In whom ye also are buikled together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." See also thefollowing chapters : Chap. iii. 6, and iv. 17. And not only in this epistle, but constantly in other epistles ; as Rom. i. 12, 13 ; chap, xi. 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,22,23,24, 25, 28, 30, 31 ; chap, XV. 15, 16 ; 1 Cor. xii. 2 ; Gal. iv. 8 ; Col. i. 27 ; chap. ii. 13 ; 1 Thess. i. 5, 6, 9 ; chap. ii. 13, 14, i5, 16,

Thoiigh I am far from thinking our author's exposition of the 7lh chapter of Romans to be in any wise agreeable to the true sense of the apostle, yet it is needless here to stand particularly to examine it ; because the doctrine of Original Sin may be argued not the less strongly, though we should allow the thing wherein he mainly differs from such as he oppose* in his interpretation, viz. That the apostle does not

speak in his own name, or to represent the state of a true Christian, but as representing the state of the Jews under the law. For even on this supposition, the drift of the place will prove, that every one who is under the law, and with equal reason everyone of mankind, L» carnal, sold under ain, in his first state, and till delivered by Christ. For it is plain, that the apostle's design is (o shew the insufficiency of the law t« give life to any one whatsoever. This appears by what he says when he comes to draw his conclusion, in the continuation of this discourse ; chap. viii. 3.* " For what the law could not do, in that it was weak ihrouc^h the flesh ; God sending his own Son," &c. Our author supposes this here spoken of, viz. " That the law cannot give life, because it is weak through the flesh," is true with respect to every one of mankind.^ And when the apostle gives this reason, In that it is -ivcak throng/} the Jlesh, it is plain, that by the ,flesh, which here he opposes to the Sfiirit, he means the same thing which, in the preceding part of the same discourse, in the foregoing chapter, he had called by t+ie nameT^e*/;, ver. 5, 14, 18 ; and the Imv of the viembers, ver. 23 ; and the body of death, ver. 24. Which is the thing that through this chapter he insists on as the grand hindrance and reason why the law could not give life, just as he does in his conclusion, chap. viii. S. Which in this last place, is given as a reason why the law cannot give life to any of mankind. And it being the same reanon of the same thing, spoken of in the same discourse, in the former part of it; as appears, because this last place is the conclusion, of which that former part is the premises : And inasmuch as ihe reason there given is being in the flesh, and a be^ ing carnal, sold under sin : Therefore taking the whole of the apostle's discourse, this is justly understood to be a reason why the law cannot give life to any of mankind ; and consequently, that all mankind are in the fesh, and are carnal, sold -under sin, and so remain till delivered by Ghrist: And consequently, all mankind in their first or original state arc very sinful ; which was the thing to be proved.

♦ Dr. Taylor himself reckons this a part of the siine disrour^c or par^ graph, in the division he makes of liie epis'.K-, iu iiis painpliras- and notes :iP0D it. + See Note on Rom. v. ^^■

032 / ORIGINAL SIN.

CHAPTER IV.

Containing Observations on Romans v. 12, to th.

End.

SECTION L

Remarkt on Dr. Taylor'^s way ofexfilatning this Text.

THE following things are worthy to be taken notice of, concerning our author's exposition of this remarkable passage of the Apostle Paul,

I. He greatly insists, that by death in this place no moro is meant, than that death which wc all die, when this present life is extinguished, and the body returns to the dust; that DO more is meant in the 12th, 14th, 15th, and 17,th verses. Page 27, he speaks of it as evideiitly^ clearly^ and infallibly «o, because the apostle is still discoursing on the same subject; plainly implying, that it must most infallibly be so, that the aposile means no more by death, throughout this paragraph on the subject. But as infallible as this is, if we believe what Dr. Taylor elsewhere says, it must needs be otherwise. lie, in p. 120, -S', tpeaking of those words in the last verse of the next chapter, " The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life^ through Jesus Christ our Lord,** says, ," Death in this place is widely different from the death we novj die ; 9?i if stands there vpfioscd to eternal ///<?, v/liich is the gift of

ORIGINAL SlM. $33

(icd through Jesus Christ, it manifestly signifies eternal deaths the second deaths or then death which they 5hi»ll hereafter die, who live after the flesh." But death (in the conclu>,ion of the paragraph we are upon in the 5th chapter, concerninj; the death that comes by Adam) and the hfe that comes by Chiist, in the last verse of the chapter, is o/i/ioscd to eternal life jusi in the same manner as it is in the last verse of the next chapter : " That as sin has reigned unto deaths even so might ^race reign, through righteousness, un\.o eter?ial life, by Jesus Christ our Lord." So that by our author's own argument, death in this place also is manifestly ividely dijfcrent from the death we noio die^ as it stands here ofifiosed to eternal lifCf through Jesus ChrL-it; end s:g7vfies eternal deaths the second death. And yet this is a part of the same discourse or paragraph with that begun in the 12ih verse, as reckoned by Dr. Taylor himself in his division of paragraphs, in his paraphrase and notes on the epistle. So that if we will follow him, and admit his reasonings in the various parts of his book, hero is manifest proof against infallible evidence ! So that it is true, the aposile throughout this whole passage on the same subject, by death, evidently^ clearly^ and iifalUbhj mean-t no more than that death we noiv die-, ii;hen this life is extinguished ; and yet by death, in some part of this passage, is meant something -svidely different from the death wc now die, and is manifestly intended eternal deaths the second death.

5ut had our author been more consistent with hinaselfin his laying of it down as so certain and i^fallible^ that because the apostle has a special respect to temporal death, in the 14th verse, Death reigned from jldarn to Alosesy therefore he means no more in the severi.l consequent puns of this passage, yet he is doubtless too confident and positive in this matter. This is no more evident^ clear, and infullible^ ihi^n that Christ meant no more by /lerish/ng, m Luke xiii. 5, vvlicn he siiys, '- I tell you. Nay, but except yc repent, ye shall all Tikcwisc periih ;" than sorb a temporal death, as came o.i those ihui died by the full of the lowt-r of Siloam, vpoken of in the preceding words of'he same ^ptcch ; and no more in-i'ullibic, i^ian that by lifej Ci*rist nic^ais no moi-• - '''ifc.

temporal lite, in each part of that one sentence, INIatth, x. 5?, " He iliat findeth his life shall lose it ; and he that loseth Ma ///*£? for my sake, shall findzV;'* because in the first part of each clauf^e, he has respect especially to temporal life.*

The truth of the case, with respect to what the apostle interifls by the word death in this place, is this, viz. That the same ihinpr is meant, that is meant by death in the foregoing and followinc: parts of *his epistle, and other writings of this apostle, where he speaks of death as the consequence of sin, viz. the whole of that death, which he, and the scripture every where, speaks of as the proper wages and punishment of sin, including death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal; though in some parts of this discourse he has a more special respect 10 one part of this whole, in others to another, as his argument leads him ; without any more variation thai^ is common in the same discourse. That life, which the scripture speaks of as the reward of righteousness, is a whole, containing several partf^, viz. The life of the body, union of soul and body, and the most perfect sensibility, activity, and felicity of both, which is the chief thing. In like manner the death, which the scripture speaks of as the punishment of sin, is a whole, including the death of the body, and the death of the soul, and the eternal, sensible, perfect destruction and misery of both. It is this latter whole, that the apostle speaks of by the name

* There are many places parallel with these, as John xi. 25, 26. *' I an\ ihe resurrection and the life : He that bdieveth in me, though*he were dead, vet he shall live : And whosoever liveth, and believeih in me. shall never die" Here both the words, life and death, are used with this variation : " I am the resurrection and the lite," meaning spiritual and eternal life : " He that; belicveih in mc, though he were dead," having rrsptct to lemporal death, *' yet shall he live,*' with respect to spiritual life, and ihs restoration of the life of the body. " And whosoever liveth and hclieveth in me, shall never die,'' meaning a spiritu -1 and eternal death. So in John vi. 49. 50. *''Your fathers did cat manna in the wilderness, and are dead," having respect"chiefly to temporal death. " This is the bread which cometrh down from heaven, that a man may cat thereof, and not die," i c. by the loss of spiritual life, and by eternal dea'h. (See also ver 58) And in the next vcise, " If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever," have eternal life. So vor, 54. See an-cihcr like instance, John v. 24.,..29.

ORIGINAL SIN.

of death in this cUscoursc, in ]U)ni. v. ll»oun;h in some sentences he has a more special respect lo one j)art, in others to another: And this, without chantrintj; lUc sijrnificalion of the word. For an havin^^ respect lo several ihin^-s included in the extensive sii^niricauoa of tlie word, is noi the same thing as using the word in several distinct sijjjnific.-.tioi,s. As lor instance, the appellative, man^ or the proper name of any particular man, is tlie name of a whole, including the dificrcr.t parts of soul and hody. And if any one in speakini; of James or John, should say, he was a wise wmw, and a beautiful man i ^ in the former part of the sentence, respect would he had more especially to his soul, in the latter to his body, in the word 7na7i: But yei without any proper change of the signification of the name to distinct senses. In John xxi. 7, it is said, Peter was nakcd^ and in the following part of the same story it is said, Peter was grieved. In the former proposition, respect is had especially to his body, in the latter to his soul : But yet here is no proper change of the meaning of the name, Peter. And as to the apostle's use of the word rfv;//;, in the passage now under consideration, on the supposition that he in general means the whole of that death, v hich is the wages of sin, there is nothing but what is perfectly natural in supposing that he, in order to evince, that death, the proper \)uu-ishment of sin, comes on all mankind, in consequence of Adam's sin, should take notice of that part of this punishment, which is visible in this world, and which every hotly thciefore sees, does in fact come on all mankind (as in vcr. 14) and from thence should infer, tlr.it all mankind are exposed to the whole of that death which is the proper punishment of sin^ whereof that temporal death which is visible, is a part, and a visible im.agc of the whole, and (unless changed by divine grace) an introduction to tlic principal, and infmitely the mo^t dreadful part.

II. Dr. Taylor's explanation of this passage makes wholly insignificant those first words. " Hy one man sin entered into the world," and leavca this proposition without ar,y sense or signification at all. The apostle had been largely and elaborately representing, how the whole world was full of sin. in all

^U ORIGINAL SlhT.

parts of it. both among Jews and Gentiles, and all exposed tc? dtaih and condemnation. It is plain, that in these words he v-oiild tell us how this came to pass, viz. that this sorrowful fcvcnt came by one ?nan, even the first man. That the world -was full of sin, and ftiU of death, were two great and notorious facts, deeply affecting the interests of mankind ; and they seemed very wonderful fi\cts, drawing the attention of the more thinking part of mankind every Where, who often a&ked this question, Whence comes evil, moral and natural evil ? (the latter chiefly visible in death.) It is manifest the apostle here means to tell us, how these came into the world, and came to prevail in it as they do. But all that is meant, according to Dr. Taylor's interpretation, is, " ffe begun trans" gres.sion"* As if all that the apostle meant, was, to tell us who happened to sin first; tiot how such a malady came upon the world, or how any one in the world, be&ides Adam himself, came by such a distemper. The words of the apostle, « By one man sjn entered into the nvorld^ and death by sin,*' shew the design to be, to tell us how these evils came, as af-fcciing the state of//if-zyor/rf; and not only as reaching one man in the world. If this were not plain enough in itself, the words immediately follov/ing demonstrate it: " And so dea'h passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." By sin^s being in the nvorld, the apostle does not mean being in the .world only in that one instance of Adam's first transgression, b\U being abroad in the nvorld, among the inhabitants of the earth, in a wide extent, and continued series of wickedness J as is plain in the first words of the next verse, *' For until the law, sin was in the ivorld.*^ And therefore when he gives us an account how it came to be in the world, or, which is the game thing, how it entered into the ivorld^ he does not mean only romiiig in-, in one instance.

If the case were as Dr. Taylor represents, that the sin.oi" Adam, either in its pollution or punishment, reached none but himself, any more than the sin of any other man, it would %Q no more proper to say, that by one man .tin entered into thf

• Page 56..

world, than if it should be inquired, how mankind came into America, and there had anciently been a ship of the Pheni-«ians wrecked at sea, and a single man of the crew was driven ashore on this continent, and here died as soon an he reached the shore, it should be said, By thut one man mankind came into ^werica.

And besides, it is not true, that by one man, or by Adam, sin entered into the world, in Dr. Taylor's sense ; for ii was not he, but Eve, thut begun transgrccsicn. By one man Dr. Taylor understands Adum, as the figure of Christ. And it is plain that it was for his transgression, and not Eve's, that the sentence of death was pronounced on mankind after the fall. Gen. iii. 19. It appears unreasonable to suppose the apostle means to include Eve, when he speaks of Adam ; for he lays great stress on it, that it was by one, repeating it several times.

III. In like manner this author brings to nothing the sense of the causal particles, in such phrases as these, so often repeated ; »' Death by sin," verse 12. " U through the offence of one, many be dead," verse 15. " ^y one that sinned....Judgment was by one to condemnation," verse 16. **ji5i/one man's offence, death reigned by one," verse i7. " By the offence of one, judgment came upon all," 8cc. verse 18. '■''By one man's disobedience," verse 19. These causal particits, so dwelt upon, and so variously repeated, unless we make mere nonsense of the discourse, signify some connexion and dependence, by so.me sort of influence of that sin of one man, or some tendency to that effect, which is so often said to come by it. But according to Dr. Taylor, there can be no real dependence or influence in the case of any sort whatsoever. There is no connexion by any natural influence of that one act to make all mankind mortal. Our author does not pretend to account for this effect in any such manner, but in another most diverse, viz. A gracious act of God, laying mankind under aflliction, toil and death, from special favor and kindness. Nor can there be any dependence ,of this effect on that transgression of Adam, by any moral in-^uence, as deserving such a consequence, or rxpoiing to it on

any moral account^ for he supposes that mankind are not in this way exposed to the least degree of evil. Nor has this effect any /c?^^ dependence on that sin,or any connexion by virtue of anv antecedent constitution, which God had established with Adam ; for he insists that in that threatening, In the day thou cutest thou shalt die, there is not a word said of his posterity, page 8. And death on mankind, according to him, cannot come by virtue of that legal constitution with Adam ; because the sentence by which it came, was after the annulling and abolishing that constitution, page 113, 5. And it is manifest that this consequence cannot be through any kind of tcndaicij of that sin to such an effect, because the effect comes only as a benefit, and is the fruit of mere favor ; but sin has no tendency, either natural or moral, to benefits and divine favors. And thus that sin of Adam could neither be the efficient c. use nor the procuring cause, neither the natural, mo-ral, nor lei^al cause, nor an exciting and moving cause, any more than Adam's eating of any other tree of the garden. And the only real relation that the effect can have to that sin, is a relation as to time, viz. that it is after it. And when the matter is closely examined, the whole amounts to no more than this, That God is pleased, of his mere good will and pleasure, to bestow a greater favor upon us, than he did iipon Adam in innoccncy, after that sin of his eating the forbidden fruit ; which sin we are no more concerned in, than in the sin of the king of Pegu, or emperor of China.

IV. It is altogether inconsistent with the apostje*s scope, and the import of what he says, to suppose thai the death wliich he here speaks of, as coming on mankind by Adam's ein, comes not as a punishment, but only as a favor. It quite makes void tiie opposition, in which the apostle sets the r.onsequenccs of Adam's sin, and the consequences of the f^race and righteousness of Christ. They are set in opposition to each other, as opposite effects, arising from opposite causes, lhro\ighout tlie paragrapli : One as the juat consequence cf an ojftncc, the other ^ free gift^ verse 15....18. Whereas, according to this scheme, there is no sucli oppo^j-•ion in the case ; both ave bencfi'.s, and both are free gifts.

A very wholesome medicine to save from perisliinji;, ordered by a kind father, or a shield to preserve from an enemy, bestowed by a friend, is as much a free gift as pU^sant food. The death that comes by Adam, is set in opposition to the life and happiness that comes by Christ, as being the fruit of sin, 2iV\^ judgment for sin ; when the latter is the fruit of di-vine grace^ verses 15, 17, 20, 21. Whereas, according to our author, both came by grace : Death comes on mhnkind by the free kindness and love of God, much more truly and properly than by Adam's sin. Dr. Taylor speaks ot it as coming by occasion of Adam*s sin. (But as I have observed, it is an occasion without any hiflucnce.) Yet the prope*- cau.^c is God*s grace ; so that the true cause is wholly good. Which by the way, is directly repugnant to the apostle's doctrine in Rom. vii. 13. " Was then that which is good, made death unto me ? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good." Where the apostle utterly rejects any such suggestion, as though that whit:h is good were the proper cause of death ; and signifies that sin is the proper ca^ise^ and that which is good^ only the nccaaion. But according to this author, the reverse is true : That which is good in the highest sense, even the love of God, and a divine, gracious constitution, is the proper cause of death, and sin only the occasion.

But to return, it is plain, that death by Adam, and life and hnppincss bij Christy are here set in opposition ; the latter being spoken of as good^ the other as cril ; one as the effect oVrii^htcousness^ the other of an offence ; one the fruit o{ obc-dience, the other of disobedience ; one as the fruit of God's favory in consequence of what was pleasing and acceptaft"!e to him, but the other the fruit of his dis/ilrasnre, lu consequence of what was displeasing and hateful to him ; the Jailer ctim-inv^ by justif CO:ion^ the former by the cchdrmvariori of the subject. But according to the scheme of our author, there can be no opposition in any of liiese resptc's ; the ditath here spoken o1", neither comes as an er//, noi fioni an ^t/7 raiwr, either an evil efficient cause, or procuring cause ; not at all as any testimony of Cod's displeafiure to the bul)ject, ?jut us

properly the effect of Goers favor, no less than that which r* spoken of as coming by Christ; yea, and as much as to that appointed by an act of justification of the subject, as he understands and explains the word justijication ; for both arc by a grant of favor^ and are instances of merqy and goodness. And he does abundantly insist upon it, that " any grant of favor, any instance of mercy and goodness, whereby God delivers and exempts from any kind of danger, suffering or calamity, or confers any favor, blessing, or privilege, is called justifcationy in the scripture sense and use of the Word."*

And over and above all these things, cur author makes void, and destroys the grand and fundamental opposition of all, to illustrate which is the chief scope of this whole passage, viz. That between the first and second Adam, in the deat/j. that comes by one, and the life and happiness by the ot/ier. For, according to his doctrine, doth come by Christ, the second Adam ; both by his grace, righteousness, and obedience : The death that God sentenced mankind to in Gen. iii. 19, ber ing a great deal more properly and truly by Christ, than by Adam. For, according to him, tliat sentence v/as not pronounced on the foot of the covenant with Adam, because that was abrogated, and entirely set aside, as what was to have no more effect, before it was pronounced ; as he largely insists .for many pages together, pages 113..,.lli), 5. He says, page 113, S. " Tills covenant with Adam was disannulled immediately after Adam sinned. Even before God passed sentence upon Adam, grace was introduced." And in p. 119, 5". he says, *' The death that mankind are the subjects of now, stands under the covenant of grace." And in p. 120, iS\ " In the counsel and appointment of God, it stood in this very litiht, even before the sentence of death was pronounced upon Adam ; and consequently, death is no proper and legal pun-

• Key, \ 374, v'liere it is to be observed, ibat lie liiwisclf puts the 'vord ANY in c^p'tal letters. The same thing in subaaiice is often asserted elsewhere. Ard this, indeed, is his main poit.t in what he calls <' the true goj • Del tcheme." ,

islimcnt of sin." And h« often insists, iliai it comes only as a favor and benefit ; and siandinp;, as he says, under the cov-rnant of grace, ^vhich is by Christ, thrrelbrc is tiuly one of the benefits of the new covenant, which comes by Chiifit, the second Adam. For he himself is full in it, to ube his own words,* <' That all the j^race of the j^ospel ia dispensed to us, 777, Av, or throiigh the Son of (iod." ''JSothinj^ is clearer (says hef) from the whole current of scripture, than that all the mercy and love of God, and all the blessinv^s of the gospel, from first to last, are in, iy^ and through Christ, and particularly by his blood, by the redempiion that is in him. This (says hcj can bear no dispute among Christians." What then becomes of all this discourse of ihe apostle, a-bout the great difference and opposition between Adam and Christ ; as death is by one, and eternal life and happinasc by the other ? This grand distinction between the two Adams, and all the other instances of opposition and difference here insisted on, as between the effects of sin and ri^liteous-ness^Xhe. consequences of o"^f6//ewc<? and disobedience^ of the offence and \.hc free gift, judgment and grace^ condemrmfion and justification, they all come to nothinp: ; and this whole discourse of the apostle, wherein he seems to labor much, as if it were to set forth some very grand and most imfjortant distinctions and ofifiodtions in the state of things, as derived from the two grer.t lieads of mankind, proves nothing but st •multitude of words without meaning, or rather an heap oi inconsistencies.

V. Our author's own doctrine entirely t??^^^.? Toft/what he suppose:5 to be the apostle*^ argument in the 13ih and 14th verses, in these words : '' For until the law, sin was in the world ; but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless death reicjned from Adam to Moses, even over rhem that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.

What he supposes the aposMe would prove here, is, hat death, or the mortaliiy of mankind, comes only by Ad.»lT.'^

♦ K-y, thap viii. Title, p 44. + Key, f, 145.

5 G

ain, and not by mtn*s fiersotial sins ; and that it is here pro?'-ed by this argument, viz, because there was 7io law threatening; death to Adam*s posterity for fiersonal sinsy before the law of Moses ; but death, or the mortality of Adam's posterity, took place many ages before the law was given ; therefore death could not be by any law threatening death for fiersonal sins, and consequently could be by nothing but Adam's sin *

On this I would observe,

1. That which he supposes the apostle to lake for a

truth in this argument, viz. That there was 720 law of God in

being, by which men were exposed to death iov fiersonal

ehi, during the time from Adam to Moses, is neither true,

Tior agreeable to this apostle's ovrn doctrine.

First, It is 7ioi true. For the law of nature, written in men's hearts, was then in being, and was a law by which wen were exposed to death for fiersonal sin. That there was a divine establishment, fixing the death and destruction of the sinner, as the consequence of personal sin, which was well known before the giving of Moses' law, is plain by many passages in the Book of Job, as fully and clearly implying a connexion between such sin and such a punishment, as any passage in the law of Moses ; such as that in Job xxiv, 19. "Drought and heat consume the snow waters: S® doth the grave them that have sinned." (Compare verse 20 and 24.) Also chap, xxxvi 6. '' He preserveth not the life of the wicked." Chap. xxi. 29....32. " Have ye not asked them that go by the way ? And do ye not know their tokens ? That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction ; they shall be brought forth to tlie day of wrath." Ver. 32. " He shall be brought to the grave."t

Secondly, to suppose that there is no law in being, by which men are exposed to death {qy fiersonal sins, where or when a revealed law of God, before, in, or after Moses* lime is not in being, is contrary to this afiostle^s own doctrine

* Page 40, 41, 42, 57, and often elsewhere. + See also Job iv. 7, 8, 9. Chap. XV, i7....35« Chap, xviii. 5....21, xix. 29, and xx. 4..,8, and tnaoy other places.

in this epistle. Rom. ii. 12, 14, 15. « For as many as have sinned without law, (i. e. the revealed law) shall perish with-•ut law." But how they can be exposed to die and perish, who have not the law of Moses, nor any revealed law, the apostle shews us in the 14th and 15th verses, viz. in that they have the law of nature, by which they fall under sentence to this punishment. " For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law to themselves ; which shew the work of the law written in their hearts ; their conscience also bearing witness," Their conscience not only bore witness to the duty prescribed by this law, but also to the punishment before spoken of, as that which they who sinned without law, were liable to suffer, viz. that they should perish. In which the apostle is yet more express, chap. i. 32, speaking more especially of the Heathen, " Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death." Dr. Taylor often calls the law the rule of right; and this rule of right sentenced those sinners to death, who were not under the law of Moses, according to this auiJior*s own paraphrase of this verse, in these ■words, " The Heathen were not ignorant of the rule of rights which God has implanted in the human nature; and which shews that they which commit such crimes, are deserving of death." And he himself supposes Abraham^ who lived between Adam and Moses, to be U7idtr la-iu^ by which he, would have been exfiosed to fiunishment without hofie^ were it not for the promise of grace....in his paraphrase on Rom. iv. 15.

So that in our author's way of explaining the passage before us, the grand argument, which the apostle insists upon here, t© prove his main point, viz. that death does not come by men*s fiersoJial sinsj but by Adam's sin, because it came btfjre the law was given, that threatened death for personal sin : I say, this argument which Dr. Taylor supposes so clear and strong,* is brought to nothing more than a mere shadow without substance ; the very foundation of the argument having no truth. To say, there was no such hnv actually c\-• Page U7. S.

pressed in any standing revelation, Avould be mere trifling i For it no more appears, that God would not biiiie^ temporal death for personal sins, without a standinc^ revealed law threatening it, than that he would not bring eternal death before there was a revealed law threatening that: Which yet wicked men that lived in Noah's time, were exposed to, as appears by i Pet. iii. 19, 20, and which Dr. Taylor supposes all mankind are exposed to by their personal sins ; :^nd he himself says,* " Sin, in its own unalterable nature, leads to death.'* Yea, it might be argued with as much strength ol reason, that God could bring on men no punishment at all for any sin, that %vas committed from Adam to Moses, because there was no standing revealed law then extant, threatening any punishment. It may here be properly observed, that our author supposes the shortening of man's days, and hastening of death, entered viio the ivorld by the sin of the antediluvians, in the same sense as death and mortality entered into the world by Adam's sin.f But where was there any standing revealed law for that, though the event was so universal ? If God might bring this on all mankind, on occasion ot other men's sins, for which they deserved nothing, without a revealed law, what could there be to hinder God's bringing death on men for their personal sins, for which their own consciences tell them they do deserve death without a revealed law ?

2. If it had been so, that from Adam to Moses there had been no law in being, of any kind, revealed or natural, by which men could be properly exposed to temporal death for personal sin, yet the mention of Moses' law would have been wholly impertinent, and of no signification in the argument, according to our author's understanding of it. He supposes, what the apostle would prove, is, that temporal ^tstxh, or the death we now die, comes by Adam ; and not by any law threatening such a punishment foi- personal sin ; because this death prevailed before the law of Moses Was in being, which is the D!ily law threatening death for personal sin. And yet he him-iBfell supposes, that the law of Moses, nvhcn it ivas in bein^^

• Page 77, 78. + Page 68.

threatened no such death for personal sin. For he abundantly asserts, that the death which the law of Moses threatened for personal sin, was etertml death, as has been alrcarly noted : And he says in express terms, that eternal d-aih is of a nature ividcly different from the death ive now die ;• as was also observed before.

How impertinently therefore does Dr. Taylor make an inspired writer ar^ue, when, acconling to him, the upoMle would prove, that this kind of death did not come by any law threatening this kind of death, because it came before the existence of a law threatening another kind of death, of a nature ^ndely different ? How is it to the apostle's purpose, to fix on that period, the time of giving Moses* law, as if that had been the period wherein men began to be threatened with this fiun* ishment for their personal sins, when in truth it was no such thing ? And therefore it was no more to his purpose, to fix on that period, from Adam to Meses, than from Adam to David, «r any other period whatsoever. Dr. Taylor holds, that even «ow, since the law of Moses has been given, the mortality oi" mankind, or the death we now die, does not come by that law; but that it always comes only by Adam-t And if it never cornea by that law, we may be sure it riever was threat' ened in that law.

3. If we should allow the argument in Dr. Taylor's sense of it, to prove that death does not come by ficrsonal sin, yet it will be wholly without force to prove the main point, even that it must come by Adam's sin : For it might come by God's sovereign and gracious pleasure ; as innumerable other divine benefits do. If it be ordered, agreeably to our author's supposition, not as a punishment, nor as a calamity, but only as 2i favor, what necessity of any settled constitution, or revealed sentence, in order to the bestowing such a favor, more than other favors; and particularly more than that great benefit, which he says entered into the world by the sin of the antediluvians, the shortening men's lives so much af-

• Page 120. 5. He says to the like purpose in his Note on Rom, v. ij i This is plain by what be says, p. 38, 40, 53, 117, S.

ter the flood ? Thus the apostle's arguing, by Dr. Taylor's explanation of it, is turned into mere trifling, and a vain and impertinent use of words, without any real force or sigriifi^ cance.

VI. The apostle here speaks of that great benefit which we have by Christ, as the antitype of Adam, under the notion of a fruit of grace, I do not mean only that sufieraboiinding of grace, wherein the benefit we have by Christ goes beyond the damage sustained by Adam ; but that benefit, with regard to which Adam nvas the figure of him that was to comcy and which is, as it were, the counterpart of the suffering by Adam, and which repairs the loss we have by him. This is here spoken of as the fruit of the free grace of God ; as appears by ver. 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21. This, according to our author, is the restoring of mankind to that life which they lost in Adam : And he himself supposes this restoration of life by Christ to be what grace does for us, and calls it the free gift, of God., and the grace and favor of the lawgiver * And speaking of this restoration, he breaks out in admiration of the unsfieakable riches of this grace.^

But it follows from his doctrine, that there is no grace at all in this benefit, and it is no more than a mere act of justice, being only a removing of what mankind suffer, being innocent. Death, as it commonjy comes on mankind, and even on infants (as has been observed) is an extreme positive calamity ; to bring which on the perfectly innocent^ unremedied, and without any thing to countervail it, we arc sufficiently taught, is not consistent with the righteousness of the Judge of all the earth. What grace^ therefore, worthy of being so celebrated, would there be in affording remedy and relief, after there had been brought on innocent mankind that which is (as Dr. Taylor himself represents)! the dreadful and universal destruction of their nature ; being a striking demonstration how infinitely liateful sin is to God ! What grace in delivering from

* P^gc 39. 70 148, 27, S. Sec also contents of this paragraph in Ronn. v. .n his notes on the epistle, and his note on ver. 15, 16, 17. + Page 119, S. ; Pjgc 69.

such shocking ruin, them that did not deserve the least calamity ! Our author says, *' Wc could i»ot jundy lose communion with God by Adam's sin."* If so, tlien wc could not justly lose our lives, and be annihilated, after a course of extreme pains and agonies of body and mind, wilhout any restoration ; whicli would be an eternal loss of communion with God, and all other good, besides the positive suffc-iing. The apostle, throupjhout this passage, represents the dcaiht which is the consequence of Adam's transgression, as coming in a way of judgment and co7idcmnation for sin ; but deliverance and life through Christ, as by gracc^ and the free gift of God. Whereas, on the contrary, by Dr. Taylor's scheme, the death that comes by Adam, comes by grace, great grace; it being a great benefit, ordered in fatherly love and kindness, and on the foot of a covenant of grace : . But in the deliverance and restoration by Christ, there is wo grace at all. So things are turned tofmj turxnj, the apostle's scope and scheme entirely inverted and confounded.

VII. Dr. Taylor explains the words, Judgment, condemnation, justification^ and righteousness, as used in this place, in a very unreasonable manner.

I will first consider the sense he puts upon the two former, judgment and condemnatio?/. He often calls tlii» condenma-tion a judicial act, and a sentence ofconde?n7iation. But, according to his scheme, it is a judicial sentence of condemnation passed upon them that are perfectly innocent, and viewed by the Judge, even in his passing the sentence, and condemning them, as having no guilt of sin, or fault at all chargeable upon them; and a judicialfirocccding, passing sentence arbitrarily, without any law or rule of right before established : For there was no preceding law or rule threatening death, that he, or any one else, ever pretended to have been established, but only this, " In the day that ihog eatcst thereof, thou shalt surely die." And concerning tins, he insists, that there is not a word said in it of Adam's posterity. So that the condemnation spoken of, is a sentence of condemnation to

♦Page 148.

death, for, or in consequence of the sin of Adam, without an^ law, by which that sin could be imputed to brinsj any such consequence ; contrary to the apostle's plain scope. And not only so, but over and above all this, it is -a judicial sentence oi condemnation to that which is nocalaiYiity, nor is considered as such in the sentence ; but it is condemnation to a great favor !

The apostle uses the words judgment and condemnation in other places ; they are no strange and unusual terms with him : But never are they used by him in ihis sense, or any like it ; nor are they ever used thus any where else in the New Testament. This apostle elsewhere in this epistle to the Romans is often speaking of condemnation^ using the same, or similar terms and phrases as here, but never in the above-said sense. Chap. ii. 1, 2, 3, six times in these verses ; also-ver. 12 and 27, and chap. iii. 7 ; chap. viii. 1 and 3 ; chap. xiv. 3, 4, and ver. 10, 13, 22 and 23. This will be plain to every one that casts his eye on these places : And if we look intd. the former part of this chapter, the apostle's discourse here makes it evident, that he is here speaking of a condemnation, that is no testimony of favor to the innocent ; but of God*3 displeasure towards those that he is not reconciled to, but looks on as offenders, sinners, and enemies, and holds as the objects of his wrath, which we are delivered from by Christ; as may be seen in verses 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

And viewing this discourse itself, in the very paragraph we are upon, if we may judge any thing by language and manner of speaking, there is every thing to lead us to suppose, that the apostle uses these words here, as he does elsewhere, properly, and as implying a supposition of sin, chargeable on the sul)ject, and exposing to punishment. He speaks of condemnation with reference to sin, as what comes by sin, and as a condemnation to death, which seems to be a most terrible evil, and capital punishment, even in what is temporal and visible ; and this in the way of judgment and execution of justice, in opposition to grace or favor, and gift or a benefit coming by favor. And sin and offence, transgression avid disobedience, are over and over again spoken of as the ground.

©f the condemnation, and of the capital suffering condemned to, for ten verses success vely, that is, in every verse in the whole paiagraph, without missing one.

The words, jiutijication and rightcousTicsay are explained by Dr. Taylor, in a no less unreasonable manner, lie understands y^s/jAca/iow, in ver. 18, and rightcouancnH^ in ver. 19, in such a sense, as to suppose them to belonu; to all, and actually to be applied to all mankind, good and bad, believers and unbelievers ; to the worst enemies of God, remaining SKch, as well as his peculiar favorites, and many that never had any sin iniputed to them ; meaning thereby no more than what is fulfilled in an universal resurrection from the dead, at the last day.* Now this is a most arbitrary forced sense. Though these terms are used every where, all over the New Testament, yet nothing like snch an use of them is to be found in any one instance, through all the writings of the apostles and evangelists. The words Justify Juaf(/icafiony and righteousness^ as from God to men, are never used but to signify a privilege belonging only to some, and that which is peculiar to distinguished favorites. This apostle in particular, above all the other writers of the New Testament, abounds in the use of these terms ; so that we have all imaginable opportunity to understand his language, and know the sense in which he uses tl.ese words : But he never elsewhere uses them in the sense supposed here, nor is there any pretence that he does. Above all, does this apostle abound in the use of thrse terms in this epistle. Justifcation is the subject he had been upon throjjgh all the preceding part of the epistle. It was the giand subject of all the foregoing chapters, and the preceding part of this chapter, where these terms are continually repeated. And the y,ovA^ justification, is constantly used to signify something j)eculiar to believers, who had been sinners ; implying some reconciliation arnl forgiveness of sin, and special privilege in nearness to God, above the vcA of the world. Yea, the word is constantly used thus, accoidintj to Dr. Taylor's own explanations, in liis paraphrase and i.otcs

• So, page 47, 49, bo, 6i, 6e>3Md fv.hcr p'acj 2H

on this epistle. And there is not the least reason to suppose but that he is still speaking q( the Sdunc jusfi^caciori vlU(] right' eousnes'i^ which he had dwelt upon from the beginning to this place. He speaks of justijication and righteousness here, just in the same manner as he had done in the precedmg part of the epistle. He had all along spoken of justification as standing in relation to sin^ disobedience to God, and offence against God, and so he does here : He had before been speaking of justification through free grace^ and so he does here : He before had been speaking of justification through righteowi" ness^ as in Christ Jesusj and so he does here.

And if we look into the former part of this very chapter, there we shall find justijicatioii spoken of just in the same sense as in the rest of the epistle ; which is also supposed by our author in his exposition : It is still justijication by faith, justijication of them that had been si7mers, justijication attended with reconciliation, justijication peculiar to them that had the love of God shed abroad in their hearts. The apostle's foregoing discourse on justification by grace through faith, and what he had sp greatly insisted on as the evidence of the truth of this doctrine, even the universal sinfulness of mankind in their original state, is plainly what introduces this discourse in the latter part of this 5th chapter ; where he shews how all mankind came to be sinful and miserable, and so to . need this grace of God, and righteousness of Christ. And therefore we cannot, without the most absurd violence, suppose any other than that he is still speaking of the same yz^s//-Jication.

And as to the universal expression used in the 18th verse, " By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to jusiification of life ;" it is needless here to go into the con-trovtvsv between the rev<onstrants and anti rr?7ionstrantSy concerning universal redemption, and their different interpretations of this place. If we take the words even as the Armin-ians do ; yet, in tlicir sense of them, the free gift comes on all men to justification only conditionalij ; i. e. provided they believe, repent, See. But in uur autI)or's sense, it actiiallu comes on all, whether they believe and repent, or not ; which

certainly cannot be inferred from the universal expression, a* here used. Dr. Taylor himself supposes, the main design of the apostle in this universal phrase, all mni^ is te sif^nify that the hencfils of Christ shall come on Cicntilcs as well as Jews.* And he supposes that the many^ and the all^ here signify the same : But it is quite certain, that all the benefits here spoken of, which the apostle says are to the inainj^ does not actually come upon ail mankind ; as particularly the aboundm^ of graccy spoken of ver. 15. The grace of God, and the t^ift 6y grace^ hath ahoKiided unto the many^ m( t8? 'wo^^tf4.

This aboundinp; of grace our author explains thus : " A rich overplus of grace, in erecting^ a new dispensation, furnished wiih a glorious fund of light, means and motives," p. 44. But will any pretend, that all mankind have actually been partakers of this new fund ofli^ht, &tc. How were the many millions of Indians, on the American side of the globe, partakers of it, before the Europeans came hither ? Yea, Dr. Taylor himself supposes, all that is meant is, that it is free for all that are ivilling to acce/it ofit.i The agreement between Adam, as the type or figure of him that was to come, and Christ as the antitype, appears as full and clear, if we suppose all which are in Christ (to use the common scripture phrase) have the benefit of his obedience, as all that are in Adam have the sorrowful fruit of his disobedience. The scripture speaks of believers as the seed or posterity of Christ. (Gai. iii. 29.) They are in Christ by grace, as Adam's posterity are in him by nature : The one arc in the first Adam naturallyy as the other are in the second Adam sfiirituallu : Exactly agreeable to the representation this apostle makes of the matter, 1 Cor. xv. 45....49. The spiritual seed are those which this apostle often represents as Christ's body : And the CI 'cjQ>^9t here spoken of as made righteous by Christ's obedience are doubtless the same with the ol oroXXo* which he speaks of in chap. xii. 5. We, beivci many, an ouc body ; or, ive, the many, c^ -crcWvc* iv cu^», ta-yitt. And again, 1 Cor. x. IT, ir aviA»

♦ Page 6o, 6i, See also contcnt<: of this parsgraph, In hv< notes on the ccistle. + Notes on the epistle, p, 284.

f( noX>.ot triAtw, And the same which the apostle had spoken *of in the preceding chapter, Rom. iv. 18, compared with Gen. XV. 5.

Dr. Taylor much insists on that place, I Cor. xv, 21, 22, " For since hy man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead : For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive ;'* to confirm his suppositions, that the apostle here in the 5th of Romans, speaking of the death and condemnation which come by Adam, has respect only to the death ive all dicy when this life ends : And that by the justification and life which come by Christ, he has respect only to the general resurrection at the last day. But it is observable, that his argument is wholly built on these two suppositions, viz. Firsts That the resurrection meant by the apostle, in that place in the 1 Cor. xv. is the resurrection of all mankind, both just and unjust. Secondly, That the opposite consequences of Adam's sin, and Christ's obedience, spoken of here in Rom. v. are the very same, neither more nor less, than are spoken of there. But there are no grounds for supposing cither of these things to be true.

1. There is no evidence, that the resurrection there spoken of, is the resurrection both of the 7*ws; and unjust; but abundant evidence of the contrary. The resurrection of the wicked is seldom mentioned in the New Testament, and rarely included in the meaning of the word ; it being esteemed not worthy to be called a rising to life, being only for a great increase of the misery and darkness of eternal death ; And therefore by the resurrection is most commonly meant a rising to life and happiness ; as may be observed in Matth. xxii. 30 ....Luke XX. 35, 36.. .John vi. 39, 40, 54....PhiUp. iii. 11, and other places. The saints are called the children of the resur-rection. as Ur. Taylor observes in his note on Rom. viii. 11, And it i?i exceeding evident, thai it is the resurrection to life and happiness, the apostle is speaking of in tliis 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22. It appears by each of the three foregoing verses, ver. 18, « Then they v/hich are fallen asleep in Christ (i. e. the saints) are perished." Ver. 19. *' If in this life only we (Christians or apostles) have hope in Christ (and have no resurrection

aiid eternal life to hope for) wc are of all men most miserable." Ver. 20. " But now is Christ risc!i from the dead, and is become Xheji rat fruits of them that slept." He is the forerunner and first fruits only with respect to them ll»at are his ; "Who are to follow him, and partake with him in the glory and happiness of his resurrection : But he is not the first iruiis of them that shall come forth to the resurrection o'i dammition. It also appears by the verse immediately following, ver. 23. ♦* But every man in his own order ; Christ the first fruits, and .•ifterward ihey that are Christ's, at his coming." The same is plain by what is said in verse 29, 30, 51 and "2, and by all that is said from the 35th verse to the end of the chapter, for twentythree verses together : It there expressly appears, that the apostle is spealyng only of a rising to f^lorijy with a t^lori-cus body, as the little' grain that is sown, being (inickened, rises a beautiful flourishing plant. He there speaks of the different degrees of glory among them that shall rise, and compares it to the different degrees of glory among the celestial luminaries. The resurrection which he treats of, i» expressly a being raised in incorrupfio?i, in glory, in flower^ nvith a sfiiritual body, having the image of the second man, the spiritual and heavenly Adam ; a resurrection wherein //;/> corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal put on ini' mortality, and death be swalloiued up in victory, and the saints shall gloriously triunnph over that last enemy. Dr. Taylor himself says, that which is in effect owning the resurrection here spoken of is only of the righteous ; for it is expressly a resurrection, tt a^amaici, and a^c&a^o-iot, ver. 53 and 42. But Dr. Taylor says, " These are never attributed ts the wicked in scripture.* So that when the apostle says here, " As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive ;" it is as much as if he had said, As in yldam we all die, and our bodies are sown in corruption, in dishonor, and in weakness; so in Christ we all (we Christians, whom I have all along been speaking of) shall be raised in power, glory, and incorruplion, spiritual and heavenly, conformed to the second Adam. " For

• Mote on Rom, viii. £7.

as we have borne the imagje of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly,'* ver. 49. Which clearly explains* and determines his meaning in verse 21, 22.

2. There is no evidence that the benefit by the second Adam, spoken of in Rom. v. is the very same (containing neither more nor less) as the resurrection spoken of in 1 Cor. XV. It is no evidence of it, that the benefit is opposed to ther death that comes by the first Adam, in like manner in both places. The resurrection to eternal life, though it be not the whole of that salvation and happiness which comes by the second Adam, yet it is that wherein this salvation is principally obtained. The time of the saints* glorious resurrection is often spoken of as the proper time of the saints' salvation, the day of their redemfition^ the time of their adofition^ glory, and recompense. (As in Luke xiv. 14, and xxi. 28, Rom. viii. 23, Eph. iv. 30, Coloss. iii. 4, 2 Thess. i. 7, 2 Tim. iv. 8, 1 Pet. i. 13, and v. 4, 1 John iii. 2, and other places.) All that salvation and happiness which is given before, is only a prelibation and earnest of their great reward. Well therefore may that consummate salvation bestowed on them, be set in opposition to the death and ruin which comes by the first Adam, in like manner as the whole of their salvation is opposed to the same in Rom. v. Dr. Taylor himself observes,* " That the revival and resurrection of the body, is frequently put for our advancement to eternal life." It being the highest part, it is often put for the whole.

This notion, as if the justification, righteousness, and life spoken of in Rom. v. implied the resurrection to damnation, is not only without ground from scripture, but contrary to reason. For those things are there spoken of as great benefits, by the grace and free gift of God ; but this is the contrary, in the highest degree possible, being the most consummate and infinite calamity. To obviate this, our author supposes the resurrection of all to be a great benefit in itself, though turned into a calamity by the sin and folly of obstinate Binners, who abuse God's goodness. But the far greater part

* Note on Rom. viii. ii.

of mankind, since Adam, have never hud opportunity to abuse this goodness, it havint; never been made K?u)vvm lo them. Men cannot abuse a kindness, which ihcy never had either in possession, promise, offer, or some intimation ; but a resurrection is made known only by divine revelation, which few comparatively have enjoyed. So that as to such wicked men as die in lands of darkness, if their resurreciioii conies at all by Christ, it comes from him, and to them, only as a curse, and not as a blessing ; for it never comes to them at all by any conveyance^ grant, promise, or ojffr^or any thini^ by which they can claim it, or know any thing Jf it, till it conies as an infinite calamity, past all remedy.

VIII. In a peculiar manner is there an unreasonable violence used in our author's explanation of the words sinners and sinned, in the paragraph before us. He says, " These words, By one man^s disobedience many ivcre made sinners, mean neither more nor less, than that by one man's disobedience, the many were made subject to death, by the judicial act of God.*'* And he says in the same place, " By death most certainly is meant no other than the death and mortality common to all mankind.'* And those words, verse 12, For that all have tinned, he thtts explains, " All men became sinners as all mankind are biuught into a state of suf-ferin g."t

Here I observe,

1. The main thing, by which he justifies such interpretations, is, that sin, in various instances, is used for sujff'ering, in the Old Testament.^ To which I reply, though it be true that the word C^crrcaA, signifies both sin, and a sin offering ; and this, and some other Hebrew words, which signify sin, iniquity, and wickedness, are sometimes put for the effect or punishment of iniquity, by a metonymy of the cause for the effect ; yet it does not appear, that these words are ever used for enduring suffering, where the suffering is not spoken of under any notion of a punishment of sin, or a fruif of God's anger for sin, or of any imputation of guilf, or under

• Page 30. + Pa-e 54, and c!:cwhcrc. * Pa^c 34.

g$6 ORIGINAL SIN,

any notion of sin*s being at all laid to the charge cf the sufferer, or the suffering's being at all of the nuture of any recompense, compensation, or satisfaction for sin. And therefore none of the instances he mentions, come up to his purpose. When Lot is commanded to leave Sodom, that he might not be consumed in the im<jnity of,the cily, meaning in that fire, which was the effect and punishment of the iniquity of the city ; this is quite another thing, than if that fire came on the city in general, as no punishment at all, nor as any fruit of a charge of iniquity on ll^q city> ©r of God's displeasure for their sin, but as a token of God's favor to the inhabitants; which is what is supposed with respect to the death of mankind ; it being introduced only as a benefit, on the foot of a covenant of grace. And especially is this quite another thing, than if, in the expression used, the iniquity had been ascribed to Lot ; and God, instead of saying, Lest thou be consumed in the iniqidty of the city, had said, Lest thou be consumed in thine iniquity, or, Lest thou sin^ or be made a sinner. Whereas the expression is such, as does expressly remove the iniquity spoken of from Lot, and fix it on,another subject, viz. the city. The place cited by our author in Jer. li, is exactly parallel. And as to what Abimelech says to Abraham, " What have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me, and on my kingdom, a great sin ? It is manifest, Abimelech was afraid that God was angry, for what he had^one to Sarah ; or, would have been angry with him, if he had done what he was about to do, as imi)uting si7i to him for it '. ' Which is a quite different thing from calling some calamity, sin, under no notion of its being any punishment of sin, nor in the least degree from God's displeasure. And so with regard to every place our author cites in the margin, it is plain, that what is nieant in each of them, is the jmnishment of sin, and not some suffering which is no punishment at all. And as to the instances he mentions in his Supfilement, p. 8, the two that look most favorable to his design, are those in Gen, xxxi. 39, and 2 Kings vii. 9. With respect to the former, where Jacob says, That ivhich ivas torn rf bcaats, Anochi-achattenah, Dr. Taylor is pleased *.o translate it, I nvas the sinner ; but prop*

criy rendered, it is, I expiated it ; the verb in Pihcl properly sipjnifyin^ to fx/ua/c ; and the plain meaning is, I bore the blame of it,and was obliged to pay for it, as bcin}^ supposed to be lost through my fault or neglect: Which is a quite different thinj^ from suffering without any supposition of fault. And as to the latter place, where the lepers say, " This day is a day of good tidini:;s, and wo, hold our peace : If we tarry till morning some mischief will befal us :*' In the Ilcbrevr it is Umctzaami ,^navon^ '"• Iniquity will find us," that is, somo punishment of our fault will come upon us. Elsewhere such phrases are used, as, Yoitr iniquity ivillfind you out, and the like. But certainly this is a different thing from suffering without fault, or supposition of fault. And it does not appear, that the verb in Hiphil, hirsMang, is ever put for condemn, in any other sense than condemning for sin, or guilt, or supposed guilt belonging to the subject condemned. This word is wsed in the participle of Hiphil, to signify condemning, in Prov, xvii. 15. " He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even both are an abomination to the Lord." This Dr. Taylor observes, as if it were to his purpose, when he is endeavoring to shew, that in this place, in t-he 5th of Romans, the apostle speaks of God himself as condemning iht, just, or perfectly innocent, in a parallel signification of terms. Nor is any instance produced, wherein tho veib, sin, which is used by the apostle when he says, Ml have Hinned, is any where used in our author's sense, for being brought into a state of suffering, and that not as a punishment for sin, or as any thing arising from God's displeasure ; much less for being the subject of what comes only as the fruit of divine love, and as a benefit of the highest nature,^ Nor can any thing like this sense of the verb be found in the whole Bihl?.

2. If there had been any thing like such an use of the words, sin and sinner, as our author suppoiies, in the 0\^ Testament, it is evident that such an use of them is fpiito alien from the language of the New Testament. Where caa-

• Page 17, 5. 0 I

an instance be produced of any thing like it, in any one place, besides what is pretended in this ? And particularly,' where else shall we find these words and phrases used in such a sense in any of this apostle's writings ? We have enough of his writings, by which to learn his language and way of speaking about aiuj condemnation, punishment, death, and suffering. He wrote much more of the New Testament than any othet person. He very often has occasion to speak of coiidemnationy but where does he express it by being made sinners ? Especially how far is he elsewhere from using such a phrase, to signify a being condemned without guilt, or any imputation or supposition of guilt ? Vastly more still is it remote from his language, so to use the verb sin, and to say, man sinneth, or has sinned, though hereby meaning nothing more nor less, than that he, by a judicial act, is condemned, on the foot of a dispensation of grace, to receive a great favor ! He abundantly uses the words sin and sinner ; his writings are full o£ such terms ; but where else does he use them in such a sense ? He has much occasion in his epistles to speak of death, temporal and eternal ; he has much occasion to speak oi suffering, of all kinds, in this world, and the world to come ; but where does he call these things sin, and denominate innocent men sinners^ or say, they have sinned, meaning that they are brought into a state of suffering ? If the apostle, -because he was a Jew, was so addicted to the Hebrew idiom, as thus in one paragraph to repeat this particular Hebraism^ which, at most, is comparatively rare even m the Old Testament, it is strange that never any thing like it should appear any where else in his writings ; and especially that he should never fall into such a way of speakmg in his epistle to ihe Hebrews, written to Jews only, who were most used to the Hebrew idiom. And why does Christ never use such language in any of his speeches, though he was born and brought up amongst the Jews, and delivered almost all his speeches only to Jews ? And why do none of the rest of the writers of ihe New Testament ever use it, who were all born and educated Jews, (at least all excepiintr LukeJ and some of them wrote especially for the benefit of the Jews I

It is worthy to be observed, what liberty is taken, and boldness used with this apostle ; such words as a^xo^To^^-, a^agT«»4f, Kftueiy xaraxftfAot^ StKciiou. chKaiuan;. and words ol the same root and signification, are woub abundantly used by him clae-•where in this and other epistles, and also when spcakiny, at he is here, of Christ's redemption and atonement, and of the general sinfulness of mankind, and of the condemnation of sinners, and of justification by Christ, and of death as the consequence of sin, and of life and rcsioraion to life by Christ, as here ; yet no where are any ot these words used, but in a sense very remote from what is supposed here. However in this place, these terms niust have a disti?i^uis/i< dy singular sense found out for them, and annexed to them ! A new language must be coined for the apostle, which he is evidently quite unused to, and put into his mouth on this occasion, for the sake of evading this clear, precise, and abundant testimony of his, to the doctrine ot Original Sin.

3. The putting such a sense on the word *z>i, in this placci is not only to make the apostle greatly to disagree with uim* self in the language he uses every where else, but also to disagree with himself no less in the language he uses in this very passage. He often here uses the word sm, and other words plainly of the same design and import, such as transgreasion^ disobedience, offence. Nothing can be more evident, than that these are here used as several names of the same thing ; for they arc used interchangeably, and put one for another, as will be manifest only on the cast of an eye on the place. And these words are used no less than, seventeen times in this one paragraph. Perhaps we shall find no place in the whole Bible, in which the word dn, and other words synonymous, are used so often in so little compass ; and in all the instances, in the proper sense, as signifying moral evil, and even so understood by Dr. Taylor himself (as appears by his own exposition) but only in these two places ; where in the midst of all, to evade a clear endence of the doctrine of Original Sin, another meaning must be found out, and it must be supposed that the apostle uses the

g6t) ORIGINAL SIN.

word in a sense entirely different, signifying sonnething that neither imfilies nor su/ifioses any moral evil at all in the subject.

Here it is very remarkable, the gentleman who so greatly insisted upon it, that the word dea^A must needs be understood in the same sense throughout this paragraph ; yea, that it is evidently, clearly-, and infallibly so, inasmuch as the apostle is still discoursing on the same subject ; yet can, without the least difficulty, suppose the word #m, to be used so differently in the very same passage, wherein the apostle is discoursing on the same thing. Let us take that one instance in veise 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'* Here by sin, implied in the word sinned, in the end of the sentence, our author under-star, ds something perfectly and altogether diverse from what is meant by the word sin, not only in the same discourse ou the same subject, but twice in the former part of the very same sentence, of which this latter part is not only the conclusion, but the explication ; and also entirely different from the use of the word twice in the next sentence* wherein the apostle is still most plainly discoursing on the same subject, as is not denied : And in the next sentence to that (verse 14) the apostle uses the very same verb sinned, and as signi-fying the committing of moral evil, as our author himself understands it. Afterwards (vcse 19) the apostle uses the word sinners, which our author supposes to be in somewhat ol a different sense still. So that here is the utmost violence of the kind that c«n be conceived of, to make out a scheme againr>t the plainest evidence, in changing the meaning of a word backward and forward, in one paragraph, all about one thing, and in different parts of the same sentences, coming over and over in quick repetitions, with a variety of other synonymous words to fix its signification ; besides the continued use of the word in the former part of this chapter, flnd in all the preceding part of this epistle, and the continued use of it in the next chapter, and in the next to that,and the 8ih chapter following that, and to the end of the epistle (

i» none of which places it is pretended, but tl\at tite word is used in the proper senbe, by our author in his paraphrase and notes on the whole epistle.*

But indeed we need vi;o no finther thun that one, vcr-^e 12. What the apostle mean', by sin, in the latter part of the vt rsc, is evident with the utmost plainness, by comparing it with the former part ; ono part answering to another, and the last clause exe^etical of the former. ^' Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that (or, unto which) all have sinned." Here sin and death are spoken of in the former part, and sin and death are spoken of in the latter part ; the two parts of the sentence so answering one another, tha: the same things are apparently meant by sin and death in both parts.

And besides, to interpret sinning^ here, of falling under the suffering o^ death, is yet the more violent and unreasonable, because the apostle m this very place does once and again distinguish between sin and death ; plainly speaking of one as the effect, and the other the cause. So in the 21 si verse, " That Qssin hath reigned unto death ;** and in the I2th verse, « 6'm entered into the world, and death by sm." And thia plain distinction holds through all the discourse, as between death aiVid ihe o^ence, \ev, 15, and ver, 17, and between the offence and condemnation, ver. 18.

4. Though we should omit the consideration of the manner in which the apostle uses the words, «///, sinned, 8cc. in

• Agreeably to Ais manner, our author, in explaining the 7th chapter of Jlomans, understands the pronoun /, or mt, us- d by the apostle in that one tontinued discourse, in no less than six different senses. He takes it in ths jst verse to signify the Apostle Paul himself. In the 8th, 9th, toth and 1 tth verses, for the people ,of the Jews, through all ages, both before and after Moses, especially the carnal, unpodly part of them. In ihe 13th verse tor an objecting Jev^^, entering into a dialogue with the apostle. In tlic i^ih, i6ih, J7th, «oth, and latter part of the 25rh verse, it is understood in two diflcrcnC senses, for two /'s in the same person ; one, a man's reason ; and the other, his passions an-i carnal appetites. And in the 7th and former part f)f the last verse, for us Christians in general ; or, for all that enjoy the word of God, the law and the gospel : And these different senses, the most of them strange. ly iutermixed and interchanged backwards and forwards.

other places, and in other parts of this discourse, yet Dr. Tay«»

lor's interpretation of them would be very absurd.

The case stands thus : According to his exposition, we are said to have sinned by an active verb, as though we had actively sinned ; yet this is not spoken truly and properly, but it is pui iicvuratively for our becoming ^m\ie.T& fiasaively^ our being made or constituted sinners. Yet ai;ain, not that we do truly become %mv\zr% fiassively, or are really 7nade sinners^ by any thini^ that God does ; this also is only a figurative or tropical representation ; and the meaning is only, we are con^ demnedj and treated as ifvfe were sinners^ Not indeed that "we are properly condemned^ for God never truly connemns the innocent: But this also is only a figurative representation, of the thing. It is but as it were condemning ; because it is appointing to death, a terrible evil, as if it were a punishment. But then, in reality, here is no appointment to a terrible evil, or any evil at all; but truly to a benefit^ a great benefit: And so, in representing death as a punishment or calamity condemned to, another figure or trope is made use of, and an exceeding bold one ; for, as we are appointed to it, it is so far from being an evil or punishment, that it is really a favor, and that of the highest nature, appointed by mere grace and love> though it seems to be a calamity. Thus we have tropes and figures multiplied, one upon the back of another ; and all in that one word, simied ; according to the manner, as it is supposed, the apostle uses it. We have itfiguratinfe representa-tiouy not of a reality, but of a fgurative representation. Neither is this a representation of a reality, but of another thing that still is but ^figurative representation of something else i' Yea, even this mmcthing else is still but a figure, and one that is very harsh and far fetched. So that here we have a^^wr<? to represent a figure, even 3. figure of a figure, representing some very remote figure, which most obscurely represents the thing intended ; if the most terrible evil can indeed be said at all to represent the contrary good of the highest kind. And now, what cannot be made of any place of scripture, in such a way of managing it, as this ? And is there any hope of e^er deciding any controversy by the Bcripture, in the way of

usinj* such a licence wiih the scripture, in order to force it to a compliance with our own schemes ? If the aposile indeed uses language af er so strange a manner in this place, it is perhaps such an instance, as not only there is not the lite of it in all the Bible besides, but perhaps in no writing whatsoever. And this, not in any parabolical, viMonary, or orr.phct-ic description, in which difficult and obscure represenian ns are wont to be made use of; nor in a dramatic or poeticai representation, in which a great licence is often taken, and bold figures are commonly to be expected : But it is in a familiar letter, wherein the apostle is delivering gospel instruction, as a minister of the New Testament; and wherein, as he professes, he delivers divine truth withput the vail of ancient figures and similitudes, and uses great plainness of speech : And in a discourse that is wholly didactic, narrative, and argumentative ; evidently setting himself to explain the doctrine he is upon, in the reason and nature of it, with a great variety of expressions, turning it as it were on every side, to make his meaning plain, and to fix in his readers the exact notion of what he intends. Dr. Taylor himself ob* Serves,* *' This apostle takes great cave to guard and explain every part of his subject: And I may venture to say, he has left no part of it unexplained or unguarded. Never was an author more exact and cautious in this than he. Sometimes he writes notes on a sentence liable to exception, and waning explanation." Now 1 think, this care and exactness of tl.c apostle no where appears more than in the place we are upon. Nyy, I scarcely know another instance equal to this, of the apostle's care to be well understood, by being very particulars explicit, and precise, setting the matter forth in every lightf going over and over again with his doctrine, clearly to exhibit, and fully to settle and determine the thing which he aims at.

• Preface to Paraph, on Rom. p. i ^6, 48.

SECTION II.

Some Obften^atimis on the Connexion, Scope, and Sense of this remarkable paragraph i7i Rom. v. With some Ref.ections on the Evidence ivhich we here have of the Doctrine o/'Orig-INAL Sin. ,

THE connexion of this remarkable parag^raph with the foregoing discourse in this epistle, is not obscure and diffi-cwlt, nor to be sought for at a distance. It may be plainly-seen, only by a general glance on things ^vhich went before, from the beginning of the epistle : And indeed what is said immediately before in the same chapter, leads directly to it. The apostle in the preceding part of this epistle had largely treated of the sinfulness and misery of all mankind, Jews as well as Gentiles. He had particularly spoken of the depravity and ruin of mankind in their natural state, in the fore^ going part of this chapter ; representing them as being sm-ners. ungodly^ enemiesy exposed to divine wrtt;'//, auc\ without strength. No wonder now, this leads him to observe, ho'jt^ this so great and deplorable an event came to pass ; ho'iu this universal sin and ruin came into the world. And with regard to the Jews in particular, who, thoug;h they might allow thtf doctrine of Original Sin in their own profession, yet were strongly prejudiced against what was implied in it, or evidently followed from it, with regard to themselves ; in this respect they were prejudiced against the doctrine of universal sinfulness, and exposedness to wrath by nature, looking on themselves as by nature holy, and favorites of God, because they were the children of Abraham ; and with them the apostle had labored most in the foregoing part ol the epistle, to convince t)»cm of thtir being by nature as sinful, and as much

;tie childpcn of wralh, as the Gentiles :....I say, with ret^ard to them, it was cxccediiij^ proper, and what the apostle's design most naturally led him to, to take off their eyes from their father Abraham, who was their father in distinction from other nations, and direct them to their father Adam who was the common father of mankind, and equally of Jews and Gentiles. And when he was entered on this doctrine of the derivation of sin and ruin, or death, to all mankind from Adam, no wonder if he thought it needful to be soniuwhat particular in it, seeing he wrote to Jews and Gentiles • the former of which had been brought up under the prejudices of a proud opinion of themselves, as a holy people by nature, and the latter had been educated in total ignorance of all things of this kind.

Again, the apostle had, from the beginning of the epistle, been endeavoring to evince the absolute dependence of ai! mankind on the free c-race of God for salvation, and the greatness of this grace ; and particularly in the former part of this chapter. The greatness of this grace he shews especially by-two things. (1.) The universal corruption §nd-misery of mankind ; as in all the foregoing chapters, and in the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9ih and 10th verses of this chapter. (2.) The greatness of the benefits which believers receive, and the greatness of the glory they have hope of. So especially in verse i, 2, J, 4, 5, and llih of this chapter. And here, in ihis place we are upon, from verse 12 to the end, he is still on the same design of magnifying the grace of God, in the same thing, viz. the favor, life, and happiness which believers in Christ receive ; speaking here of the grace of God^ the gft by grace^ the ahomiding of grace^ and the reign of grace. And he still bets forth the freedom and riches of grace by the same two arguments, viz. The universal sinfulness and ruin of mankind, all having sinned, all being naturally exposed to death, judgment and condemnation ; and the exceeding greatness of the benefit received, being far greater than the misery which C'>me3 by the first Adam, and abounding beyond it. And it is by no means consistent with the apostle's scope, to jppo-ie, th.4t tliC benefit which wc have by Chrial, an the ttii* 2 K

lilype of Adam, here mainly insisted on, is without any ?:raco at all, being only a restoration to life ol such' as never deserved death.

Another thin?: observable in the apost]e*s scope from the be£^innin§: of the epistle, is, i,e endeavors to shew the t^reat-ness and absoluteness of the dependence of all mankind on the redemption and righteaftsness of Christ* for justification and life, that he mis^ht magnify and exalt the Redeemer ; which desis2;n his whole heart was swallowed up in, and may be looked upon as the main desipjn of the whole epistle. And this is what he had been upon in ihe preceding part of this chapter ; inferrinyj it from the same argument, the utter sinfulness and ruin of all men. And he is evidently still on the same thing in this place, from the 12th verse to the end 2 speaking of the same justification and righteousness, which be had dwelt on before, and not another totally diverse. No wonder, when the apostle is treating so fully and largely of our restoration, rigbteousness, and life by Christ, that he is led by it to consider our fall, sin, death, and ruin by Adam ; and to observe wherein these two opposite heads of mankind agree, and wherein they differ, in the manner of conveyance of opposite influences and communications from each.

Thus, if the place be understood, as it used to be understood by orthodox divines, the whole stands in a natural, easy, and clear connexion with the preceding part of the chapter, and all the former part of the epistle ; and in a plain agreement with the express design of all that the apoStlc had been saying ; and also in connexion with the words last before spoken, as introduced by the two immediately preceding verses, where he is sptaking of our justificaiion, reconciliation, and salvation by Christ ; whicu leads the apostle directly to observe, how, on the contrary, we have sin and death by Adam. Taking this discourse of the apostle in its true and plain sense, there is no need of great extent of learning^ or depth of criticism, to find out the connexion : But if it be understood in Di\ Taylor's sense, the plain scope anil connexion are wholly lost, and there was truly need of a skill in crit-fcism> and art ol disctnung, beyond or at least diifcrent from

ORIGINAL SIN. Wr

that of former divines, and a faculty of sceinir snnicthini? afar off. which other men's sight could not rcarh, in order to find out the connexion.

What has been already observed, may suffice to !»hcw liic apc-tle's ^cnernl scope in thii place, lint yet there seem to be some other thiny^s, which he has his eye to, in several expressions ; some particular things in the then present slate, temper and notions of ihe Jews, which he also had before spoken of, or had reference to, in certain places of the foregoing part of the epistle. As particularly, the Jews had a very superstitious and extravagant notion of their law, delivered by Moses ; as if it were the prime, grand, and indeed only rule of God's proceeding with mankind as their judge, both in men's justification and condemnation, or from whence all, both sin and ri^-^hteousncss, were imputed ; and had no consideration of the law of nature, written m the licarts oi the Gentiles, and of all mankind. Herein they ascribed infinitely too much to their particular law, beyond the true design of it. They made their board of the law ,' as if their being distinguished trom all other nations by that great privilege, the giv ing of thelaiv^ sufficiently made them a holy people, and God's children. This notion of theirs the apostle evidently refers to, chap.ii. 13, 17, 18. 19, and itideed through that whole chapter. They looked on the law of Moses as intended to be the only rule and means of justification ; and as sucIj, trusted in the v/orks of the law, especially circumcision ; whicli appears by the ZCi chapter. But as for the Gentiles, they looked on tlicm as by nature sinners, and children of wrath ; because born of uncircumcised parents, and aliens from their law, and who tbemselves did not know, profess and submit to the law of Moses, become proselytes, and receive circumcision. \\'hat they esteemed the sum of their wickedness and condemnation, was, that they did not turn Jews, and act as Jews.* This notion of theirs the apostle has a plain respect to, and cndcav-

♦ Here arc worthy t'^ be observed the things which Dr. Taylor Jiimscif iays to the same purpose, Key, ^ 302, 303, and Preface to Paraph, on £pUt •oKora. p, 144, 43,

*68 ORIGINAL SIN.

ors to convince them of the falseness of, in chapter ii. 12.... 16. And he has a manifest regard ap:ain to the same thing herci in the 12th, 13th, and 14th verses of chapter v. Which may lead us the more clearly to see the true sense of those verses ; about the sense of which is the main controversy, and the meaning of which being determined, it will settle the meaning of every other controverted expression through the whole discourse.

Dr. Taylor misrepresents the apostle*s argument in these verses. (Which as has been demonstrated, is in his sense altogether vain antl impertinent.) He supposes, the thing which the aposlle mainly intends to prove, is, that death or mortality does not come on mankind hy personal sin ; and that he would prove it by this medium, that death reigned when there was 7io law in being which threatened personal sin with death. It is acknowledged, that this is implied, even that death came into the vt'orld by Adam's sin : Yet this is not the main thing the apostle designs to prove. But his main point evidently is, that sin and guilty and just exfiosedness to death and ruin^ came into the world by Adam's sin ; as righteousness^ justification^ and a title to eternal life come by Christ, Which point he confirms by this consideration, that from the very time when Adam sinned, these things, viz. sin, guilt, and desert of ruin, became ww^er&o/in the world, long before the law given by Moses to the Jewish nation had any being.^

The apostle's remark, that sin entered into the world by one many who was the father of the whole human race, was an observation which afforded proper instruction for the Jews, who looked on themselves as an holy people, because they had the law of Moses, and were the children of Abraham, an holy father ; while they looked on other nations as by nature unholy and sinners, because they were not Abraham's child-dren. He leads them up to an higher ancestor than this patriarch, even to Adan), who being equally the father of Jews aiul Gentiles, both alike come from a sinful father; from whom guilt and polluiion were derived alike to all mankind. And this llie aposlle proves by an argument, which of all that could possibly be invented, tended the most briefly and direct-

ORTGINAL SIN. «6«

\y to convince the Jews ; even by this reflect! in, that death had come equally on all mankind from Adam's lime, and that the posterity of Abraham were cquallv subject to it with the rest of the world. This was apparent in fact, a thin^ they all knew. And the Jews had always been taut^ht that dcat/i (which began in the destruction of the body, and of this present lilc) was the proper punishment of sin. This they were taught in Moses* history of Adam, and God's first threatening; of punishment for sin, and by the constant doctrine ot the luw and the prophets, as has been already observed.

And the apostle's observation, that fti?i was in the wor/d lon(^ before the law was given, and was as universal in the woild from the times of Adam, as it had been amonpf the Heathen since the law of Moses, this shewed plainly that the Jews were quite mistaken in their notion of their particular law, and that the law which is the original and universal rule of righteousness and judgment for all mankind, was another law, of far more ancient date, even the law of nature, which began as early as the human nature began, and was established with the first father of mankind, and in him with the whole race : The positive precept of abstaining from the forbidden fruit, being given for the trial of his compliance with this law of nature ; of which the main rule is supreme regard to God and his will. And the apostle proves that it roust be thus, because, if the law of Moses had been the highest rule of judgment, and if there had not been a superi-or, prior, divine rule established, mankind in general would Dot have been judged and condemned as sinners, before that was given, (for " sin is not imputed, wlien there is no law") as it is apparent in fact they were, because death reigned before that time, even from the limes of Adam.

It may be observed, the apostle in this episile, and that to the Galatians, endeavors to convince the Jews of these two things, in opposition to the notions and prejudices they had entertained concerning their law. 1. That it never was intended to be the covenant, or method by which they should ac'naUy bejuftti/icd. 2. That it was not tljc highest and uni-

venal nile or hw, by which mankind in general, and particu-* larly the Heathen woi'ld, were condeiniied. And he proves both by similar arguments.. He proves that the law of Moses was not the covenant^ by which any of mankind were to obtain yw.'?''{/?ra''/o7z, because that covenant wasof older date, being expressly estahlis. cd in tne time of Abraham, and Abraham himself was justijied by it. This argument the apostle particularly handles in the 3d chapter of Galatians, especially in verses 17", 18, 19. And this ari!;ument is also made use of in the apostle's reasonmgs in the 4th chapter of this epistle to the Romans, especially verses 13, 14, 15. He proves also that the law of Moses was not Xht firime rule of judgment, by tphich mankind in general, and particularly the Heathen world, were cor,demned. And this he proves also the same •way, viz. by shewing this to be of older date than that law* and that it was established with Jdam. Now these things tended to lead the Jews to right notions of their law, not as the intended method of justification, nor as the original and universal rule of condemnation, but something sttpcradded to both, both being of older date, superadded to the latter^ to illustrate and confirm it, that the offence might abound ; and superadded to the former, to be as a schoolmaster, to prepare men for the benefits of it, and to magnify divine grace in it, that this might much more abound.

The chief occasion of the obscurity nnd difficulty which seems to attend the scope and connexion of the various clauses in the three first verses of this discourse, particularly the loth and j4ih verses, is, that there are two things (although things closely connected) which the apostle has in his eye at oncef in which he aims to enlighten them he writes to ; which will not be thought at all strange by them that have been conversant with, and have attended to this apostle's writings. He would illustrate the grand point he had been upon from the beginning, t\tn justification through Christ's righteousness alone^ by shewing how we are originally in a sinful, miserable state, and how we derive this sin and misery from Adam, and how we are delivered and justified by Christ as a second Adam. At the same time he would confute those foolish

and corrupt notions of the Jews, about their naiion and lUcir &7i', that were very inconsistent with these doctrines. And be here endeavors to establish, at once, these two ihinj^s in opposition to those Jewish notions.

1. That it is our natural relation to Adam, and not to Abraham, which determines our native, moral state ; and that therefore the bein^ natural children of Abraham, will not make us by nature holy in the sit^ht of Cio 1, since we are the natural seed of sinful Adam ; nor does the (icntiics* bein^ not descended from Abraham, denominate them siymcrs^ any more than the Jews, seeing both alike arc descended from Adam.

3. That the law of Moses is not the prime and genci^l law and rule of judtjjment for mankind, to condemn them, and denominate them sinners ; but that the state they are in with re£j:ard to a hii^her, more ancient and universal law, determines mankind in t;encral to be sinners in the sight of God> and liable to be condemned as such. Which observation is, in many respects, to the apostle's purpose ; particularly ux this respect, that if the Jews were convinced, that the law, which was the prime rule of condemnation, was ghen to ally was common to all mai\kind, and that all fell under condemnation lhiouf!;h the violation of that law by the common father of all, both Jews and Gentiles, then they would be led more easily and naturally to believe, that the method of justification which God had established, also epctended equally to aii mankind ; and that the Messiah, by whom Ave have this justification, is appointed, as Adam was, for a common head to all, both Jews and Gentiles.

The apostle's aiming; to confute the Jewish notion, is the principal occasion of those words in the 13tl) verse : *♦ Tor until the law, sin was in the world ; but sin is not imputed, when iheie is no law."

As to the import of that eNpresr>ion, « Kven over thcro that had not sinned after the simil'tude of Adam's transiM'cS-sion,'* not only is the thini; sit;niiicd by it, in Dr. Taylor's sense of it, not tmr ; or ii it i»ad been true, would have been imperiinttit; as has been shewn ; but his inttrpre?

tf^ ORIGINAL SIN.

tation is, otherwise, very much strained and unnatural. According to him, by " sinning after the similitude of Adam's transgression,** is not meant any similitude of the act of sinning, nor of the command ginned against, nor properly any circumstance of the sin; but only the similitude of a circumstance of the commandy viz. the threatening it is attended with. A far fetched thing, to be called a similitude ofsiiviing t Besides this expression in such a meaning, is only a needless, impertinent, and awkward repeating over again the same thing, which it is supposed the apostle had observed in the foregoing verse, even after he had left it, and had proceeded another step in the series of his discourse, or chain of arguing. As thus, in the foregoing verse the apostle had plainly laid down his argument, (as our author understands it) by which he would prove, death did not come by personal siny viz. that death reigned before any law, threatening death for personal sin, was in being; so that the sin then committed was against no latv, threatening death for personal sin. Having laid this down, the apostle leaves this part of his argument, and proceeds another step, Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses; and then returns, in a strange, unnatural manner, and repeats that argument or assertion again, but only more obscurely than before, in these words. Even over them thai had not sinned after the similitude of Adam* s transgression ^ i. e. over them that had not sinned against a law threatening death for personal sin. Which is just the same thing as if the apostle had said, " They that sinned before the laiv^ did not sin against a law threatening death for personal sin ; for there was no such law for any to sin against at that time : Nevertheless death reigned at that time, even over such as did 7iot sin against a law threatening death for personal sin.** Which lutter clause adds nothing to the premises, and tends nothing to illustrate what was said before, but rather to obscure and darken it. The par icle k»», eve?iy when prefixed in this man-,ner used to signify something additional, some advance in the sense or argument ; implying that the word* following express somelliing more, or express the same thing more fully, plainly, or forcibly. But to unite two clauses by such a par*

ticle, in such a manner, when there is nolliinj* besides a flat fepelilion, with no superadded sense or forcc> but rather a greater uncertainty and obscurity, would be very unusual, and indeed very absurd.

I can see no reason why we should bf dissatisfied MrltH that explanation of this clause, which has more commonly bct-n L:ivenj viz. That by t/irm ivho have not sinned after ihe similitude of Adarri'a trans^resision^ arc meant irifauta ; who, thouc:h they have indeed sinned in Adam, yet never sinned as Adam did, by actually transii^ressing in their own persons ; unless it be tliat this interpretation is too old, and too ccnivjon. It was well known by those the apostle wrote to, that vast numbers had died in infancy, whhin that period which the apostle speaks of, particularly in ihe time of the delup;e ; and it would be strange the aposile should not have the case of such infants in his mind ; even supposinj^ his scope were what our author supposes, and he had only intended to prove that death did not come on mankind for their personal sin. How directly would it have served the ptirpose of proving-this, to have mentioned so great a part of mankind that are subject to death, who, all know, never committed any sin ii» their otvn ficrsons ? How much more plain and easy the proof of the point by that, than to go round about, as Dr. Taylor supposes, and bring in a thing so dark and uncertain as this, That God never would bring death on all mankind for personal sin, (though they had personal sin) without an express, revealed constitution ; and then to observe that there was no revealed constitution of this nature fiom Adam to Moses ; which also seems a tiling without any plain evidence ; and then to infer that if must needs be so. that it could come only on occasion of Adam*s sin, though not fhr his sin, or a«i any pimishment of it ; which inference also is very dark and unintelligible.

If the apostle in this place meant t.hn^e v ho ncvrv si-ined

by their peison:.l act. it is not strange that he should express'

This by their not sinning after the siviilititde of .idan*9 nann-

:rrrs<iion. \Ve read of two ways of mtn*s being lik^- Adam,

' IP vvliich a sin)il;tude to him is astribvd to mtn •• t^nc l'^

Si.

Sr4 ORTCTNAI. STM.

a bein^ becrotten or born in his i7na^e or likeness, Gen. v. S^ Another is a transg:ressing God's covenant or law, like him^ fios vi 7. " They, like Adam, (so in the Heb. and Vulg. Lat) have transo^ressed the covenant." infants have the forrrer similitude, but not the latter. And it was very-natural, when the apostle would infer that infants become sinners by that one act and offence of Adam, to observe that they had not renewed the act of sin themselves, by any second instance of a like sort. And such might be the state oflanguage among Jews and Christians at that day, that the apostle might have no phrase more aptly to express this meaning. The manner in which the epithets, personal and actual^ are used and applied now in this case, is probably of later date and more modern use.

And then this supposition of the apostle's having the case of infants in view, in this expression, makes it more to his purpose, to mention death reigning before the law of Moses •was given. For the Jews looked on all nations, besides themselves, as sinners, by virtue of their law ; being made so especially by the laiv of circumcision^ given first to Abraham, and completed by Moses, making the want of circumcision a legal/2o//wrzo?z, utterly disqualifying for the privileges of the sanctuary. This law, the Jews supposed, made the very infants of the Gentiles sinners, polluted and hateful to Cod; they being uncircumcised, and born of uncircumcised parents. But the apostle proves against these notions of the Jews, that the nations of the world do not become sinners by nature, and sinners from infancy, by virtue of their laiU', in this manner, but by Adam's sin ; inasmuch as infants were treated as sinners long before the law of circumcision was given, as well as before they had commiaed actual i^in.

What has been said, may, as I humbly conceive, lead us to that which is the true scope and sense of the apostle in these t^jrec verses ; uhuh I will endeavor more briefly to represent in the foilowintr paraphrase.

" The things which I have 12. Wherefore, as by one largely insisted on, viz. the niov sin filtered into the luorldf evil that is in the world, tiui ana death by sin ; and so death

ORIGINAL SIN. STS

general wickedness, j;uilt and fiaaaed u/ion alt men^ for thmt turn of mankind, and the op- all have sinned. posite good, even justification and life, as only by Christ, lead me to observe tlie likeness of the manner in which ihejr are each of them introduced. For it was by one man, that the general corrupiion and guilt wiiich I have spoken of, came into the world, and condemnation and death by sin : And this dreadful punishment hnd ruin came on all mankind by the great law o/iuorksj originally established with mankind in their first father, and by his one offence^ or breach of that law ; all thereby becoming sinners in God*s sight, and exposed to final destruction.

<' It is manifest that it was 13. For until the la70,sin tvai in this way the world became in the ivorld ; hut sin is not sinful and guilty ; and not in imfiutedy vihen there is no laH. that way which the Jews suppose, viz. That their law, given by Moses, is the grand, universal rule of righteousness and judgment for mankind, and.tliat it is by being Geniiles, uncircumcised, and aliens from that law, that the nations ot the world are constituted 8innersy'AV\A unclean. For before the law of Moses was iMveii, mankind were all looked upon by the grcatJudge

as sinners, by corruption and guilt derived from Adam's violation of the orii^inal law of works ; which shews that

the original, universal rule of '

righteousness is not the law of Moses ; for if so, there would have been no sin imputed before that was given, because sin is not imputed when there is no law.

" But that at that time sin • 14, JVevertheless^ death was imfiuted, and men were reigned from Adam to Moses^ by their Judge reckoned as even over them that had not sin^ sinners, through guilt and ned after the similitude of A<S>' corruption derived from Ad- amU transgression. am, and condemned for sin to dmth^ the proper punishment of sin, we have a plain proof; in that it appears in fact, all mankind, during that whole time which preceded the law of Moses, were subjected tft that temporal death, which is the visible introduction and image of that utter destruction which sin deserves, not crcppiing ieven infants^ who couid be sinners no other way than by virtue of Adam*s transgression, h iving never in

their own persons actually sin I

ned as Adam did ; nor could at \hat time be made polluted by the law of Moses, as being uncircu'ncised, or born of un circumuised parents^**

Now, by way of rellcction on the whole, I would observe* \-hat though there are two or three expressions in this paragraph, Rom. V. 12, Sec. the design of which is attended with some difficuhy and obscurity, as particularly in the l.Tth and 14th verses, yet the scope and sense of the discourse in gen* eral is not obscure, but on the contrary very clear and manifest ; and so is the particular doctrine mainly taui^lkt in it. The apostle sets himself with great care and pains to make it plain, and precisely to fix and settle the point he ii upon. And the discourse is so framed, that one pan of it does greatly clear and fix the meaning of other parts ; and the whole is determined by tlie clear connexion it stands' in with other parts of the epistle, and by the manifest drift of all the preceding part of it.

The doctrine of Original Sin is not only here taught, but most plainly, explicitly, and abundantly taught. This doctrine is asserted, expressly or implicitly, in almost every verse, and in some of the verses several times. It is fully implied in that first expression in the 12th verse, *' By one roan sin entered into the world." The passage implies, that Sin became universal in the world ; as the apostle had before largely shewn it was ; and not merely (which would be a trifling, insignificant observation) that one man, who was made first, sinned first, before other men sinned ; or, that it did not 50 happen that many men began to sin just together at the same moment. The latter part of the verse, " And death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that (or, if you will) unio ivhich) all have sinned," shews, that in the eye of the Judg« of the world, in Adam's first sin, all sinned ; not only in some sort, but all sinned so as to be exposed to tliat death, and final destruction, which is the proper ivagcs of sin. Tht Same doctrine is taught again twice over in the 14th verse. It is there observed, as a proof of this doctrine, that '• Death reigned over them which had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression ;" i. e. by their personal act ; and therefore could be exposed to death, only by deriving guilt and pollution from Adam, in consequence of his sin. And it U taught ag<\in in those 'vords, '• Who is tlif* figure of hirn

Sye ORIGINAL SIN.

that was to come.'* The resemblance lies very much in tins circiimstunce, viz. bur deriving sin, guilt, and punishment by Adam's sin, as we do righteousness, justification, and the reward of life by Christ's obedience ; for so the apostle explains himself. The same doctrine is expressly taught again, verse 15. " Through the offence of one, many be dead." And again twice in the :6th verse. " It was by one that sinned ;'* i. e. it -Was by Adam, that guilt and punishment (before spoken of) came on mankind : And in these words, '* Judgment was by one to condemnation." It is again plainly and fully laid down in the 17th verse, '' By one man's offence, death reign-fed by one." So again in the 18th verse, " By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation." Again yeryj>Iainly in the i9th verse, " By one man's disobedience, ttt^v.y were made sinners "

And here is every thing to determine and fix the meayiin^ of all important terms, that the apostle makes use of: As, the abundant use of them in all parts of the New Testament; and especially in this apostle's writings, which iriake up a very great part of the New Testament: And his repealed \ise of them in this epistle in particular, especially in the preceding part of the epistle, which leads to and introduces this discourse, and in the former part of this very chapter j and also the light, that one sentence in this paragraph casts ' on another, which fully settles their meaning : As, with respect to the woY^s justi/caiwn, righteousness and Condemnation ; and above all, in regard of the word sin, which is the most important of all, with relation to the doctrine and controversy ve are upon. Besides the constant use of this term every vhere else through the New Testament, through the epistles of this apostle, this epistle in particular, and even the former part of this chapter, it is often repeated in this very paragraph, and evidently used in the very sense that is denied to btlong to it in the end of verse 12, and verse 19, though owned every where else : And its meaning is fully determined by the apostle's varying the term ; using together with it, to signify t!ie same thing, such a variety of other synonymous •words, such as offence, transi^rcssion^ disobedience. And fur-*

ther, to put the matter out of all controversy, it is parilcul a\f and expressly and ic-pLatedly disiin;;uishcd from that which our opposers would ex/Uain it by, viz. ccndemnali(,n ai.d d.affu And what is n^eunt by «n*« eutt'ving into the lonrld, in vtr«« 12, is determined by a like phrase of «/>/*« brint; in thr wor/d, in the next verse. And that by the ofmcc of our^ so often Spoken of here, as brinpjinr: dealh and condemnation on all, the apostle means the sin of one, derived in its jriiilf and pol-lulion to mankind in j>;eneral, is a t\\'i\n; which (over and alwvc all that has been already oh<served) is settled and determined by those words in the conclusion of this discourse, vtrse 20. " Moreover, ihe law entered, that the offence might ah'nin.l : But where sin a'.omukd, j^race did mu(5h more abound." These words plainly shew, that the ofence spoken of so often, and evidently spoken of siill in these words, which was the ofTenc^ o^ one man, became the sin of c/A I'or when lie says, " The law entered, that the offence mit^ht abound," his mean* inp: cannot be, that the offence of Adam, niertiv as hit prr-sonally, should rti.'wr?^ ; but, as it exists in its c^rr/rrr^ g;,jilt, corrupt influence, and evil fruits, in the sin of mankind in generid, even as a tree in its root and branches.*

It is a thinp; that confirms the certainty of the/jroo/'of tho doctrine of Oiii^inal Sin, which this place affords, that the utmost art cannot pervert it to another sense. What a vari^.ijr of the most artful methods have been used by the rnemies of this doctrine, to wrest and darkm this paragraph of holy writ, Vi'hich sta!ul> so tnuch in their way. as it were to force the Bible to speak a lani^uage that is afrreeable to their mind! How have expressions been strained, words and phrasps rack-

* The offence, according to Dr Taylor's cxpianalion, <3o« not ahoiiiWi by the law at ill really and traly, in any sense ; neither the «in, !«or the punishment. For \\2 savs, " The meaning '\s not, that men shouJd br maoe move wicked ; but, that men should br liable to death for cvi-ry iransj{re*»i«>o." But after all, they arc liable to no more deaths, nor to any worse death*, if they are not more sinful : For they were to hsve puni$hm'-nt» arcoid.njj to their desert, before. Such as died, and went into another world, before th% hw of Moses was given, were punuhed according to fhcir c!'-«eru ; and t^ Aw, when *t came, tUrcdU-ned no mo--'..

cd ! AVhat strange figures of speech have been invented, ahcf with violent hands thrust into the apostle's mouth ; and theijf •with a bold countenance and magisterial airs obtruded on the world, as from him l....But, blessed be God, we have his words as he delivered them^ and the rest of the same epistle, and his other writings to compare with them ; by which his meaning-stands in TOO strong and glaring a light to be hid by any of the artificial mists which they labor to throw upon it.

It is really no less than abusing the scripture and its read* ers, to represent this paragraph as the most cbacure {j{ ?i\\ the places of scripture, that speak of the consequences of Adam's sin ; and to treat it as if there was need first to consider other places as more/?/om. Whereas, it is most manifestly a placa in Avhich these things are declared, beyond all, the most plainly, particularly, precisely, and of set purpose, by that great apostle, who has most fully explained to us those doctrines' in general, which relate to the redemption by Christ, and the sin and misery we are redeemed from. And it must be now left to the reader's judgment, whether the Christain church has not proceeded reasonably, in looking on this as a place of scripture most clearly and fully treating of these things, and in using its determinate sense as an help to settle the meaning of many other passages of sacred writ.

As this place in general is very full and plain, so the doctrine of the corruption of nature, as derived from Adam, and also the imputation of his first sin, are both clearly taught in it. The imputation of Adam's one transgression, is indeed most directly and frequently asserted. We are here assured thai by out 7nan^s sin^ dtath passed on all; all being adjudged to this punishment, as having smwerf (so it is implied) in that one man's sin. And it is repeated over and over, that all are condevmcd, many are dead^ many made sinntrs^ kc. by one man's offmce^ by the disobedience ofone^ and by 07ie offence. And the doctrine of original depravity is ahio here taught, when the apostle says, By one 7j:an sin entered into the ivorld; having a plain respect (us hath been she^vn; to that v.iiivetsal coriup-lion and wickedness, as well as guilt, which he had before. larRclv treated cf-

PART III.

Observing the Evidence given us, relative to the Doctrine 0/ Original Sin, in what-the Scr^p. tures reveal concerning' the Redemption b'p Christ.

CHAPTER I,

The Evidence o/Original Sin, /rom the Miture o/Rfdem/i-tion in the firocurement of it.

ACCORDING to Dr. Taylor's scheme, a very great part of mankind are the subjects of Clnist's redemption, who live and die perfectly innocent^ who never have had, and never will have any sin charged to their account, and never are cither the subjects of, or exposed to ?^ny fiunishment whatsoever, via. all that die in infancy. They are the subjects of Chnst*8 re-dewfition^ as he redeems them from dcatli^ or as they by his righteousness Xwxsi:, juatijicalion^ and by his obedience are madv rif^htcoiiSy in the resurrection of the body, in liie sense of Rom. V. 18, 19. A":d cU mankind arc thus ihe subjects of Clwisl's redemption, while they are perfectly guiltless, and ex|)Oscd to no punishment, as by Christ '.liey arc intilled to a resurrection. Though, wiih respect to such persons as have sii rd, he allows it hin name sort by Chiist ai»d his riea'.h. ;hai ihcf ;-»ve saved from sin, and the punishmr-'*' oi'l-r. M

Now let us see whether such a scheme well consists with the scripture account of the redemption by Jesus Christ.

I. The representations of the redemption by Christ, everj|-where in scripture, lead us to suppose, that all whom he came to redeem, are sinners; that his salvation, as to the term fro77i nvhicJi (or the evil to be redeemed from) in all is sin^ and the deserved fiwiishment of sin. It is natural to suppose, that when he had his name Jesus, or Saviour, jj^iven him by Gbd*s special and immediate appointment, the salvation meant by that name should be his salvation in general ; and not only a part of his salvation, and with regard only to some of them that he came to save. But this name was given him to signify his savi72g Ms fieofile from their sins^ Matth. i. 21. And the great doctrine of Christ's salvation is, that he cajne into the world to save sinners, 1 Tim. i. 15. And that Christ hath once suffered, the just for the unjust, 1 Pet. iii. 18. Iri this was manifested the love of God towards us (towards such in general as have the benefit of God's love in giving Christ) that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, that he sent his son to be the prO' pitiation for our sins, 1 John iv, 9, 10. Many other texts might be mentioned, which seem evidently to suppose, that all who are redeemed by Christ, are saved from sin. We are led by what Christ himself said, to suppose, that if any are - not sinners, they have no need of him as a redeemer, any Tiiore than a well man of a physician, Mark ii. 17. And that men, in order to being the proper subjects of the mercy of God through Christ, must first be in a state of sm, is implied in Cal. iii. 3^^' " But the scripture hath concludcu all uurier sin, that the promir,p by faith of Jesus Christ mii^ht be given to tliem thai believe." To the same effect is Rom. xi. 32.

These things are greatly confirmed liy the scripture doctrine ot hacrifces. It is abunduntly plain, by both old and New Testament, that they were typc:i of Christ's death, and were for sin, and supposed sin in ihose for whom thty were offered. The apostle supposes, that in order to any having \li£ benefit of the eternal inhcr'nance by Christ, there mu&t of y.ecessity be the death of the fruator^ and gives tliat ■•■i*$on Ic

it, that ivithout shcddiiir ofbtood there is no rfmhuion^ Hch. ix. 15, Sec. And Chrisi himself, in rcpitst-nlin^; the benefit of his blood, in ilic insiituiion of the Lord's supper, under the notion of liic blood of a testament^ calls ii, Thr blood of the AVfy Testament^ shed for the remi'tision of sinny Mut'h. xxvi. 28. But accordinpj lo the scheme of our author, many have the eternal inheritance by tlic death of the testaloi, who nercr had any need of remission.

II. The scripture represents the redemplion by Christ as a redemption from deserved destruction ; and that, not merely as it respects some particulars, but as the fruit of God'^ love to mankind. John iii. 16. " God so loved the ivorldy that he gave his only bep;otten son, that whosoever bcheveih in him should not fierish, but have everlasting^ life :" Implying;, that otherwise they must perish, or be destroyed : But what necessity of this, if they did not deserve to be destroyed ? Now, that the destruction here spoken of, is deserved destruction, is manifest, because it is there compared to the perishing of such of the children of Israel as died by the bite of the fiery serpents, which God, in his wrath, for their rebellion^ sent amongst them. And the same thini^ clearly appears by the last verse of the same chapter, <' He that believeth en the Son, hath everlasting life ; and he that believeth not the Son, ihall not see life, but the wrath of God abideHi on him," or, is left remaining on him : Implying, that all in general are found under the wrath of God, and that they only of all mankind, who are interested in Christ, have this wrath removed^ and eternal life bestowed ; the rest are lift with the nvrath of God still remaining on them. The same is clearly illustrated and confirmed by John v. 24. " He that believeth, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death to life.** In being passed from death to life is implied, that before, they were all in a state of death ; and they are spoken gf as being so by a sentence o( condenmo' fion ; and if it be a just condemnation, it is a dcsci^cd condemnation.

HI. It will follow on Dr. Taylor's scheme, that Christ's redemption, with regard to a great part of them who arc the

subjects of it, is not only a rede/nption from no siriy but from 710 calaviity^ and so frcm no evil of any kind. For as to deaths which infants are redeemed from, they neVer were subjected to it as a calamity, but purely as a benefit. It cume by no threatening or curse denounced upon or through Adam ; the covenant with him being utterly abolished^ as to all its force and power on mankind (according to our author) before the pronouncinij of the sentence of mortality. Therefore trouble and death could be appointed to innocent mankind no other way than on the foot of another covenant, the covenant of grace ; and in this channel they come only as favors^ not as evils. Therefore they could need no medicine or remedy, for they had no disease. Even death itself, which it is supposed Christ saves them from, is only a medicine ; it is preventing physic, and one of the greatest of benefits. It is ridiculous to talk of persons needing a medicine, or a physician to save them from an excellent medicine; or of a remedy from a happy remedy ! If it be 5aid, though death be a benefit, yet it is so because Christ changes it, and turns it into a benefit, by procuring a resurrection : I would here ask, What can be meant by turnvig or changing it into a benefit, when it never was otherwise, nor could ever justly be otherwise ? In^ fants could not be brought under death as a calamity ; fo? they never deserved it. And it would be only an abuse (be it far froni us, to ascribe such a tiling to God) in any being, to naake the offer to any poor sufferers, of a redeemer fiom some calamliy, which he had brought upon them*without the least d'^^.v^r^ of it on their part.

But it is plain, that death or mortality was not at first biought on mankind as a blessing, on the foot of the cove-nantof grace through Christ; and that Christ and grace do not bring mankind under death, hwi find them under it. 2 Cor. v, 14. " We thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead." Luke xix. 10. " The Son of man is come to seek and to save that whicli was lost." The grace which appears in providing a deliverer from any slate, supposes the subject to be in that stale iirior to that grace and deliverance ; and pot that such a state is first introduced by that grace. In ouP

%"uthor*s scheme, there never could be any sentence of dca'.l^ or condemnaiion that requiics a Saviour from it ; btcause the very sentence itself, accordinfij to ilie tiuc mi-aniii^ of if, implies and makes sure all that good uhich is requisite to abolish and make void the seen>int«; evil to the innocent subject. So thai tlie scnience itself ia in eficct the deliverer, and there is no need of another deliverer to deliver from that sentence. Dr. Taylor insists upon it, that »< Nothing comes upon us in consequence of Adam's sin, in any sensf^ kind or drc^ree, inconsistent with the on'i;inal blcasinir pronounced on Adam at his creation ; and noihini^ hut what is perfectly consistent with God's blessinp;, love and ijoodness, declared to Adam as soon as he came out of his Maker's hands."* If the case be so, it is certain there is no evil or cabniiiy at all for Christ to redeem us from ; unless things agreeahlr to the divine goodnetis^ love and blcsaing^ are thiiigs which wc n^ed redemption from.

IV. It will follow, on our author's principles, not only with respect to inu.nis, but e\en adult persons, that redemption is needless, and Christ is dead in vain. Not only is there no need of Christ's redemption in order to deliverance froni any consequences of Adam's sin, but also in ordet to peifect /reedom from personal sin, and all its evil consequences. For God has made other surTicient provision fo\^ tiiat, viz. a sufficient fiQivtr and ability^ in all 7nankind, to do c:.'! fhf:r duty^ ■and ivhollij to avoid sin. Yea, this aullvor insisi^ ujjon it, that " when men have not sufficient fwioer to do their duty, they have no duty to do. We may safely and assuredly conclude, (says he) that mankind in ail parts of the world, have iufficcient power to do the duty which (iod requires of them ; jnd that he requires of them tio more than they have suffi^^ xient powers to do."t And in another place.J •' God has ^iven powers equal to the duty which he expects." And he expresses a great dislike at R. R's supposinc; " that our pro-j)CBsiiies to evil, and temptation?, are too strong to be cffcciw-itUy andconfitantiy resisted, or that wc a:c unavoidably sintul ia

•i». 88,89, S. + P. Ill, 63, 6.1, S. ;p. ti7,S'

a degree ; that our appetites and passions will be breaking out, notwitiistanding our everlasting watchfulness."* These things fully imply that men have in their own natural ability suffi-^ cient means to avoid sii), and to be perfectly free from it ; and so, from all the bad consequences of it. And if the means are svfficimt, then thcie is no need of more; and therefore there is no need of Christ's dying, in Order to it. What Dr. Taylor says, in p. 72, ^S, fully implies that it would be unjust in God to give mankind being in such circumstances, as that they would be more likely to sin, so as to be exposed to final misery, than otherwise. Hence then, without Christ and his redemption, and without any grace at all, mere justice makes sufficient firovision for our being free from sin and misery, by our otvn power.

If all mankind, in all parts of the world, have such sufficient power to do their whole duty, without being sinful in any de» gree, then they have sufficient power to obtain righteousness by the law ; and then, according to the Apostle Paul, C/irist is dead in vain. Gal. ii. 21. " If righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead in vain ;*\...h» »o/^8, without the article, bij laip, or the rule of right action, as our author explains the phrase.t And according to the sense in v/hich he explains this very place, " It would have frustrated or rendered useless the grace of God, if Christ died to accomplish what was or mig/it have been effected by law itself, without his death."| So that it most clearly follows from his own doctrine, that Christ is dtad in vain^ and the grace of God is nselesst The same apostle says, *' If there had been a"4aw which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law," Gal. iii. 21 ; i. e. (still according to Dr. Taylor's own sense) iftherewasa law that man, in his present slate, had sijffi-citnt p(nver perfectly to fulfil. For Dr. Taylor supposes the reason why the law could not give life, to be, " not because it was weak in itself, but through the weakness of our flesh, and the infirmity of the human nature in the present stale."§

♦ P. 68, S. + Pref. to Par. on Rom p. 143, 38. % Note on Rom, V, 20, p. 297. ^ Ibid.

But he says, " We are under a.mild dispcnsalion of (frorr, makini^ allowance for our infirniilics."* By our irifirniiUcHy viQ may upon good grounds suppose hu means ihni iuGrmity of human nature which he gives as the reason why the law cannot give life. But what grace is there in miking that allowance for our infirmities, which justice itself faccordinjj; to his doctrine) most absf>lutcly requires, as he supposes divine justice exactly proportions our duly to our ability ?

Again, If it be said, that although Christ's redemption was not necessary to preserve men from hcgimiinr^ to sin, and getting into a course of sin, becuuse they have suflkient power in themselves to avoid it ; yet it may 1)6 necessary to deliver men, after they have by their own Ojlly brouglu themselves under the domimon of evil appetites and passions.f I answer, if it be so, that men need deliverance fiom ihoso habits and passions, which are become too strong for them, yet that deliverance, on our author's principles, would be no salvation from sin. For, the exercise of passions which are too strong for us, and which we cannot overcome, is necessaryy and he strongly urges that a ucccssaiy evil can be no moral evil. It is true, it is the eject of evil, as it is the ejjrct of a bad practice, while the man remained at liberty, and had power to have avoided it. But then, according to Dr. Taylor, that evil cau.^c alone is sin ; and hot so, the necessary ej'tcf g Tov he says expressly, « T/ie cause cf every eflect is ahne chargeable with the effect it pioduceih, or which proceedeth from it."I And as to thnt sin which was the causr^ the man needed no Saviour from that, having had sufficient fiovjrr in himself to have avoided it. So that it follows, by our author's scheme, that none of mankind, nrixlier infants nor adult persons, neither the more nor less vicious, neither Jews nor Gen-tiles, neither Heathens nor Christians, ever did or ever could stand in any need of a Saviour ; and that, whh res()cci to ally the truth is, Christ is dead in vain.

• Po^ 92, S. t See p. 228, ami als.> what he says of the hclpleM itatc

of the Heatheo, in Par. and Note* on Rom. vii. and beginning ol Ciiap. vl;:.

If any should say, Although all mankind in all ages have sufficient ability to do their ^vhole duly, and so may by their own power enjoy perfect freedom from sin, yet God for esaif that they ivould siriy and that after they had sinned, they Mould need Christ's death ; I answer, it is plain by what the apostle says in those places which were just now mentioned, Gal. ii. 21, and iii. 21, that God would have esteemed it needless to i^ive his Son to die for men, unless there had been a prior impossibility of their having righteousness by law ; and that, if there had been a law which could have given life, this other way by the death of Christ would not have been provided. And this appears to be agreeable to our author's own sense of things, by his words which have been cited, wherein he says, " It would h&vefrusti-ated or rendered useless the grace of God, if Christ died to accomplish what, was or might have been effected by law itself, without his death."

V. It will follow on Dr. Taylor's scheme, not only that Christ's redemption is needless for the saving from sin, or its consequences, but also that it does no good that way, has no tendency to any diminution of sin in the world. For as to any infusion of virtue or holiness into the heart, by divine power through Christ or his redemption, it is altogether inconsistent with this author's notions. With him, hiivrought virtue, if there were any such thing, would be no virtue ; not being the effect of our own will, choice and design, but only of a sovereign act of God's power.* And therefore, all that Christ does to increase virtue, is only increasing our talents, our light, advantages, means and motives, as lie often explains the niatter.f But sin is not at all diminished. For he says, Our duty must be measured by cur taUmts ; as, a child that has lehs talents, lias less duty, and therefore must be no more exposed to commit sin, than he that has greater talents, because he that has greater talents, has moie duty required, in exact proportion,t If so, he that has but one talent, has as much

• See p3p;es i8o, 245, 250. + In p. 44, 50, and innumerable other

places. % See p. 834, 61, 64... 70, S.

itdvantage to perform that one degree of duty which is required of him, as he that has^vr talents, to perform \\\%five degrees of duly, and is no more exposed lo fail of it. And that man's guilty who sins against greater advanta^^es, means and motives, is greater in proportion to his talents, t And therefore it will follow, on Dr. Taylor's principles, that men stand no b«tter chance^ have no more eligible or valuable probability of freedom from sin and punishment, or of contracting but little guilt, or of performing required dui^, with the great advantages and talents implied in Christ's redemption, than without them ; when all things are computed, and put into the balances together, the numbers, degrees and aggravations of sin exposed to, degrees of duty required, 8cc So that men have no redemption from sin, and no new means of performing duty, that arc valuable or worth any thing at all. And thus the great redemption by Christ in every respect comes tfy nothing, with regard both to infants and adult persons.

CHAPTER 11.

T/ie Evidence of the Doctrine of Original Sin fmm ivhat the Scripture teaches of the Application of Rede mfit ion.

THE truth of the doctrine of Original Sin is very clearly manifest from what the scripture says of that change of s(at€ which it represents as necessary to an actual interest in the spiritual and eternal blessings of the Redeemer's kingdom.

In order to this, it speaks of it as absolutely necessary for every one, that he be rcg^cnerated, or dom again, John iii. S

* See Paraph, oo Ronn. ii. 9, also on vcrtc 1 e. 2 N

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man ysmi% atuBn^f, be begotten again, or born again, he cannot see the Ivingdom of God." Dr. Taylor, though he will not allow that this signifies any change from a state of ?iatural/ii'o/ie7isity to sin, yet-supposes that the new birth here spoken of means a nvan*s being brought to a divine life^ in a right use and aiifilication ofths natural fioivers, in a life of true holiness ;* and that it is the at" tainment of those habits of virtue and religion^ nvhich gives us the real character of true Christians, and the children of God ;t and that it is fiutting on the new nature of right action.^

But in order to proceed in the most sure and safe manner, in our understanding what is meant in scripture by being born again^ and so in the inferences we draw from what is said of the necessity of it, let us compare scripture with scripture, and consider what other terms or phrases are used in other places, where respect is evidently had to the same change.

And here I would observe the following things :

I. If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest, that by regeneration, or being begotten^ or born again^ the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the scripture speaks of as effected in true rejientance and co?iversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the scripture puts them together, Acts iii. 19, and because they plainly signify much the same thing. The word, fAsravota, (repentance) signifies a change of the mind ; as the word conversion means a change or turning from sin to God. And that this is the same change with that which is called regeneration, (excepting that this latter terrn especially signifies the change, as the mind is passive in it) the following things do shew.

In the change which the mind passes under in refientance and conversion, is attained that character of true Christians, which is necessary to the eternal privileges of such. Acts iii. 19. " Be/ienf ye therefore, and be converted, that yOur sins ijioy be blotted out, when the times of refieshin;.; siiall come from the presence of the Lord." And so it is with regenera*

* Page 144. i Page 246,248. * PaS'" ^ 5'

lion ; as is evident from what Christ says to Nicodemus, and &s is allowed by Dr. Taylor.

The chani^'c ihe mind passes under in repentance and conversion, is that in which savinp;/a/V/j is attained. Mark i. 4 5. " The kingdom of Cod is at hand : Repent ye, and believe the p;ospf^l.'* And so it is with a beinj^ l)oi n again, or born ot God ; as appears by John i. 12, 13. '• But as many as received him, to them pjave he power to become the sons of God,«ven to them that brlicvc on his rramc, which were ^>or^, not of blood, E<c. but of God,'*

Just as Christ says concerning conversion, Malth. xviii. 3. *< Verily, vcvily, I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kin^donl of heaven ;*' so does he say concerning bein^^ born again, in what he spake to Nicodemus.

By the cliange men pass under in conversion, they become as little children^ which appears in the place last cited ; and so they do by regeneration, 1 Pet, i. at the end; and chap, ii, at the beginning. Being born again.... Wherefore^ as neiuborn babes, dedrc, Sec. It is no objection that the disciples, whom -Christ spake to in Mallh. xviii. 3, were converted already : This makes it not less proper for Christ to declare the necessity of conversion to them, leaving it with them to try themselves, and to make sure their conversion ; in like manner as he declared to them the necessity o( re/ientanccy in Luke xiii. 3, 5. " Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

The change that men pass under at their rc/u.itancc, is expressed and exhibited by baptism. Hence it is called the baptism of rclicnlancc, from time to time, Mallh. iii. 11, Luke iii. 3, Acts xiii. 24, and xix. 4. And so is regeneration, or being born again, expressed by baptism ; as is evident by such representations of regeneration as those, Joiiu iii. 5. "Except a man be born of water, and of the vSpirii"....Titus iii. 5. " He saved us by the washing of rejrcneration." Many other things might be observed, to shew that the change men pass under in their repentance and convcrj>ion, is the same with that which '.hey arc the subjects of in rcgcncraiion. But these obscrva-dons may be sufiiciciu.

II. The change which a man passes under when kain again, and in his repentance and conversion, is the same that the scripture calls the circumcision of the heart* This may easily appear by considering,

That as regeneration is that in which are attained the hab* its of true virtue and holiness, as has been shewn, and as is confessed ; so is circumcidon of heart. Deut. xxx. 6. « And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine hearty and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.**

Regeneration is that whereby men come to have the character of true Christians ; as is evident, and as is confessed ; and so is circumcision of heart; for by this men become Jews inwardly^ or Jews in the spiritual and Christian sense (and that is the same as being true Christians) as of old firoselytes were made Jews by circumcision of the flesh. Rom. ii. 28, 29. "For he is not a/<?w,which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision^ which is outward in the flesh : But he is a J^w, which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the hearty in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God."

That circumcision of the heart is the same with conversion, or turning from sin to God, is evident by Jer. iv. 1....4. « If thou wilt return, O Israel, return (or, convert unto me)....aV-cumcise yourselves to the Lord, and put away the foreskins of your heart.'' And Deut. x. 16. " Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your hearty and be no more stiffneclted."

Circumcision of the heart is the same change of the heart that men pass under in their repentance ; as is evident by Le-vit. xxvi. 41. "If their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they accept the punishment of their iniquity."

The change men pass under in regeneration, repentance, and conversion, is signified by baptism, as has been shewn; and so is circumcision of the heart signified by the same thing. None will deny that it was this internal circumcision, which of old was signified by exlernul circumcision ; nor will any deny, now under the New Testament, that inward and spiritual baptism, or the cleansing of the heart, is signified by ex*

ORIGINAL SIN. ;t93

temal wasliin^ or baptism. Hut s|>iritual circumcision and Bpirilual baptism arc the same Ihinj? ; bolh being the fxuttiu^ riff the body of the sins of the flesh ; as ifc vtry plain by Col. ii. 11, 12, 13. " In whom also ye ar« circumcised wiih ihc cir* aimcisio7i marie without hands, in fiutti-nf^ off the bvfi/ of th$ ^ins of the fleshy by ihe circumcision of Christ, buried with him in bafitism. wherein also yc arc risen wilh him," kc.

III. This inward chani;c, called regeneration and circum-i^ision of the hearty which is wrought in re/ientance and convert won, is the same wilh that spiritual resurrection so often tpok-en of, and represented as a dying' unfa sin, and liinng unto righteousness.

This appears with great plainness in that last cited place, Col ii. '<■ In whom also ye arc circumcised, wiih the circum-ci:iion made without hands....buried wilh him in baptism, wiierein also ye are risen with him, throu5^h the faith of the operation of God, Sec. And you, being; dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision ofyourHcah hath he <juickencd togeth' er luith him; havinj^ forgiven you all trespasses.

The same appears by Rom. vi. 5, 4, 5. *' Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Cnrist, wcr© baptized mio his death ? Theref<jre we are buried wiih hira by baptism into death ; that, like as Christ was raised ufi from the deady by the glory of the Father, even so ive also fthoiild nvalk in newness of life ** h:c. Verse 11. '* Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin^ out alive unto God^ through Jesus Christ our Lord.

In which place also it is evident, by the words recited, and by the whole context, that iliis spiritual resurrection is that change, in which persons arc brouri:ht to habits of holiness and to the divine life, by which Dr. Taylor describes the thinc!^ obtained in being born again.

That a sfiiritual resurrection to a new divine life, should be called a being born agaiuy is agreeable to the lanj^uage of scripture, in which we find a resurrection is called a b.-ing bortiy or begotten. So those words in the 2d Psalm, " Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," arc applied to Christ's resurrection, Ac's xiii. 33. So in Col. i. 18, Chri^il ij

called {he^/irsi borfi from the dead ; and in Rev. i. 5, Thejint begotten of the dead. The saints, in their conversion or sfiirit-ual resurrection^ are risen nvith Christy and are begotten and born loith him. I Pet. i. 3. " Which hath begotten us again to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the deady to an inheritance incorruptible." This inheritance is the same thing with that kingdom of heaven^ which men obtain by being born again, according to Christ's words to Nicodemus; and that sanne inheritance of them that are sanctified^ spoken of as what is obtained in true conversion. Acts xxvi. 18. " To turn them (or convert them) from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance aynong them that are sanctified^ through faith that is in me.'* Dr. Taylor's own words, in his note on Rom. i. 4, speaking of that place in the 2d Psalm* just now mentioned, are very worthy to be here recited. He observes how this is applied to Christ's resurrection and exaltation, in the New Testament, and then has this remark, " Note, Begetting is conferring a new and happy state : A son is a person put into it. Agreeably to this, good men are said to be the sons of God, as they are the sons of the resurrection ta eternal life^ which is represented as a itcuK\YY^n9\%, a being be* gotten^ or born again^ regenerated."

So that I think it is abundantly plain, that the spiritual resurrection sipokcn of in scripture, by which the saints are brought to a new divine life, is the same with that being born again, which Christ says is necessary for every one, in order to his seeing the kingdom of God.

1\'. This change, which men are the subjects of, when they are bor7i again^ and circumcised in hearty w\\ex\ they re-fienty and are converted^ and spiritually raised from the deadj is the same change which is meant when the scripture speaks of making the heart and s/iirit neiv^ or giving a new heart and spirit.

It is needless here to stand to observe, how evidently this is spoken of as necessary to salvation, and as the change in which are att.uncd th.e habits of true virtue and holiness, and the character of a true saint; as has been observed oiregent

itation, conversio77, 8cc. and how apparent it is from thence, that the change is the same. For it is as it were selfevident; It is apparent by the phrases themselves, that they arc diflc--cnt expressions of the same ihinir. Thus repentance (^iraroia) or the chani^e of the mind, is the same asbcinj; changed to a 77fw mind, or a netv heart and spirit. Conversion is the turn-ing of the heart; which is the same thing as changing it so, that there shall be another heart, or a new heart, or a new spirit. To be born again, is to be born aneno ; which implies a becoming wew, and is represented as becoming new bom babes : But none supposes it is the bodt/, that is immediately and properly new, but the mindj hearty or s/iin't. Antl so a sfiiritual resurrection is the resurrection of the spirit, or rising to begin a neiv existence and life, as to the nwid^ hearty oP fpirit. So that all these phrases imply an having ^neiu hearty and being renewed in the spirity according to their plain signification.

When Nicodemus expressed his wonder at Christ's declaring it necessary, that a man should be born at^aiTi in order to see the kingdom of God, or enjoy the privileges of the kingdom of the Messiah, Christ says to him, ♦* Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things ?" i. e. " Art thou one set to teach others the things wriiten in the law and the prophets, and knowest not a doctrine so plainly taught in your scriptures, that such a change as I speak of. Is necessary to a partaking of the blessings of the kingdom of the Messiah ?'*... But what can Christ have respect to in this, unless such prophecies as that in Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26, 27 ? Where God, by the prophet, speaking of the days of the Messiah's kini^dom, Siiys, " Then will I sprinkle clean wntcr upon

you, and yc shall be clean i new heart also will I j.Jvc you,

and a new spirit will I put within you....and I will put my spirit within you." Here God speaks of hiving a neio hear; and spirit^ by being iva-hrd with water, and recci\ing the Spirit nf God, as the q\ialificiition of God's people, that shall enjoy the privileges of the kingdom of the Messiah. How much is (his rtke the doctrine of Christ to Nicodemus, of being born a^ain

ofvjater^ and of the spirit ? \Vc have anoiher like prophecy m Ezek. xi. 19.

Add to these things, that ree:eneration, or a being borfi again^ and the renenviiig (or niakin?: new) by the Holy Ghostj are spoken of as the same thing. Titus iii. 5. " By the washing of regerieration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.**

V. It is abundantly manifest, that being born again^ a spiritually rising from the dead to newness oflife^ receiving a neto hearty and being renewed in the spirit of the mind» these are the same thing with that which is called putting off the old ?na?i) and pulling on the new man.

The expressions arc equivalent ; and the representations are plainly of the same thing. "When Christ speaks of being born again, two births are supposed ; afrst and a second; an old birthj and a new one : And the thing born is called man. So what is born in the first birth, is the old man; and what is brought forth in the second birth, is the Jiew inan. That which is born in the first birth (says Christ) is fesh : It is the carnal man, wherein we have borne the image of the earthly Adantt whom the apostle calls ih^ first man. That which is born in the new birth, is spii-it, or the spiritual and heavenly man : "Wherein Ave proceed from Christ iht second ma7i, Xhtnew man, who is made a quickening spirit, and is the Lord from heaven, and the head of the neiQ creation. In the new birth, men are represented as becoming new born babes (as was observed before) which is the same thing as becoming new men.

And how apparently is what the scripture says of the spiritual resurrection of the Christian convert, equivalent and of the very same import with putting off the old man, and putting on the new man ? So in Rom. vi, the convert is spoken of ns dying, and being buried with Christ; which is explained in the 6th verse, by this, that " the old man is crucified-; that the body of sin might bcjestroyed." And in the 4th verse, converts in this change are spoken of as rising to newness of life. Are not these things plain enough ? The apostle does in effect tell us, that when he speaks of that spiritual death and resurrection which is in conversion, he means the same thing as cr'dcifying and burying the old man^ and rising a new man.

And it is most apparent, tliat spiritual circinncision^ and spiritual bafitivny and the spiritual rcnurrcciiony arc all the same wiih fiuttinj; off"the old nan, and fiuttint;on the nevs man. This appears by Col. ii. 11, 12. " In whom also yc arc circumcised with ihe circiancifticn made without hands, in /tutting q^the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcihion of Christ, buried with him in tafit:\sm ; wherein also yc arc risen with him." Here it is manifest, that the spiritual circumcision, baptism, and resurrection, all sij^nify that ch:m;^c wherein men fiut off the body of the sins of the fesh : But that is the same thing, in this apostle's language, as fiuttini; off the old man ; as appears by Rom. vi. 6. ♦* Our old man is crucified, that the body of sin may be destroyed." And that putiinj^ oiT the old man is the same with putting off the body of sins^ appears further by Ephes. iv. 22, 23, 24-....and Col. iii. 8, 9, 10.

As Dr. Taylor confesses, that a being b'-.rn again is *• that wherein are obtained tiie habits of viituc, reliijion, and true holiness;" so how evidently is the same thing predicated of [hat change, which is called /iutiinc^ off the old wan^ and fmt-\ing on the ne-\j man? Ep'n. iv. 22, 23, 24. "That yc put AfF the old man, which is corrupt, Sec. and put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."

And it is most plain, that ihi.^ putting ofLihe old man, Stc is the very same thing with making the heart and sfiirit nctv. It is apparent in iisell: The spirit is called t?ic man^ in t!»e language of lliC aposUc ^ it is called the inivard many and the hidde7i jnan^ Rom. vii. 22....2 Cor. iv. 16....1 Pet, iii. 4. And therefore putting off the old man^ is the same ihi.Mg with the removal of the old hiart ; and the pulling on the Jieiu man^ 15 the receiving a new heart and a Jiciv n/:irit. Yea, putting on . the new nian is expressly spoken of as ike same thing with're-ceiving a nenv s/iirity or being rcnehoed in s/urit, Eph. iv. 22, 25, 24. »' That ye put off the old man, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and thni ye put on the new man."

From these things it appears, how unreason..ble, and co »• tnry to the u!ino-»i degree ot scripuiiul e%idcnce; J ^ Dr. Tay-

r O

/ 20S ORIGINAL SIN.

lor*s way of explaining the old man^ and the new man)* as" though thereby was meant nothing personal; but that by the. old man was meant the heathen state, and by the new man the Christian disfiensation, or state of professini^ Christians, or the whole collective bodij of professors of Christianity, made up of Jews and Gentiles ; when all the color he has for it is, that the apostle once calls the Christian church a neiv man, Eph, ii. 15. It is very true, in the scriptures often, both in the Old Testament and New, collective bodies, nations, peoples, cities, are figuratively represented by persons ; particularly the church of Christ is represented as one holy person, and has the same appellatives as a particular saint or believer ;. and so is called a child and a son of God, Exod. iv. 22....Gal. iv. 1,2; and iiservanl of God, Isai. xli. 8, 9, and xliv. 1. IVic daughter of God, and sftouae of Christ, Psal. xlv. 10, 13, 14.... Rev. xix, 7, Nevertheless, l^uld it be reasonable to argue from hence, that such appellations, as a servant of God, a child of God, &c. are always or commonly to be taken as signifying only the church of God in general, or great collective bodies ; and not to be understood in a personal sense ? But certainly' this would not be more unreasonable, than to urge, that by the old and the nev) man, as the phrases are mostly used in scripture, is to be understood nothing but the great collective bodies of Pagans and of Christians, or the Heathen and the Christian world, as to their ow?'rwz?Y/profession, and tfie dispensation they are under. It might have been proper, in this case, to have cen.sidered the unreasonableness of that practice which our author charges on others, and finds so much fault with in them,t " That they content themselves with a /t'7y scra/is of scripture, which, though wrong understood, they make the test of truth, and the ground of their principles, in contradic' tion to the nvhole tenor of revelation**

VI. I observe once more, it is very apparent, that a being bom again, and spirituaUy raised from death to a state of ncAV existence ami life, having a nerj lieart created in us, being renewed in the spirit of our mhid, and being the subjects of that

« rage X49, ...133, S. t Page 224,

^change by Vvhich wc/?i/r q/fr/jc old many and fiut on the new man, is the same thing with that which, in scripturc; is called a beinif created anrii', or made neii; creatures.

Here, to pass over many other evidences of this, which might be mentioned, I would only observe, that the representations arc exactly equivalent. These several phrases naturally and most plainly signify the same effect. In the fust hirt/:^ or generation, we are creatcd^or brought into existence ; it is then the ivhole man first receivea being: The soul is then formed, and then our bodies avefearjitily and wonderfully made, being curiously ivrought bij our Creator : So that a new born child is a neiv creature. So, v/hen a man is born again, he is created again ; in that nciv birth, there is a nc-^ creation ; and therein he biicomes as a new born babe, or a new creature. Soj In a resurrection, there is ^ficiv creation. When a man is dead, that which was created or made in the first birth or creation is destroyed : When that which was dead is raised to life, the mighty power of the Creator or Author of life, is exerted the second time, and the subject restored to new existence, and new life, as by a new creation. So giving a new heart is called creating a clean heart, Psal li. 10. Where the word translated, create, is the same that is used in liic fust verse in Genesis. And when we read in scripture of the new creature, the creature that is called new, is via?: ; not angel, or beast, or any other sort of creature ; and therefore the phrase, new 7nan, is evidently equippolent with 7:er.' creature; and a putting off the old man, and putting on the new man, is spoken of expressly as brought to pass by a work of creation. Col, iii. 9, 10. " Ye have put off the old man, and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the ^magc of him that created him." So Eph. iv. 22, 23, 21, «• That ye put off the old man, which is corrupt, 5cc. and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." These things absolutely fix the meaning of that in 2 Cor. V. 17. " If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature : Old things arc passed away; behold, all things are become n?w."

On the whole, the following reflections may be made ;

1. That it is a truth of the utmost cer'ainty, with respect to everij man, born of the race of Adam, by ordinary generation, that unless he be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. This is true, not only of the Heathen, but of them that are born of the professing people of God, as Nicodemus, and the Jews, and every man born of the Jlesh. This is most manifest by Christ's discourse in John iii. 3....11. So it is plain by 2 Cor. v. 17, That every man ivho is in Christy is a nep creature,

2. It appears from this, together with what has been proved above, that it is most certain with respect to every one of the human race, that he can never have any interest in Christ, or see the kingdom of God, unless he be the subject of that change in the temper and disposition of his heart, which is made in refimtance and conversion^ circumcision of heart, sfiir-itual boptisiiiy dying to siny and rising to a neno and holy life ; and unless he has the old heart taken away, and a neiv heart and spirit given, and puts off the old man, and puts on the new 772077, and o/jrf things are passed away, and all things. ?nade new.

3. From what is j)lainly implied in these things, and from what the scripture most clearly teaches of the nature of them, it is certain, that evc7'y man is bo7m into the world in a state of moral pollution : For spiritual baptism is a cleansing from moral filthiness. Ezck. xxxvi. 25, compared with Acts ii. 16, and John iii. 5. So the washing of regeneration, or the neiv birth, is a change from a state of wickedness. Tit. iii. 3^ 4, 5. IMcn are spoken of as purified in their regeneration. 1 Pet. i. 22, 23. See also 1 John ii. 29, and iii. 1, 3. And it appears that every man, in his first or natural state, is a sinner ; for otherwise he woUld then need no repentance, no conversion, no turnini;- from sin to God. And it appears, that ev ery man in his original slate has a heart of stone 5 for thus the scripture calls that old heart, which is taken away, when a new hi art 2^\(\ntw spirit is given. Ezek. xi. 19, and xxxvi, 26, And it appears, that men's nature, as in his native state, is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and of its own motion exerts itself in nothing but wicked deed.9. F^r thus thR

scripture characterizes the old man, which is put off, when men are renewed in the spirit of their minds, and put on the neno many Eph. iv. 22, 23, 24....Col. iii. 8, 9, 10. In a word, it appears, that man's nature, as in its native state, is a body of 9iny which must be destroyed, must die, he buried, and ncx^er rise more. For thus the old man is represented, which is crw cifiedy when men are the subjects of a spiritual resurrection, Rom. vi. 4, 5, 6. Such a naiure, such a body of sin as this, is put off in the spiritual renovation, wherein we put on the 71^71' many and are the subjects of the spiritual circumcision, Eph.iv. 21,22,23.

It must now be left with the reader to judge for himself, •whether what the scripture teaches of the ap/iUcation of Christ's redemption, and the change of state and nature necessary to true and final happiness, does not afford clear and abundant evidence to the truth of the doctrine of Original Sin.

PART IV.

Containing Answers to Objections,

CHAPTER I.

Conceriiing that Objection^ That to sufifiose men*s being born in siny ivithcut their choice.^ or ayiy previous act of their own^ is to supjiose ivhat is inconsistent ivith the nature of sin.

SOME of the objections made against the doctrine of Original Sin, which have reference to particular arguments used in defence of it, have been ah-eady considered in the handling of those arguments. What I shall therefore now consider, arc such objections as I have not yet had occasion to take any special notice of.

There is no argument Dr. Taylor insists more upon, than tliat which is taken from the Arnainian and Pelagian notion of freedom of will, consisting in the will's selfdeterminationy as necessary to the being of moral good or evil. He oficn urges, Ihat if we come into the world infected with sinful and depraved dispositions, then sin must be natural to us ; and if natural, then necessary ; and if necessary, then 7?o sin, nor any thing we are blameablc for, or that can in any respect be our fault, being what we cannot help : And he urges, that sin must proceed from our own choice.^ Sec*

* Page 125, 128, 129, 130, 186, 187. 188, 190. 230, 245, 246, 953, «i8, 63, 64, 161, S. and other places.

ORIGINAL SIN. S^%

Here I would observe in p;cncri\l, that ihc forcmcntioncrt notion of Freedom of \\ ill, as essential to moral agency, and necessary to the very existence of virtue and sin, secmi to he a grand fHvoritc point with Pelagi.ins and Armini.ins, an.) all divines of such characters, in their controversies v\ilh llie orthodox. There is no one thing more fundamental in their schemes of relij^ion ; on the determination of this one leading point depends the issue of almost ail controversies wc have with such divines. Nevertheless, it seems a ?ircdi<s.'i ta?k for me particu'tA'-l;, to consider that matter in this place ; having already Juigely discussed it, with all the main grounds of ihi«i notion, and the arpjumcn's used to defend it7 in a hie book ou this subject, to which I ask leave 'o refer th.e reader. It is very necessary, that the modern prevailinr; doctrine con-ccrnine^ ihi-.; point, should be well understood, and tht^reforn thoroughly considered and examined : For witliout it tiicro is no hope of puttinc^ an end to the controversy about Orifinal Sin, and innumerable other controversies that subsist, about many of the main points of religion, I stand ready to confess to the forementioned modern divines, if they can mairtain their peculiar notion o{freedom^ con u'^tinr in the sclfdctc^ •.n* ing power of the "xiH, as necessary to ri^jral at^cTicy^ and ; ja tlioroughly establish it in opposition to the arrjuments Ijin^ against it, then they have an impi cgnable rasilc, to which they may repair, and remain invincible, in all the controversies they have with the reformed divines, concerning Oiijjinal Sin, the sovereignty of grace, election, redemption, conversion, the efficatious operation of the Holy Spirit, the nature of saving faith, perseverance of ihe saints, and other principles of the like kind. Howcivcr at the same time I tliink this sanv thin:^ will be as strong a fortress for the dcUts,, in commo;» ■vvith them, as the great doctrines, subverted by their notion of freedom^ are so plainly and abundantly taught in the «;ciip'.urc. But I am under no apprehensions of ar»y danger, the cause of Christianity, or the religion of the reformed is in. fron anjr possibility of///«' r.otio?i\- being ever established, or ot its being ever cvi;r mI that there is not proper, perfect, and r.Mni-fcld demomtrauon lyinjj a^^'ain^t it. Bat as I said, it wouM 1^

needless for me to enter into a particuhir disquisition of this point here ; from which I shall easily be excused by any reader who is willing to give himself the trouble of consulting" what I have already written: And as to others, probably they will scarce be at ihe pains of reading the present discourse ; or at least would not, if it should be enlarged by a full consid-eralion of that controversy.

I shall at this time therefore only take notice of some gross inconsistencies that Dr. Taylor has been guilty of, in his handling this objection against the doctrine of Ori2;inal Sin.

In places which have been cited, he says, that " Sin must proceed from our own choice : And that if it does not, it being necessary to us, it cannot be sin, it cannot be our faulty or -what \vc are to blame for :'* And therefore all our sin must be chargeable on our choice, which is the cause of sin : For he says, " The cause of every effect is alone chargeable with the effect it produceth, and which proceedeth from it."* Now here are implied several gross contradictions. He greatly insists that nothing can be siiiful^ or have the nature of sin, but what proceeds from cup choice. Nevertheless he says, "....Not the effect^ \xn\. the cause alone is chargeable with blayne." Therefore the choice^ which is the cause, is alojif-blamable, or has the natu'e of sin ; and not the effect of that choice. Thus nothing can be sinful, but the effect of choice ; and yet the effect of choice never can be sinful, but only the cause, which alone is chargeable wiih all the blame.

Again, the choice which chooses and produces sin, or from which sin proceeds, is itscU" sinful. Not oi^ly is this implied m his saying, " the cause alone is chargeable with ail the blame" but he expressly speaks of the choice n^Jauiti/.-f and calls that ciioicc ivickcd, from which depravity and corruption proceeds.\ Now if the choice itself be sin, and there be no sin but what proceeds from a sinful choice, then the sinful choice must piocccd from another antecedent clioice ; it must be chosen by a foregoing act of will, determining itself to that sinful choice, that so it may have that wliich he i;pcaks of as

* I'age 128. + Pa^e 190. | Fa^^c POO. Scealfo page eiG.

I

absolutely essential to the nature of ainy nami-ly, that it firo^ ceedafrom our choice^ and docs not happen to us nccc4»a-rily. But if the sinful ch(.ice itself proceeds from a forev^o-in.e; choice, then also that forc^^oiii'^ choice must be sinful ; it being the cause of sin^ and so alone chars;cablc with the blavie. Vet if that foret^oinp: choice be sinful, then neither must that happen to us necessarily, but must likewise proceed from choice, another act of cl'.oicc prcredini; that : I'or wc must remember, that " nolhint; is sinful but what proceeds from our c/iozrc." And then, for the same reason, even this prior choice, last mentioned, must also be sinful, being char«^e-able with all the blame of that consequeni evil choice, which was its effect. And so wd must go back till we come to the \€xy first volition, the prime or original act of choice in the whole chain. And this^ to be sure, must be a sinful ciioicc, because this is the origin or primitive cause of all the train of evils which follow ; and according to our author, must therefore be " alone chart;eable with all the blame" And yet so it is, accordinsj to him, this " cannot be sinful," !)ecause it does not'' proceed from our own choice,'* or any foregoing act of oiir will; it being, by the supposition, thp very first act of will iti the case. And therefore it must be necc^sari/y as to us, having no choice of ours to be the cau^e of it.

In page 2S2, he says, " Adam's sin was from his own dis" abcdicnt will; and so must every man's sin, and all the sin in the world be, as well as his." By this, it seems, lie must have a '^ disobedient will" before he sins ; for the cause must be before the effect: And yet that disobedient will itself is sinful; otherwise it could not be called disobedient. But the question is, How do men come by the disobedient t:///, this cause of all the sin in the world ? It must not come ?ifccesa' rily, without men's choice ; for if so, it is not sin, nor is there a'ny disobedience in it, 'i'hercfore that disobedient will mujt also come from a disobedient will ; and so on, in irfritiun. Otherwise it must be supposed, that there is some ain m the world, which dccu not come from a di'^l-c'- ••' - " ' • -' •: — to our authoi's dogmaiical as-crlions. Q P

In page 166, 6'. be says, " Adaiyi could not sin %vUhout a sivfulincUnation.'* Here he calls thi\t inclination ilself sm/t^A which is the principle from whence sinful acts proceed ; as elsewhere he speaks of the disobedient wilt from whence all sin comes ; and he allows,* that " the lavj reaches to all the latent firinciples of sin ;" meaning plainly, that it forbids-, and threatens ftimishmcnt for, those latent principles. Now these latent principles of sin, these sinful inclinations, without which, according to our author, there can be no sinful act, cannot all proceed from a sinful choice ; because that would imply great contradiction. For, by the supposition, they are the principles from whence a sinful choice comes, and whence all sinful acts of will proceed ; and there can be no sinful act without them. So that ihefirst latent principles and inclinations, from whence all sinful acts proceed, are sinful; and yet they are not sinful, because they do not proceed from a ivick' ed choice, without which, according to him, " nothing can be sinful."

Dr. Taylor, speaking of that proposition of the Assembly of Divines, wherein they assert, that Man is by nature bitterly corrupt^ Sect thinks himself well warranted by the supposed great evidence of these his contradictory notions, to say, " Therefore sin is not natural to us ; and therefore I shall not scruple to say, this proposition in the Assembly of Divines is Jhlse.** But it may be worthy to be considered, whether it would not have greatly become him, before he had clothed himself with so nvuch assurance, and proceeded, on the foun-chtion of these his notions, so magisterially to ciiarge the Assembly's proposition with falsehood, to have taken care that his own propositions, which he has set "in opposition to them, should be a little more consistent; that he might not have contradicted himself while contradicting them ; lest some im-partial judpcs, observing his inconsistence, should think they had warrant to declare with equal assurance, that «'They shall not scruple to say. Dr. Taylor's doctrine is false."

> Contents of Roro. chsp. vlii. in Notos en i^c FMivt> r Pa-rc i'?r.

CHAPTER II,

\^oncerning that objection again&t the doctrine ofnatioc conu/. tiofij That to su/i/iose men receive their Jirat existence in sin is to make hini luho is the author of their hein^^ thr o'-r...... r.

their dejiravity.

ONE art^ument a[>ftmst men's bcir supposed to be born ^vith sinful depravity, which Dr. Taylor p;reatly insists upon, is, *< That this does in effect charge him, who is the author of cur nature^ who formed us in the ivombi with beini^ the author qfa sinful corrufition of nature ; and that it is hii;hhj injurious to the God of our nature, nvhosc hands have formed and fash' ioned us, to believe our nature to be originally corrufited, and that in the worst sense of corruption"*

With respect to this, I would observe in llie fast place that this writer, in his handling this t-^raud objection, supposes something to belong to the doctrine objected against, as maintained by the divines whom he is opposing, which docs not belong to it, nor does fallow from it: As particularly, he supposes the doctrine of Original 3in to imply, that nature must be corrupted by some positive infuence; "something, by some means or other, ijfused into the human nature ; some quality or other, not from the choice of our minds, but like a taint^ tincture, or infection, altering the natural constitution, faculties, and dispositions of our souls.f That sin and evil dis--positions are imfdantcd in the fcclus in the womb."t Whereas truly our doctrine neither implies nor infers any sucli thing. In order to account for a sinful corruption of nature, yea, a

♦ rage 137, 187, 188, 189, 256, 258, 260, 141, S. and other p'.aco r Vi%o 187. X Pjtijc 146, 148, 1/.9, S, and the like in many o'.lu-r plac

total native depravity of the heart of man, there is not Ihb least need of siipposui?^ any evil quality, infused^ imfilantcdyov nvrought into the nature of man, by any positive cause, or influence whatsoever, cither from God, or the creature ; or of supposing, that man is conceived and born with a fountain of evil in his heart, such as is any thing properly positive. I think, a liitlc attention to the nature of things will be sufficient to satisfy any impartial, considerate inquirer, that the absence of positive good principles, and so the withholding of a special divine influence to impart and maintain those good principles, leaving the common natural principles of selflove, natural appetite, See. (which were in man in innocence) leaving these, 1 say, to themselves, without the government of superior divine principles, will certainly be followed with the corruption, yea, the total corruption of the heart, without occasion for any positive influence at all : And, that it was thus indeed that corruption of nature came on Adam, immediately on his fall, and comes on all his posterity, as sinning in him, and falling with him.

The case with man was plainly this : When God made man at first, he implanted in him two kinds of principles-There was an inferior kind, which may be called naiiiral, being the principles of mere human nature ; such as selflove, with those natural appetites and passions, which be'ong to the 'nature ofman^ in which his love to his own liberty, honor, and pleasure, were e"xercised : These, when alone,, and left to themselves, are what the scriptures sometimes cz\\ flesh. lie-sides these, there were supericr principles, that were spiritual, holy, and divine, summarily comprehended in divine love ; wherein consisted the spiritual image of God. and man's righteousness and true holiness ; which are calkd in scripture the (Uvinc r,a!ure. These principles may, in some sense, be called supervaluraL^ being (however ccncrealed or con-

* To prevent all cavil:-, the reader is dcsiicd particulaily lo observe, i:: what sense I here use the words natural and ivperna'utal: Not as epithets of distinction between that which is concrca ed or connate, and that which is extraordinarily introduced aftciwards, besides ihc first state of things, or the

nnte, yet; such as are above those principles that arc essentially implied in, or necessarily rcs^ulrinj; from, uiul inseparably connected wilh, 7ncrc hurmni iiuture ; and bciiii; siicli as immediately depend on man's union and communion wilh God, or divine communicaticnsand influences of (;od's Spirit: Which, thoui^h withdiawn, anrl man*s nature forsaken of ihcso principles, human nature would be human nature still ; man's nature, as such, being entire, ^vithout these divine /ir'mci/iUA, ^vhich the scripture sometimes calls ftfr'nt^ in contradistinction to ^/fes/i. These superior principles were j^ivcn lo possess the throne, and maintain an absolute dominion in the heart: The other to be wliolly subordinate and subservient. And while thint^s continued thus, all things Nyerc in cxccllL-nt order, peace, and beautiful harmony, and in th.eir proper and perfect state.

These divine prhiciples thus reigning, were the digqiiy, life, happiness, and glory of man's nature. V/hen man sinned, and broke God's covenant, and fell under his curse, these superior principles left his heart : Tor indeed God then left him ; that communion with God, on which these principles depended, entirely ceased ; the Holy Spirit, that divint inhabitant, forsook the house. Because it would have been uiterly improper in itself, and inconsistent with the covenant and constitution God had established, that God should still maintain communion with man, and continue, by his friendly, gracious, vital influences, to dwell with him and in him, after he was become a rebel, and had incurred God's wrath and cur.sc.

order established oiiginaliy, beginning \Ahcn man's nature began ; but as dt»-tinguishing between >A('hat belongs to, or flows from, that nature which man has, merely as man, and those things which arc ^bovc this, by which one is denominated, not only a man, but a truly viituous, holy, and spiritual man ; which, though they began in Adam, as soon as humanity began, rnd arc necessary to tb« peifection and well being of the human nature, yet are not essential to the constitution of it, or necessary to its being : Inasmucli as one may bave everv thing needful to his being man, exclusively of them. If in thus using the words, vatural znl iupernutural, I use them in an uncommon scnw, it is not from any atlcctatioH of singularity, but for want of other terras more ypt.]y to express my meaning.

Therefore immediately the superior divine principles wholly teased ; so light ceases in a room when the candle is withdrawn ; and thus man was left in a slaie of darkness, v/oefiil corruption and ruin ; nothing but flesh without spirit. The inferior principles of selflove, and natural appetite, which were given only to serve, beino; alone, and left to tliemselves, of voitrse became reigning principles ; having no superior principles to regulate or control them, they becarne absolute masters of the heart. The immediate consequence of which was t. fatal catastrophe^ a turning of all things upside down, and the succession of a state of the most odious ai^d dreadful confusion* Man did immediately set up himself and the objects of his private affections and appetites, as supreme ; and so they took the place of God. These inferior principles are \i\iQfirc in an house ; which, we say, is a good servant, but a bad master ; very useful while kept in its place, but if left to take possession of the whole house, soon brings all to destruction. Man's love to his own honor, separate interest, and private pleasure, which before was wholly subordinate unto love to God, and regard to his authority and glory, now disposes and impels him to pursue those objects, without regard to God's iionor or !a\v ; because there is no true reg rd to these divine things left in him. In consequence of which, he seeks those objects as much when against God's honor and law, as when agreeable to them. And God, still continuing strictly to require supreme regard to himself, and forbidding^ all gratifications of these inferior passions, but only in perfect subordination to the ends, and agreeabieness to the rules and limits, ivhich his holiness, honor, and law prescribe, hence immediately arises enmity in the heart, now wholly under the power of selflove ; and nothing but nvar ensues, in a constant course, against God. As, when a subject has once renounced his lawful sovereign, and set up a pretender in his stead, a state of enmity and war against his rightful king necessarily ensues. It were easy to shew, how every lust, and depraved disposition of man's l^cart would naturally arise from this f.rivativc original, if here were room for it. Thus it is easy to give an account, how total corruption of heart should follow

ORIGINAL SIN. . .,

gn man's eatinj^ the forbidden fruit, though ihat was bui on* act of sin, nvithout God\s /iittting' any evil into his heart, or im-/ilanting any bad principle, or infusinr^ any corrupt taint, and so becoming the aufhor of depravity. Only God's ivithdraw ing^ as it Avas hip;hly proper and necessary iliat he should, from rebel man, being as it were driven away l)y his abominable wickedness, and men's natural principles bcin^ left to rhcmselves, this is suflicient to account for his becoming entirely corrupt, and bent on sinning against Go<l.

And as Adam's nature became corrupt, without God's implanting or infusing any evil thing into his nature ; so doc3 the nature of his fiosterity. God dealing with Adam as the head of his posterity (as has been shcwri) and treating them as one, he deals \vith his po^aerity as having a//^m/zfi-/m////y^. And therefore, as God withdrew spiritual communion, and his vital, gracious influence from the common head, ^^o he withholds the same from all the members, as they come into existence ; whereby they come into the world mercj^r*//, anti entirely under the government of natural and inferior principles ; and so become wholly corrupt, as Adam did.

Now, for God so far to have the disposal of this aflair, as to wil/ihold ihost influences, without which nature will be cor-rufit^ is not to be the author of sin. But, concerning this, I must refer the reader to what I have said of it in my discourse on the frccdf.mofthe nvill.*' Though, besides what I have there said, I may here observe. That if for God so far to order and dispose the being of sin, as vo Jicrmit it, by withholding the gracious influences necessary to prevent ii, is for him to be the author of ^in, then some things which Dr. Tay** lor himself lays down, will equally be att»inded with this very consequence. For, from time to lime, he speaks of God's giving men up to the vilest lusts and affeclions, by permitting, or leuvinj: them.f Now, if the ccTUainancc of si'u anci its increase and prevalence, may be in consequence orCiod'ir disposal, by Ms wiiiiholdiiig that grace, that h needful, tmdci

♦ Part iv. ^ 9, p 354, &c. f Key., ^j 388, i\'c>tf ; an.l Pjaph, oti Rom, z 2^ «6,

such circumstances, to prevent it, without Gou'b being the author of that coyitinuancc atul prevalence of bin ; then, by-parity of reason, may the bchi^ of sin^ in the race of Adanii be in consequence of God's disposal, by his withholding that grace, that is needful to prevent it, without his being the author of that beir.g of sin.

If here it should be said, that God is not the author of sin, in giving men up to sin, who have already made themselves sinful, because when men have once made themselves sinful, their continuing so, and sin's prevailing in them, and becoming more and more habitual, will follow in a course of nature : I answer. Let that be remembered, which this writer so greatly urges, in opposition to them that suppose original corruption comes in a course of nature, viz. That the course of nature is nothing ivithout God, He utterly rejects the notion of the " Course ofnature^^ being a proper active cause, which will work, and go on by itself, %vithout God^ if he lets or permits it." But affirms,^ " That the course of nature, separate from the agency of God, is 720 cause^ or Jiothing ; and that the course of nature should continue itself, or go on to operate by itself, any more than at first produce itself, is absolutely imfios' sible" These strong expressions are his. Therefore, to explain the continuance of the habits of sin in the same person, when once introduced, yea, to explain the very being of any such habits, in consequence of repeated acts, our author n^ust have recourse to those same principles, which he rejects as absurd to the utmost degree, when alleged to explain the corruption of nature in the posterity of Adam. For, that habits, either good or bad, should co?itini:c, after being once establish-edj or that habits should be settled and have existence in consequence of repeated acts, can be owing only to a course of nature, and those laws of nature which God has established.

That the posterity of Adam should be born without holiness, and so with a depraved nature, comes to pass as much by the established course ofiiature^ as the continuance of a corrupt disposition in a particular person, after he cnce has it;

* FiT^c 134, S, See also with what vehemence this is urged in p, 137, S.

CT as much as Adam's continuing unholy and corrupt, after he liad once lost his holiness. For Adam's posterity arc from him, and as it were in l.im, and bclonginj^ to him, ac» cordinj; lo an established course of nature^ a-» much as the branches of a tree arc> according to a course of nature^ from the tree, m the tiee, and belon^inj^ to the tree ; or (to make use of the comparison which I^r. Taylor himself chooses and makes use of from time to time, as proper to illustrate the matter*) just as trie acorn is derivtd from the oak. And I think, the acorn is as much derived from the oak, according to the course of nature, as the buds and branches. It is true, that God, by his own almit^lity power, creates the soui of the infant; and it is also true, as Dr. Taylor often insists, that God, bv his immediate power, forms and fashions the tody of the infant in the wowib ; yet he d(»cs both according to that course of nature, which he ha*> been pleased to establish. Tiie course of nature is demonstrated, by late improvements in philosophy, to be indeed what our author himself says it is, viz. Nothing but the established order of the at^ency and operation of the author of nature. And though there be the immediate agency of God in bringing the soul into existence in generatiouvyet it is done according to the me'liod and older established by the author of nature, as much as his producing the bud, or the acorn of the ouk ; and as much as hb contin-\3ing a particular prison in being, after he once has existence. God's immediate agency in brinijing the soul of a child into being, is as much according to an establishid order, as his immediate agency m any of the wot ks of nature whatsoever. It is agreeable to the established order of nature, that the good qualities watuing in the tree, should also be wanting in the bnu.ches av.d fuit. Ii is a).rreeable to the order of nature. thut when a particular person is without good moral qualities! in l»is hear', he should continue without them, till some new cause or tflicicncy produces then. ; and it is as mucli agreeable to aii established course and order of nature, that since Adam, the iitad of tiie race of mai.kid- ''-• •.»>■ i>-^lh.jl :^ici«t

TJiciiC, 1S7. 2Q

tree with many branches springing from it, was deprived of' original righteousness, the branches should come forth without It. Or if any dislike the word nature^ as used in this la&t casej and instead of it choose to call it a constitution or established orof^ of successive events, the alteration of the name will not in.the least alter the statje of the present argument. Where the T)amei vaiurc^ is allowed without dispute, no more is meant than an established method and ordpr of events, settled and limited by divine wisdom.

If any should object to this, that if the want of original righteousness be thus according to an established course of nature^ then why are not principles of holiness, when restored by divine grace^ also communicated io fiosterity ? I answer, the divine lav.s and establishments of the author of 7?a/wr(?, are precisely settled by him as he pleaseth, and limited by his wi-dom. Grace is introduced among the race of mankind by a ne-jj establishment; not on the foot of the original estabt iishment of God, as the head of the natural world, and author of the first creation ; but by a conslitulion of a vastly hii;her lUnd ; wherein Christ is made the root of the tree, whose branches are his spiritual sefo?, and he is the head of the new creation ; of which I need not stand now to speak particularly.

But here I desire it may be noted, that I do not suppose -the natural depravity of the posterity of Adam is owing to the course of nature only ; it is also owing to the \vi'^X judgment of God. But yet I think, it is as truly and in the samp fanner owing to the course of ;;a/ur<?, that Adam's posterity; come into the world without original right^usness, as that Adam continued without it, after he had once lost it. That Adam continued dcsiitute of holiness, when he bad lost it, ^nd would always have sp continued, had it not been restored by a Rcc'ccmer, was not only a natural consequence, according to the course of things estabiibhed by God, as the Author of Nature i but it vr.as also ^i penal consequence, or a punish.-^cnt of his sin. God, in \V^\\{€^Q\.\i judgraerd^ continued to tb^cnt himself fr( m Adam aficr he became a rebel ; and 'jfiihheld from him now those influences of the Holy Spiiit,.

^hich he before had. And just thus I suppose it to be whh tevery natural branch of mankind : All arc looked upon as simiirig in and v/uh their common root ; and God ri;;htcously withholds special influences and spiiiiual communicaiions frcm all, for this sin. But of the manner and order of ihcic thint^'s, more may be said in the next chapter.

On the whole, this grand objection aj^ainsi the doctrine 6f men's bcin^r horn corrupt, Tliai it makes him who gave U9 cur bewgy to be the cause of the bthig of corru/Hion, can have TJo more force in it, than a like argument has to prove, that if men, by a course of nature, continue wicked, or remain wirhout goodness, after they have l)y vicious acts coniractcd vicious habits, and so made themselves wicked, it makes him, who is the cause of their continuance in being, and the cause of the continuance of the course of nature, to be the cause oi their continued wickedness. Dr. Taylor says,* »' God would ncJt •make any thing that is hateful to him ; because, by the very terms, he would hate to 77.0^^ such a thing." But if this be good arguing in the case to which it is applied, may 1 not aS well say, God ivoiild 7iot continue a thing in being, that is hateful to iiim, because, by the very tervis^ he would hate to continue such a thing in being ? I think the very terms do as much (and no nioiej inter one of these jjioposiiions, as the other. In like manner the rest that he says on that head may be shewn to be unreasonable, by only substituting the word, continucy'm the \^\vict 6{ ??mke and /iro/iagatr, I may faiily imitate his way of reasoning thus: '' To say,Ciod continues us ac--eordinj^ to his own original decree, or law of contfnuaiioM, Avhich obliges him to continue us in a manner he abhors, is re.d-ly to make bad worse ; FtT it is supposing him to be defective in wisdom, or by his own decree or law to lay such a constraint upon his own actions, thai he cannot do what he would, but IS continually doing what he would not, what he hales to do, and what he condemns in us^ viz, continuing' us sinful, when he cOTdemns u^ for continuing nurstlves sinful." If the reasoning be tt"-'a^'in the one cube, it is no less so iA .the other._^

*Pag" 136,5.

If any shall still insist, that there is a difference betweei) God's so disposing things as that depravity of heart shall be continued^ according to the settled course of nature, in the same person, who has l)y his own fault introduced it; and his so disposing as that men, according to a course of nature, should be born with depravity, in consequence of Adam's introducing sin, by his act which we had no concern in, and cannot be justly charged with. On this I would observe, that it is quite going off the objection, which we have been upon, from God's agency, and 0ying to another. It is then no longer insisted on, that simfity for him, from whose agency the course of nature and our existence derive, so to dispose things, as that we should have existence in a corrupt statCj is for him to be the author of sin ; but the plea now advanced is, that it is not proper and just for such an agent so to dispose, in this case^ and only in consequence of Adam's sin ; it pot being just to charge Adam's sin to his posterity. And this matter shall be particularly considered, in answer to th.e tiext objection, to which 1 now proceed.

CHAPTER Iir.

That great Objection againfit the Imputation ofAdam^s dn te /lis fiosterity^ corr.ndered, that such Imputation is unjust and unreasonable^ inasmuch as Adam and his posterity are not one and the saine. With a brief reflection subjoined of what ^ome have snfi/iosedi of Ood*8 imputing the guilt of Adam* s sin to his Posterity, but in an infinitely less degree, thaii tc jidam himself. ■

THAT we may proceed with the greater clearness in considering the main objections agamst supposing the guilt of Adam's sin to be imputed to his posterity ; I would pret

jnise some observaiions with a view to the rleht iiafin:^ of the doctrine of'he imputation of Atlam's fiist sin, and then shew the rcasonablencsft of ilm docliinc, in cppo:.uicn to the great clamor raised against it on ihia licad.

I think, it would p;o far towards dircctint^ us to the mort dear and distinct conceivinfij and rip;ht slavinjjj of this afT.tir, "vvere we steadily to bear ihi* in mind : That God, in each step of his proceedini^ with Adam, in relation to the covenant or coTistiiuiion established \vith him, l(;(;kcd on his posterity as being 072c ujz7// him. (The propriety of his looking upon them so, I shall speak to afterwards.) And lhouc:h he dealt more immediately with Adam, yet it was as the head of the whole body, and the root ol the wliole tree ; and in his proceedings with him, he dealt with all the branches, as ii they had been then existing; in their root.

From which it will follow, that both guilt, or cxposcdacss Jo punishment, and also depravity of heart, came upon Ad-am*s posterity just as they came upon him, as much as if he and they had all coexisted, like a tree with many branches ; allowing only for the difierence necessarily resulting from the place Adam stood in, as head or root of the whole, and being first and most immediately dealt with, and mon immediately acliiig and suffering. Otherwise, it is as if, in every step of proceeding, every alteration in the root I)ad been attended, at the same instant, wiili the same steps and aJiera-tions throughout the whole tree, in each individual branclu I think this will naturally follow on the supposition of there being a constituted oneness or identity of Adam and iiis posterity in this affair.

Therefore I am humbly of opinion, that if any Iiave -up-posed the children of Adam to come into the world with a double guilff one the guilt of Adam's sin, another the guilt arising from their having a corrupt heart, ihey liavc not ro well conceived of the matter. The /{ui/f a man iias upon his soul at his first existence, is one and simple, viz. the guilt of the original apostasy, the guilt of the sin by v. hicii the species first rebelled against (iod. This, and the guilt arising from the first corruption or depraved disposition of the heart, are

iiot to be looked upon as77yo things, distinctly imputed am! charged upon nien in the sight of God. Indeed ihe guilt that arises from the corruption of the heart, as it remains a confirmed principle, and appears in its consequent operations, is e distinct ^n^ additional guilt : But the guilt arising from the first existing of a depraved disposition in Adam's posterity, I apprehend, \%vot distinct from their guili of Adam's first sin. For so it was not in Adam Irimself. The first evil disposition or inclination of the heart €f Adam to sin, was not properly distinct from his frrst act of ^in, but was included in it. The external act he committed was no otherwise his, than as his heart was in it, or as that action proceeded from the wicked inclination of his heart. Nor was the guilt he had double, aS for two distinct sins : One, the wickedness of his heart and TV ill in that affair: another, the wickedness of the external act, caused by his heart. His guilt was all truly from the act of bis inward man ; exclusive of which the motions of his body M'ere no more than the motions of any lifeless instru-STient. His sin consisted in wickedness of heart, fully suffi* cient/j7-, and entirely amounting to, all that appeared in the ect he committed.

The depraved disposition of Adam's heart is to be consid* cred two ways, (-l.) As the first rising of an evil inclinatiofi In his heart, exerted in his first act of sin, and the ground ©f the complete transgression. (2.) An evil disposition of heart continumi; afterwards, as a confirmed principle that came by God's forsaking him ; which was a fiuniskment of his first transgression. This confirmed corruption, by its remaining and continued operation, brought additional guilt on his soul.

And in like manner, depravity of heart is to be considered two ways in Adam's j>osterity. The Jirst existing of a corrupt disposition in ti^eir hearts, is not to be looked upon as sin belonging to them, distinct from their participation of Adam's first sin : It is as it were the extended pollution of that sin, through the wliole tree, by virtue of the constituted union of •the branches with the root; or the inherence of the sin of that Iicudofthe species in the members, in the consent and concurrence of the hearts of the members with the head in that

ORIGINAL SW. Si?

Skst act. (Which may be, without Gf.cl's bcinj^ tljc author of sin, about which I have spoken in the former chapter.) Bit the depravity of nature remaininj> an c.stuMis/ied /iririci/i/e ia the heart of a child of Adam, and as exhibited in after operations, is a consrgurnce and fiunishmcnt of the first apostasy thut participated, andbrin^^s new Ruilt.. The Qrsi bcin^ of an evil disposition in the heart of a child of Adam, whereby he is disposed to aj'.firovc of ihe sin of his first father, as fully a* he himself approved of it when lie connnittcd it, or so far as to 5mp)y a full and perfect consent ol" heart to it, 1 think, is not to be looked upon as a consequence of the im'j)Uiation of tba^ first sin, ariy more than the full consent of Adam's own heart> in the act of sinnintj; whit h was not consequent on the imputation of his sin to himself, but rattier//r:or to it in the order of nature. Indeed the derivation of the evil dispo .iiiora to the hearts of Adam's posterity, or rather the coexistence of the evil disposition, implied in A(iam's first rebellion, in the root and branches, is a consequence of the union that the v/'ism author of the world has established between Adam and his posterity ; but not properly a consequence of the im/iuiattcn of his sin ; nay, rather antecedent to it, as it was in Adam himself. The first depravity of heart, and the imputation ol that sin, are both the consequences of that est.iblished union ; but yet in such order, that the evil disposition is y/Var, and the charge of guilt consequents as it was in the case of Adam Mr^-aell.<

♦ My roeaning, in the whole of 'A-bai has been here %nd, may be ilU:st:av vd thus : I el us suppose, ihat Adam :nd all I.is posterity had co<-xi>t(d, and that his posterity had been, through a law of nature, established by the Crea-lor, united to him, something as the branches of a tree are united to the rooi, or the members of the body ^o the head, s ) as lo constitute as it vveic onr complex person, or one moral whole : "^o that by the law of uriion, ibcfc should have been a communion and coexistence in acts and affection? ; *I4 jointly participating, and all concurring, as one whole, in the dispoiitionand action of the head : As wc see in the body natural, the whgle h'^dy i 2|}ccte4 as the head is affected ; and the whole body concur* when the \:v?.d ?-••. Kow, in this case, the hearts of all the brunches of mqtikin4. by lie c tion of nature and liw of union, womIJ have been aflcried just as i: of Adam, their common root, was aiTcclcd. \Vl en the h^t of thr '•

The.first existence of an evil disposition of heart, amoiint* ir\^ to a full consent to Adam's sin, no more infers God's be* inr; 'he author of that evil disposition in tlie c/«A/, than in the father, 'the first arising or existing of that evil disposilion

a full disposition, committed the first sin. the hearts of all the branches would have concurred ; and when the root, in consequence of this, became guilty, so would all the branches; and when the heart of the root, as a punishment of the sin committed, was forsaken of God, in like manner would it have fared with all the branches; and when the heart of the root, in consequence; of this, was confirmed in permanent depravity, the case would have been the same with all the branches; and as new guilt oh the soul of A-dam would have been consequent on this, so also -would it have been with his moral branches. And thus all things, with relation to evil disposition, gi-ilt, pol- • lution and depravity, would exist, in the same order and dependence, in each branch, as in the root. Now, difTerence of tlie time of existence does oot at all hinder things succeeding in the same order, any moie than differ^ cnce of place in a coexistence of time.

Here may be worthy to be observed, as in several respects to the present purpose, some things that are said by Stapferus, ?n eminent divine of Zurich, in Switzerland, in his ! he Jog;a Polem ca, published about fourteen year$ ago ; in English as follovjrs. " Seeing all Adam's posterity are derived from their fir.-.t parent, as their roct, the whole of the human kind, with its root, may be considered as constituting but one whole, or < ne mass ; so as not to be properly a thing d'stinct from its roi t; the posterity not differing from it, any otherwise than the branches from the tree. From which it easily ap* pears, how that when the root sinned, all that which is der ved from t, and with it constitutes but one whole, may be lookea U( on as also sinning; seeing it is not distinct froirt the root, but i3 one with it." ...Tom. i. cap 3, ^856,57.

" It is ob'iectei again-s' the im.putation of Adam's sin. that we never com-mi'ted the same sin with Adam, neither in number nor in kind. I answer, we should distin)t;uish here between the physical act itself, which Adam corn-mined, and the morality of the action, and consent to it. Ifwe have respect only to the externa act, to be sure it must be > oncssed. that Adam's posterity did not put forth their hands to the 'orbidden fruit: In which sense, that act of transgression, and that fall of Adam cannot be physically one with the sin of his po terity But if we consider the morality of the action, and wha*. consent here is to it, it is altogether to be maintained, that his posterity commi ted the s^mc sin, both in number and in kind, inasmuch as they arc-to bz looked upon os rousenting to ii. For where there is consent to a sin, there the same .sin is committed. Seeing therefore that .-\dam, with all his posterity, constitute but one moral pcrs')n. and are united in the same cove-

ORIGINAL SIN. zil

in the heart of Adam, was by God's pcrini.ssion ; who coul4 have prevented it, if he had pleased, hy ^iuin^tr ^i,cj, mflucijcea of his Spirit, us would have been aUsolntely cfTjcfuul lo hi idcr it; which, it is plain in fact, he did ivilhJiolJ: And wluicver

nant, an^ are trans^rensors of the same 'aw, they arc aho to be looked upoa as having, in a moral cllimalion, cam mi ted the same trjns,;re»$ion of the \»w both in number and in lund Thrrefora this reasoning avails nothing K^nnti the righteous imputation »f the sin of Adam lo all mankind, or to he whoU moral peison that is consenting to it. And for the reason menti >ncd, wc may rather argue thus : The sin of the posterity, on account «f ihcir con>eMl, and the moral view in which they arc to be taken, is the same with the sin of \dam, not only in kind, but in number; therefore the sin of Adam is rii'hirully imputed to his posterity."....Id. Tom. iv. cap i 6, ^ 6o, 6t.

'* The iTiputation of Adam's first sin connists in nothing else thin thii that his posterity arc viewed as in the same place with their father, and aro like him. But seeing, agreeable to what wc have already proTcd, God mi.'ht according to his own righteous judgmr-nt, which was founded on his most righteous law, give Adam a posterity that y/ere like himself; and indeed it could not be otherwise, according t'* the very laws of nature ; th«rcfo.r he might >lso in righteous judgriien impute Adam':- sin to them ; inasmuch as to gi\c Adam a posterity like himselj. and to imputt his sin to thrm, i. one and the same thing. And therefore if the former be lot contrary to the divine perfections, so nei her is the latter Our advcrs-aries contend with us chiefly on this account, That according to our doctrine of Original Sin^ such an m-putation of the first sin is main'ained, whereby God, without any legar! to universal native corruption, esteems all Adam's posterity as gwlt), aid h.)ldi them as liable to condemnation, pweh 0,1 account of thit si lul act o( tncir firs': parent; so that they, without any respec had lo their own si«, and $0, as innocent in -hf-mselvcs, are destined to eternal puiiihm<-nt. I 'avf therefore ever been careful to shew, thut they do trjuriru^ly supiosc t-ose things to bo separate!, in our doctrine, which aie by no means to h« »enarated. 'I he whole of tlie controversy they have With us about this matter, evidently arises from this, That they suppose the mediate and the immediitc imputation are d>:>tin-guished one from the other, not only in the manner of conco^iion, but in rc-;ility And so indeed they consider imputation <>nly as immedute and ab* stractly from the mediate ; when yet our divi.cs supp sc, hat nciihtr ou^hl CO be considered sepurMeh from the other. Therefore I ch se not to use any iuch distinction, or to suppose any such thing, in what J h^^e -.-id t.n ll^e oiibject; but only have endeavored to explain the thing iuelf, and lo r. cou-cilc it with the divine attributes. And thcicfore I have every where conjoin-M both these conceptions concerning the impuiaiiou af Uic *;r»t jiu, a» iiucp-

fnystery mav be supposed in the affair, yet no Christian v>ill' presume.to say, it was not in perfect consistence with God*s /lo/iness and Hghteonfi?i€ss, notwiihstandinc: Adam had been guilty of no offence before. So root and branches beinu: one,* according to God's wise constitution, the case in fact is, that by virtue of this oneness answerable chanp^es or effects through all the brmichcs coexist with the chancres in the root: Consequently an evil disposition exists in the hearts of Adam's posterity, equivalent to that which was exerted in his own heart, when he ate the forbidden fruit. Which God has no hand in, any o"heruise, than in not exerting such an influence, as tniRht be effectual to prevent it ; as appears by what was observed in the former chapter.

But now the grand objection is aJi:ainst the reasonableness of such a constitution^ by which Adam and his posterity should be looked upon as one, and dealt with accordingly, in an affair of -uch infinite consequence ; so that if Adam sinned, they must necessa'ily be made sinners by his disobedience, and come into existence with the same depravity of disposition^ and he looked upon and treated as though they were partakers with Adam in his act of sin. I have not room here to rehearse all Dr. TayV.r's vehement exclamations against the reasonableness and justice of this. I'he leader may at his leisure consult his book, and see them in the places referred to below.* Whatever black colors and frightful representations are employed on this occasion, all may be summed up in this, That Adam and his posterity are not one, but entirely distinct airents. But with respt^ct to this mighty outcry made against the rcasonabUriess of any such coristitution^ by which

arable ; and judgcH, that one ought never to be consic'ered without the other. While I have been writing this note, I consulted al! the systems of divinity, which I have by me, that I mi^ht see what wvs the true and genuine opinion of • ur chief divine; in this affair ; and I found that, thty were of the same mind with me ; namclv. That these two kinds of imputation are by no means to be separated, or to be considered abstiactly one from he other, but that one does involve the other.". .H- there particularly ctes t':ose two famoifs 'clormcd divines, Vitriiiga and Lamp us .. Tom iv. Cap i"}, ^ 78,

• i'^ge 13, 150, 1.51, 1^6, 261, 108, lOQ, Ml; 5

^6d is siippo«;e(l to treat Adam and his poFt^rity a*; c^?/\ I "Woihd make the following; observations

I. It si{^ujfies noiiung totxclaiin ac:aii)<>t pbiit./afr. Siicli isthe.A'c^ most evident and at knowledi^ed /ac^ with respect to the state of all mankind, without exception of one in'livid-\ial among all the natural descendants of Adam, as makes it apparent, that God actu.illy deals wiih Adam and nis posterity as onr^ in the affair of his apostasy, and i'^ mfiuit-jly terrible consequences. It has been demonstratod, and shewn to be in eftect olainlv acknowledgec'., tliat every individual of mankind comes into ine world in such circumstances, as that liu-.ie is no hope or possibiliiy of a«iy other than their viulaliUL^ (iod's holy law (if they ever live to act at all as moral j^enls) and beini; thereby justly exposed to eternal ruin.* And it is il.us by God's orderinij; and disposing: of thinp% And God either thus deals with mankind, because he looks upon them as one "wiin their first father, and so tieals thcn» •j^'isinful auCl guiliy by his apostasy; or (which will not mend the matter) he, ivithout viewing them as at all concerned in that affair, but as in every respect perfectly ifrncccnt, does nevertheless sufjject ihem to this infinitely dr( adful calamity. Adam, by his sin, was exposed to the calamitiefi and norrowft of this life, to iim-floral death and eternal ruin.; as is confessed. And it is also in efi'tct confessed, that.all his posterity come into the worl(| in such a slcite, as that the certain consequence is. their being ^j"/205^f/, andy«.s^///so, to the sorrorjs of this life^Ko tcmfioral death and eterncJ nun, unless saved by f^racr. So that we seci God in fact deals with them toijelhcr, or as one. If God orders the c )nsequenrcs of Adam's sin, with rcganl to his posterity's welfare, even in those thinp;s which are most important, and which do in the hi^^hest decree concern their eternal interest, to be the same with the consequences to Adam him» self, then he treats Adam and his posterity as one in that af* /air. Hence, however the matter be attended with difii .uhy, fact oblis:es us to (^ct over the difTicnlty, cither by finclin'^ om -^ome solution, or by shutting our n>o iths. and : rlcTio'vlcrlfinr'

♦ Part I. Chap. I, the thicc (irsl Secuous

Mi ORIGINAL SIN.

the weakness and scantiness of our v.ndcrstandings; as wc must in inniimeraV)le other casesi where apparent and unde* niMcJacry in Clod's works of creation and providence, is at* tended with events and circumstances, the manner and rtafiort of which are difficult to our under>.tandini?s. But to proceed,

II. We will consider the r/Z^czi/'/es themselves, insisted on in the objections of our opposers. They may be reduced to these two : First, That such a constitution is injurious to Adam's posterity. Secovdhj, That it is altopjether imfiroper, as it implies falsehood^ vie win [^ and treating those as one, •'A'hich indeed are not one, hu^ entirely distinct.

First Difficulty, That the appointing: Adam to stand, 5n this great affair, as the mor^l hf^ad of his po'-.terity, and so treating fhem as one with him, as standing or failing with him, is injuricus to tlrem, and tends to thtir hurt. To which 1 answer, it is demonstrably otherivise ; that such a constitution was so far from being injurious and hurtful to Adam*s posterity, or tending to their calamiiyi any more than if every one had been appointed to stand for himstlf personally, that it Vas, in itself considered, very much of a contrary tendency, tnd. was attended with a more eligible probability of a kafifiy issue than the latter would have been t And so is a constitution truly eypressitig the goodness of its author. For, here the following things are to be considered,

1. It is reasonable to suppose, that Adam was as likely^ on account of his capacity and natural talents, to jiersevere in obedience, as his posterity (taking one with another) iffliey had all been put on the trial singly for themselves. And supposing that there was a constituted union or oneness of him jnd his posterity, and that he stood as a public person, or common head, all by this constitution would have been as sure to partake of the benefit of his obedience, as of the ill conse-quenf e of hi*, disolirdience, in case of his fall.

2. There was a greater tendency to a happy issue, in such an appointment, than if every one had been appointed to stand for himi-elf; especially on two accounts. (1.) That Adam bad stronger motives to tvatchfulness than his posterity would have had » in that not only hie own eternal Xvelfare lay af

ORIGTKAL SIN. S35

Stake, but also that of all his posterity. (2.) Adam was in a state of coniplcte manhood, when his trial began. It was a constiiulion very aKrcealilc to the goodness of God, conbid-crinp: the state of mankind, which was to he propagated in the way of generation, that \\\t\v frtit father should be appointed to stand f(;r all. For by reason of the manner of their coming into existence in a state of infancy^ and their coming so gradually to mature slate, and so re.naining for a great while in a Slate of childhood and comparative iinpcrfeclion, aficr they ■were become moral agents, ihcy would be less fit to stand for themselves, than their first father to stand for them.

If any man, notwithstanding these things, shall say, that for his own part, if the affair had been proposed to him, he should have chosvn to have had his eternal interest trusted in his onun hands ; it is sufficient to answer, that no man's vain oi>inion of himself, as more Jit to be trusted than otiicrs, alters the true nature and tendency of things, as they demonstrably are in themselves. Nor ib it a just objection, that this consli'ution has in evevt proved for the hurt of mankind. For it dtes not follow that no ac!vanta:.::c was given for whafifjy event, ui such an establishment, because it was not such as to TTiake i>. utterly impossible there should be any other event,

3. The goodness of God in such a constitution with ^Idam appears in this : That if tlicrc had been no sovereign, grw cious establishment at all, but God had piocecded only on the foot of mere ^tt^r/ff, and had gone no further than this required, he might have demanded of Adam and all iiis posterity, that they should perform /ler/'cct, ^icrfietual cbcdicncCf without ever failing in the least instance, on pain o{eternal deaths and might have made this demand ivitLout the /iromise of any positive rfryrtrrf for their obedience. For perfect obedience is a debty that every one owes to his Creator, and therefore is what his Creator was not obliged to pay him Tor. None is obliged to pay his debtor, only for discharging his just debt. But such was evidently the constitution with Adam, that an eternal happy life was to be the consequence of his persevering fidelity, to all such as were included within that constitution (of which the tree nf ///> wns a sign) as

well as eternal death to be the consequence of his disobti*' •dience.

I come now to consider t*^e

Second Difficulty. It bc'nq: thus maniles: *hat this consiitiUJon, by wnicli Avlam and hib -^o.-terity are deal yith as o72(?, is net unreasonable npon accouni .fits beine; injurious vt.r\i\ hurtful to tlie interest of mankind, the oniv thinj^ remaining in the objection ap;a.nbt such a constitution, is the imfiro-priety of it, as implying fan^ehood^ and contradicticr to the true nature of thinpjs ; as hereby tnev are viewed and trea ed cs one, who are net one, but wholly distinct; and no arbitraiy constitution can ever make that to be true, which in itself consiviered is not true.

This objection, however specious, is really founder, on a false hypothesis, and wrong notion of what we call sameness or oncness<i amon^* created things ; and the seenfimg ioi ce of the objection arises from ignorance or inconsideration of the degree^ in which created identity or oneness with past existence, in general, depends on the sovereign constitution and law of the Supreme Author and Disposer of the Universe.

Some things, being most simply considered^ are entirely distinctf and very diverse, which yet are so united by the established law of tlie Crtator,in some respects, and with regard to some purposes and effects, that by virtue of that establishment it is with them as if they were one. Thus a tree, grown -great, and an hundred years old, is one plant with the little ^rout, that first came out of the ground, Irom whence it grew, arid has been continued in constant succession, though it is now so exceeding diverse^ many tijousand times bigger, and of a very different form, and perhaps not one atom the very same ; yet Cod, according to an established law of nature, has in a constant succession communicated to it many of the same qualities and most important properties,^as if it were cwr. It has been his pleasure to constitute an union in these respects, and for these purposes, naturally leading us to look upon all us one. So the bvdy of man at forty years of age, is our with th',- ivfunt body which first came into the vorld. fioni whence it grew ; th'^ugli now constituted of dif-

ferent substance, and the pjreater part of the substance probably chunfijed scores (if not hundreds) oflinrics; and though it be now in so many rcspcris exceeding diverse, yet God, according to the course of na'ure, whu li he has been pleased to es'ablish, has caused that in a cerliiiu mclho<l it should communicate with that itifantilc body, in tl»e same life, the same senses, the same features, and many of the same qualities, and in union widi the same soul, and so, with rej^ard to these purposes, it is dealt with l)y him as oyir body. Attaint the body and soul of a man are onc^ in a very different manner, and for different purposes. Considered in themselves, they are exceedinf^ different beinpjs, of a nature as diverse as can be conceived ; and yet, by a very peculiar divine constitution or law of nature, which God has been pleacd to establish, they are strongly united, and become onc^ in most important respects; a wonderful mutual communication is established ; so that both become different parts of tlie sarnc maru But the union and mutual communication they have, has existence, and is entirely rci2;ulated and limited, accordinj^ to the sovereign pleasure ot God, and the constitution he has been pleased to establish.

And if we come even to the fiersonal identify of created intelligent beings, though this be not allowed to consist wholly in that which Mr. Locke places il in, i. e. Same comdous" ness ; yet I think it cannot be denied, that this is one iliinj essential to it. But it is evident that the communication or continuance of the same consciousness and memory to any , subject, through successive pans of duration, depends wholly on a divine establishment. There would be no necessity that the remembrance and ideas of what is past should continue to exist, but by an arbitrary consii'ulion of t!ic Creator. If any should here insist that there is no need of having recourse to any such constItutioji^ in order to account for the co(.;inu-ance of the same consclousncua, and shovild say, that the vcry naturc of the soul is such as will s'lfficicntly account fur it; and that the scul will reiaiii the icL-.^s and consciousness it once had, according to the coumr c.f vaiirc : then let it be ic-jneraberedj who il is gives the soul ihis naltae ; aad Ic? that

SQ8 ORIGINAL SIN.

be remembered, which Dr. Taylor says of the course of n^ ture, before observed ; denyinir, that *< the cour<»e of nature is a proper active cause> whicli will work and ^o on by itself without God, if he lets and penniis it;" siiyin.c that « the course of nature, separate from the agency of God, is no c:.use, or nothing ;** and affiiming that " it is absolutely impossible the course of nature should continue itself, or go on to operate by itself, any more than pmduce its.tif ;"* an<J that " Gof', the Orij^inal of all Being, is the OiUy Cause of alj natural effects."t Here is worthy also to be observed, whaf: Dr. TurnbuU says of the laws of nature^ in words which h^ cites from Sir Isaac Newton | " It is the will of the mind that is the frst cause, that gives subsistence and efficacy to all those laius^ who is the efficient cause that produces the phenomena^ which appear in analoe^y, harmony and agreement, according to these laws.** And he says, " The same principles must take place in things pertaining to moral, as well as natural philosophy."§

From these thihgs it will clearly follow, that identity of consciousness depends wholly on a law of nature, and so, on the sovereign will and agency of God ; and therefore, that personal identity, and so the derivation of the pollution and guilt of past sins in the same person, depends on an arbitrary divine constitution ; and this, even though we should allow the same consciousness not to be 'he only thing which constitutes oneness of person, but should, besides that, suppose sameness of substance requisite. For, if same consciousness be one thing necessary to personal identity, and this depends on God's sovereign constitution, it will still follow that personal identity depends on God's sovereign coiistl-, tvtim.

And with respect to the identity of created substance itself, in the different moments of its duration, I think, wc shall greatly mistake, if we imagine it to be like thai absolute, independent identity of the liusx Being, whereby he i5 the naine, yesterday, today, and forever. Nay, on the contrary;

• Page i34,S. + Page i^o,S. * Mor. Phil. p. 7, ^ Ibid,, p.9.

-it may be demonstrated that even this oneness of created substance, cxi«tinjj at diirercnl times, is u incnly dc/ieudryit identity, dependent on the pleasure and soverci:!;n constilution of l\\n\s\\\orjorktth all in all. Tl.is will follow from what i» generally allowed, and is « crtainly true, ihat Cod not only created all thint^s, and gave them beinir at first, but cominu-nlly preserves ihcm, and upholds ihein in brinr. This be-ing a mutter of considerable importance, it may be worthy here to be considered with a little attention. Let us inquire therefore, in the fi"st place, whether it bo not evident that God does continually, by his immediate power, ufihold every created substance in being ; and then let us sec the co.Tjr-fjucncc.

That God does, by his immediate power, v/i/ichl cvcTy created substance in bcinu;, will be manifest, if we consider that tb.eir present existence is a dcficndcjit existence, and therefore is an rfj^cct^ and must have some cause ; and the cause must be one of these two ; either the antecedent existence of thp same substance, or the fioiver of the Creator. But it cannot be the antecedent exiatence of the same substance. For instance, the existence of the body of the mooji at this present moment, cannot, bo the ej^cct of its existence at the last foregoing moment. For not only was what existed the last moment, no active cause, but wholly a passive thinpj; but this also is to be considered, tliat no cause can produce elTects in a time and t-lace in wlsicli itself is noL -It is plain, nothintj can exert itself, or operate, when and where it is not exi^iing. But the nioon*s pas^ existence wl'>s neither xokere nor ivhcn its prc^•ent existence is. In point of liir.e, what is /.-a^r, entirely ceases, when firescnt existence begins ; otherwise it would notbe/:as/. The past moment is ceased and gone, wheu the present moment takes place ; and does no more coexiit with it, than does any other moment that hcid ceased twenty years ago. Nor could the past existence of the particles of this movbiff body produce effects in any other filace than where it then was. But its existence at the present moment, in cverv noint of it, is in a different fda-e fronr! ".i.^-e I's -xist-

ence was at the last preceding; moment. From these things-Isiippose it "will certainly follow that the present existence, cither of this, or any other created substance, cannot be an effect of its past existence. The existences (so to speak) of an effect, or thing dependent, in different parts of space or duration, thrugh ever so 7ieao' one to another, do not at all cO' exist one with the other ; and therefore are as truly different effects, as if those parts of space and duration were ever so far asunder; and the prior existence can no more be the proper cause of the new existence, in the next moment, or next part of space, than if it had been in an age before, or at a thousand miles distance, without any existence to fill up . the intermediate time or space. Therefore the existence of created substances, in each successive moment, must be the effect of the immediate agency, will, and power of God.

If any shall say, this reasoning is not good, and shall Insist upon it, that there is no need of any immediate divine power to produce the present existence of created substances, but that their present existence is the effect or consequence of past existence, according to the nature of things ; that the established course of nature is sufficient to continue existence^ where existence is once given ; I allow it: But then it should be remembered, nvkat nature is in created things j and nvhat the established course of nature is ; that, as has been observed already, it is nothing, separate from the agency of God; and that, as Dr. Taylor says, God, the Origiiial of all beinc;? is ^^ic <^^^^ rcwse of all natural effects. A father, according to the course of nature, begets a child ; an oak, according to the course of nature, produces an acorn, or a bud ; 30, according to the course of nature, the former existence of the trunk of the tree is followed by its new or present existence. In the one case and the other, the new effect is consequent on the former, only by the established laws and settled coun^e of nature, vhich is allowed to be nothing but the continued immediate efficiency of God, according to a constitutioii,; that he has been pleased to establish. Therefore, according to what our cuthor urges, as the child and the acorn, which crroe into cxiftcrxc according to the cqutsc ffnaiurc-i i^« cos-

ORIGINAL SIN.

'sequence oftnc prior existence and slate of the parent and the oak, are truly, immediately created or made by God ; ao itiust the existence of each created perswn and thing, at each moment of it, be from the immediate cmtinucd creation oi Cod. It will ceriuinly follow from these things, that GodS Jirenerving created things in being is perfectly equivalent to a continued creation, or to his creating those thini^s out of no. thing at each moment of their existence. If the continued existence of created things be wholly dependent on God's preservation, then those things would drop into nothing, upon the ceasing of tlie present moment, without a new exertion of the divine power to cause them to exist in the following moment. If there be any who own, that God preserves things in being, and yet hold that they would continue in being without any further help from him, after they once have existence ; 1 tliink, it is hitrd to know what liiey mean. To what purpose can it be> to talk of ^o^*^ fireacrving things in being, when there is no need of his preserving them ? Or to talk of iheir being deliendcnt on God for continued existence, when they would of themselves continue to exist without his help ; nay, though he should wholly ^YillKlraw his sustaining power and influence ?

It will follow from what has been observed, that God*o up-holding created substance, or causing its existence in each successive moment, is altogether equivalent to an immedrcte production out of7iothing, at each moment. Because its existence at this moment is not merely in part from God^ but wholly from him, and not in any part or degree from its en-tecedcnt exiatcnce. For the supposing that its antecedent existence concurs with God in cjjiciency, to protluce some fiar: of the effect, is attended with ail the very same ^absurdities, which have been shewn to attend the supposition of its producing it nvholly. Therefore the antecedent existence is nothing, as to any proper infincnce or assistance in the afTair ; and consequently God produces the effect as much from wo-ihlng^ as if there had been nothing before. So that this cflcct differs not at all from the first creation, but only circuntetan^ tinlly ; as mfrst creation there hn:l bcrn no such act and cf

.'5T2 OKIGlNA"L SIK-

feet of God^) power brforc ; whereas, his giving; cxisteiK^b, afterwards,yi//o-Tr.5 preceding acts and cfTccls ot the sairc kind, in an cslablishcd order.

Now, in the next place, let ii". see how the con.iecjjxcncc of these th!np:s is to my present purpose. If the existence 6i created nubstmice^ in each successive moment, be Vi^holly the effect of God's immediate power, in that moment, without any dependence on prior existence, as much as the first creation out of ^.-dVi/;/^ then what exists at this moment, by this powtr, is a ncrj c//rcf, and simply and absolulcly considered, rot the same with any past existence, though it be like it, nnd fellows it according to a certain established method.*

• When I suppose that nn effcdt wh cH l* produced every moment, by a new action or excriion of power, must be a neio effect in each moment, and not absolutely and numerically the 5ame with ibat which existed in preceding moments, the ir.ing that I intend, may be illustrated by this example. The lucid color or brightness of the moon, as v/e look stcdlastly upon it, seems to be ^prrmancnt thing, as though it were perfectly the same brightness continued. But indfcd it is an effect produced every moment. It ceases, and is renewed, in each successive point of time ; and so becomes altogether a new effect at each instant ; and no one thing that belongs to it, is numerically the same that existed in the preceding moment. The t^y% of the si^n, impressed on that body, and reflected from it, which cause the effect, are none of them the same : The impression, made in each moment on our sensory, is by the .'.troke of rerc rays; and the sensation, excited by the stroke, is a new effect, nn effect of a nero impulse. Therefore the brightness or lucid whiteness of this body is no more numerically the same thing with that which existed ia the preceding moment, than the sound of the wind that blows now, is individually the .^^me with the sound of the wind tr.at blew just belore, which, though it be like it, is not the same, any more than the agitated air^ that makes the sound, is the same; or than the water, flowing in a liver, that now passes by, is indivdually the fame with that which passed a little before. And if it be thus v^^ith the brightness or color of the moon, so it must be with its sclidify^ and every thing else belonging to its substance, if all be, each moment, as miich the immediate effect of a vcic exertion or application of power.

The matter may pcihaps be in some respects stili more clearly illustrated by this. The i?«jjff o( things in z glass, as we keep xjur eye upon them, «vcm to remain precis, ly the same, with a continaing, pcrfec. identity. But it IS V.nown to be othcrwtse. Philosophers well know that tliese images are cOnvtan'ly renczccJ, by the -mpression and reflection of vfic rays of light; so tiiiit the ima-^c imprcss'.d by the former rays is conslanliy vanishing, and «

And ihcrc is no iiicntily or oneness in t!ic case, hut wliai de-pciids on ihc arditranj conslitmion of tlic Creator; who by his wise sovcrei!>n est;il)rr,him.'ht bo unites these succesbivo new cn'ects, that he treats tlwm an ojic, hy communicaiinf^ lo Ihcm hkc propciiies, rclalions, an.l circumstances ; and so, ]cads u.<t to rei^nrd and ircat them as o;/r. When 1 call this un arbitrary constiiutiou, \ mean, it is a constitution which depends on nothin;^ but the dlcinc win; which div;ne uiil depends on nol'nini; hut the divine rviAdom. In this sense, the •ivholc course of nature, wiih ail that belongs lo it, all its lawn and methods, and constancy and regulaiiiy, continuance and proceedini;, is ai\ arbitrary coji.^titiition. In this bunsc, the coniiniiance of the very beinj^ of the world and ail its parts, a^ well as the manner of continued bciii^, depends entirely on an arbitrary constitution : For it docs not at all neceaftarily {u\. low, lliat because thcr'j was sound, or lieht, or color, or resistance, or gravity, or thought, or consciousness, or any other dependeiit thing- the kist moment, that ihcicforc there sliaU be the like at the next. All dependent existence wnatsocvcr

ino image impressed by neu} rays every momci-!t, both on thi ^la$4 ant^ on the eye. The 1111356 constantly renewed, by new sui tessivc rays, is m more numcrcally he same, than if it were by some artist put en anew with a pencil, and the colois constar.tly vanishintj ns fast as put on. And the new im-i^es being put on immediately or instantly, do not make them the same, any more than if it were done with the intermission ri4 an hour or a c/rfv. The im-.ige that exists this moment, is not at all Merited from the image which existed the last preceding moment; as may be ?ecn, because, it" the succession of new rays be inlerccptcd. by som.ething interposed between the objet and the glass, the image immediately ce3ses ; \.\\c past existence of ihe ima;;^ has no influence Xo Jiphold it, so much as for one moment. Which shews, that the image is altogether iricw made every moment; and strictly spe?king, is if. no part numerically the snme with that which existed the moment preceding And truly so the matter must be with the bodies themselves, as well a* their images t They also cannot be the same, with an absolute identity, but must be wholly renewed every moment, if ihc case be ns has been proved, that iheir frcjcnl existence is not, strictly speaking, at all th- ctlcct of their past existence; but is wholly, every instant, the effect of a new agency, orcxmion of the power, of the cause of their existence. II »o, the existence caused is every ins-ant n new effect, whcth-r thr c^Mse be Ifht. or immediate <iiiin' tc-xcT, or whatever

is in a constant flux, ever passing and relurnine; ; renewed «very moment, as the colors of bodies are every moment re^-rewed by the light that bhines upon liiem ; and all is constantly proceedinj^ from Gody as light from the sun. In hhz ive livf^ and Tnove, and have our being.

Thus it appears, if we consider matters strictly, there is no such thing as any identity or oneness in created objects, existing at different times, but what depends on God*8 f>ove-reign constitution. And so it appears, that the objection we are upon, made against a supposed divine constitution, whereby Adam and his posterity are viewed and treated as 072^, in the manner and for the purposes siipposed, as if it were not consistent ii-iih truths because no conbiitution can make those to be 07ie<i which are rcot one :. I say, it appears that this objection is built on a false hypothesis ; For it appears, that a divine ccnsututicn h the tiling which makes trut/i, in affairs of this nature. The objection supposes, there is a oneness in i-reated beings, whence qualities and relations are derived -down from past existence, distinct'fvomy and/??7orto any oneness tliat can be supposed to be founded on divine constitution. Which is demonstrably false, and sufficiently appears so from things conceded l)y the adversaries themselves : And therefore the objection wholly falls to the groundo

There are various kinds of identity and oneness, found among created things, by which they become one m different mannersy res/ircts and degrees^ and to various purposes ; several of which differences have been observed ; and every kind is ordered, regulated and iimi:ed, in every respect, by divine constitution. Some things, existing in different times and places, are treated by their Creator as one in 077c respect^ ancj others in flTzor/i^r; some are united for this co7n7}:unication, and others for t/iat; but all according to the sovcrcigjipleasure of the founiain of all bi:ing and operation.

It appears, particularly, from what has been sc?id, th.at all oneness, by virtue \vhcvto[pollution and guilt hom past wickedness are derived, deper.ds eniii tly on a divine ef':tobIi.';hme7lt, It is this, and this only, that must account for guilt and an evil t:ih.l on any individual tcul, in consequence of a ciime com-

ORIGINAL STN. S«!^

•milted twenty cr forty years ap;(), rcmaininp; still, and ctc:i to the end of the world and forever. It is lhi», that must account for the continuance of any such thinji:, any where, as conscioufiTif's.t of acts that arc past ; and for the coniinuancc of all /lalntsj either good or bad : And on this depends every thine; that can belong \o fursoJiat idrntiiij. And a!l communications, derivations, or continuation of qualities, piopcriies or relations, natural or moral, from what h/las't us if the subject Avere otic, depends on no other foimdation.

And I am persuaded, no solid reason can be given, why God, who constitutes all other created iinion or oneness, according to his pleasure, and for what purposes, communications, and effects, he pleases, may not esiablis!) a constilutioa '.vhereby the natural posterity of Adam, proceeding from him, much as the buds and branches from the stock or root of a ""tree, should be treated as o^-r'with him, for the derivation, either of righteousness, and communion in rewards, or of the loss of righteousness, and consequent corruption and guilt.*

♦ I appeal to such as are not wont to content ihemsclves with judging by » superficial appearance and view of things, but are habituated to examine things strictly and closely, that they may judge righteous judgment, Whether on supposition that all mankind bad coexisted, in the manner mentioned before, any good reason can be given, why their Creator might not, if he had pleased, have established such an union between Adam ?nd the rest of roan^ kind, as was in that case supposed. Particularly, if it had been the case, that Adam's posterity had actually, according to a law ofnatnrc, some how^roa'* out of him, and yet remained contiguous and literally united '.o hvn, as the branches to a tree, or the mcmbeis of the body to the head ; and had all, before the fell, existed together at the sane time, though in dijfeycrt places, ns thehead'and members are in different places : In this case, who can determine, that the author of nature might not, if it had pleased him, have establi.vhcd such an union between the root and branches of this complex bring, as that all should constitute one moral whole ; so that by the law of union, there should be a ftpmraunion in each moral alteration, and that the heart of every (ranch should at the same moment participate with the heart of the r.v/, be conformed to it, Rud concurring with it in all its aifections and acts, and so jointly partaking in its state, as i purt oi the same thing? Wiiy might not God, it lie had pleased, have fixed such a kind of union as this, an union of the various parti ot iuch a moral whcfe, as well as many'othcr unions, which he lias actually fixed, ^ircording.tc hi< overeign plcai'.iic? And if be rv.icht, by his loverei^n con-

As I said before, all oneness in created things, whenco c]\ialiues and relations are derived, depends on a divine consii-tuiion that is arbitrary^ in every other respect, excepting that it is regulated by divine wisdom. The wisdom, which is exercised in these constituiions, appears in these two things. Firsts In a beautiful analogy and harjyiony with other laws or constitutions, especially relating to the same subject ; and accondly^ in the good ends obtained, or useful consequences of such a constitution. If therefore there be any objection still lying against this constitution with Adarp and his posterity, it must be, that it is not sufiicienily toise in these respects. But ivhat extreme arrogance would it J3e in us, to take upon us to act as judges .of the beauty and wisdom of the laws and established constitutions of the supreme Lord ind Creator of the universe ? And not only so, but if this constitution, in particular, be well considered, ii^ wisdom^ in the two fcrementioned respects, may easily be made evident. There is an apparent manifold a?;alogy to other constitutions and laws, established and maintained through the whole system of vital nature in this lower world ; all parts of which, in all successions, are derived from the^r^^ oft fie kind^ as from their root, or fountain ; each deriving from thence all properties and qualities, that are proper to the nature and capacity of the kind, or species ^ No derivative hav^ing any one perfection (unless it be what h merely circumstantial) but what was in its firindcive. And that Adam's posterity should be without that original righteous7iessy v. hich Adam had lost, is also anolagous to other laws and establishments, relating to the na-lurc of mankind ; according to which, Adam's posterity have no one perfection of nature, in any kind, superior to what w^as

ititution, have established such an union of the various branches of mankind, ■when existing in different/i/dcci, I do not see why he might not also do ihc same, though ihcy exist in different tinie.\. I know not why succession, or diveriity of/JWf, should make any such constituted union more unreasonabl9, than diversity oi place. The only reason, why diversity of lime can seem to make it unreasonable, is, that difference of time shews, there is no absolute identity of the things existing in those different limes: But it shews this, I think, not at all more than the difference of \hc place of existence.

ii\ him, when the human race began to be props^a'cd from him.

And as such a constiunion was fiC aim -a-rsr m (;'.i;ri res-pe-cts, so it was in this that follows. Sccinj^ tlie divine constitution concerning the manner of mankind's coming into existence in their propagation, was such as did i:o naturally unite them, and made them in so many respects owr, naturally leading them to a close union in society, and manifold intercourse, and mutual dependence. Things were widely so established, that all should naturally be in one and the same moral state ; and not in such exceeding different state<\, as that some should be perfectly innocent and holy, but others corru/u and wicked ; some needing a Saviour, but others ncedini^ none; some in a confirmed state of perfect /m/i/iineas^ but others in a state of public condemnation to perfect and eternal 7WiVri/; some justly expoi^ed to great calamities in this world, but others by their innocence raised above all suffering. Such a vast diversity of state would by no means have agreed with the natural and necessary constitution and unavoidable situation and circumstances of the world of mankind ; a/l made of one bioodj to dwell o?i all the face of the earth, to be united and blended in society, and lo partake together in the natural and common goods and evils of this lower woilcj.

JDr. Taylor urges,* that sorroiv and &hafne arc only (or/ler-sonal sin : And it has cficn been urged, that re/ientance can be for no other sin. To w hich I would say, that the use of ■:vords is very arbitrary : But that men's hearta should be dceplv affected wuh giief and humiliation before Cod, for the pollution and guilt which they bring into the world with them I think, is not in the least unreationable. Nor is it a thing strange and unheard of, that men should becAAcwr^ of ihings done by others, whom they are nearly concerned in. I am sure, it is not unscri/itural; especially when they are justly !ooked upon in the sight of God, who sees the dispoiition cf ^heir hearts, as fuliy cvnctnti?ig and concurring.

* Page 14 2 T

From what has been observed it may appear, there is no-sure ground to conclude, that it must be an absurd and impossible thln'^, for the race of mankind truly to partake of the «« of the first apostasy, so as that this, in reality and propriety, shall become their sin ; by virtue of a real unio7i between the root and branches of the world of mankind (truly and properly availing to such a consequence) established by the Author of the whole system of the universe ; to whose establishments are owing all propriety and reality Q^Umiou, in any part of that system ; and by virtue of the full coment of the hearts of Adani'a posterity to that first apostasy. And therefore the sin of the apostasy is not theirs, merely because Gnd imiiute.^ it to them ; but it is truly and profierly theirs,, and on that o-roz^n^, God imputes it to them.

By reason of the established union between Adam and his posterity, the case is far otherwise between him and them, than it is between distinct parts or individuals of Adam*s race ; betwixt whom is no such constituted union ; as between children and other ancestors. Concerning -whom is apparently to be understood that place, Ezek. xviii. 1....20.* Where God reproves the Jews for the use they made of that pFoverb, Ths fathers have eaten sour gra/iesy and the children''s teeth are set on edge; and tells them, that hereafter they shall no mor-? have occasion to use this proverb ; and that if a son sees th<3 ^vi■ckedness of his father^ and sincerely disa/i/iroves it and avoids it, and he himself is righteous, he shall not die for th^ iniquity of his father ; that all souh^ brAh the soul oft he father and the son, are /us ; and that therefore the son shall Jict bear the iniquity ofhisfather, nor the father bear the iniquity of the son • but the soul that sinneth, it shall die ; that the righteousness of the righteous sliall be ufion him, and the noickedncss of the ':vicked shall be uftcn him. The thing denied, is communion in the guilt and pur/ishment of the sins of others, that are distinct parts of Adam's lace ; and cx'pressly, in that case, wher« there 13 no consent and concurrence^ but a sincere disapprobation of the wickedness of ancestors. It is declared, that child

• WhkH Dr. T.iylor alleges, p. i 9, 11, 5.

ORICINAL SIN. -559

re?i ^vho are adu/: rnd come to act for themselves, who arc 'n\^/tfcouf!, and do not approve of, but sincerely condemn iht. '\vickedncss oflhcir yw^/ir;-.?, shall not be punished for//ir/r disapproved and avoided Iniquities. The occaaion of what is here said, as well as the cfr.-iiffn and plain <rn«r, shews, that noihint^ is here intended in the least degree inconjiintcyic with what has been supposed concernini^ Adam's posterity's sinninj^ and fallinc^ in his afiontasy. The occasion is, the people's murmurinij: at (iod's methods under the Mosaic dispensation ; ai,'recablc to that in Levil. xxvi. 39, " And they that arc left of you, shall pine away in their iniquity in their enemies lands ; and also in tlie iniquities of their fathers shall thev pine away with them :" And other parallel pLices, vespcctii:^ external juds^ments, whidi were the punishments most plainly threatened, and chiefly insisted on, under that dispensation, (which was, as it were, an external and carrw.l covenant) ane' particularly the people'^ suffering such terrible judgments at that day, even in Ezckiel's time, for the sins of Manassch \ according to what God says by Jeremiah (Jer. y.v. 4.) and agreeable to what is said in that confession, Lam. v. 7. '• Our fathers have sinned and are not, and we have borne their iniquities."

In what is said here, there is a special respect to the ii;-troducing of the gospel dispensation ; as is greatly confirmed by comparing this place with Jer. xxxi. 29, 50, 31. Under Avhich dispensation, the righteousness cf God's dealings with mankind would be more fully manifested, in the clear revelation then to be made of the method ot the Jud^rnerj of God, by which ihe JiTial utatc of wicked men is determined ; which is not according to the behavior of their ])articu1ar ancestors ; but eVcry one is dealt with according to the sin of/«* o«7i wicked heart, or siwful natuie and practice. The affair o\ derivation of the natural corruption of mankind in general, and of their consent re, and participation of, xbc firimitive and com-■i.'ion apostasy, is not in the least intermtdclled with, or touched, hy any thing meant or almrd at in Vac. true scope and design tjf this nlrice in Erekicl.

On the whole, if any do not like \hs fihilosofihi/y or the metcifi/njsics (as some perhaps may choose^bo call il) made use of in the foregoing; reasonings ; yet I cann6t4lpubt, but that a proper consideration of what is apparent and undeniable in fact^ with respect to the defiendence of the state and course of thinti;s in this universe on the sovereign constiiutlons of the suprerae Author and Lord of all, who gives none account of any of his matters^ and nvhose ivays are past finding out ^ will be sufficient, with persons of common modesty and sobriety, to stop their mouths from making peremptory decisions a>;ainst the justice of God, respecting what is so plainly and fully taught in his holy word-, concerning the derivation of a depravity and guilt from Adam to his posterity ; a thing so abundantly confirmed by what is found in the fa-//enewee of all mankind in all ages.

This is enough, one would think, forever to silence such bold expressions as these..." If this be just.,..U the scri/uures teach such doctrine. Sec, then the scriptures are of no use.... understanding is no understanding....and, JVhat a God must //c be, that can thus curse innocent creature;^ l....Is ^A/* thy Goz>, O Christian .'" S^c. See.

It may not be improper here to add something (by way of supplement to this chapter, in which we have had occasion to say so much about the imfiutq.tion of Adam's sin) concerning the opinions of two divi^tesy of no inconsiderable note among the dissf;nters in England, relating to -a /lartialim/iutC' tion of Adam's first sin.

One of ihem supposes that this sin, though truly imputed to INFANT'S, so that thereby they are exposed to a proper/2wn-ishmr?itj yet is not imputed to them in such a degree^ as that upon this account they should !)e liable to e^erwrn'punishment, as Adam himself was, but only to tcmfwral death, or annihila' tion ; Adam himself, the immediate actor, being made infinitely more guilty by it, than his posterity. On which I would observe, that to suppose, God imputes not all the guilt of Adam's sin, but only some little part of it, relieves nothing but one's imagination. To think of poor little infants bearing; i;ueh torments for Adam's sin, as they sometimes do in this

world, and these torments cmllnj^ in death and annihilation, may sit easier on the ima,;inalioiJ, than to conceive ol tiuir sufTering eternal misery lor it. Bui it does not at all relieve one's reason. There is no rule of reason that can be supposed to lie ap:ainst impu'inpj a sin in the whoLy of it, which was committed by one, to another who did not personally commit it, hnt what will also lie at^ainsi its beinr; so imputed and punished in part. For all the reasons (if there arc any) lie apainst the ititfiutclion ; not the ijuanlitij or degree of rjhat 10 imputed. If there be any rule of reason, that is sironj^ and good, lyint^ against a proper derivation or communication of guilt, from one that acted, to another thai did not act ; then it lies ai,^ainst all that is of this nature. The force of the reasons brought against imputing Adam's sin to his posterity (if chere be any force in them) lies in this, That Adam and his posterity are not one. But this lies as properly against charg-inp^ a part of the guilt, as the whole. For Adam*s posterity, by not being the same with him, had no more hand in a little of v^hat was done, than in the whole. They were as absolutely free from being concerned in that act partly^ as they were li'/ioHij. And there is no reason to be brought, why one man's sin cannot be justly reckoned to another's accouat, who was not then in being, in the iv/ioie of it; but what will as properly lie against its being reckoned to him in any/iar/, so as that he should be subject to any condemnation or punishment on that account. If^those reasons are good, all the difference there can be, is this; that to bring a great punishment on infants for Adam's sin, is a great act of injustice, and to bring a comparatively small puni:,hmcnt, is a smaller act of injustice, but not, that this is not en truly ar.d de!7ionstrabl<i an act of injustice, as the oJier.

To illustrate this by an instance something parallel. It is used as an argument wliy I may not exact from one of my lieighbors, what was due to me from ariother^ that he and my debtor are 7:0/ the same ; and that their concerns, interest? and properties are entirely distinct. Now if this argumcn: be good, it lies as truly ag.ninst my demanding^ from him a j^arr of the deb', as th? •!;oV. Indeed it Is a rrrc/rr act of

injustice for me to take from him the rjhole of it, than a pai't» but not mere truly and certainly an act of injustice.

Tiie other divine thinks there is truly an imputation of Adam's sin, so that vifants cannot be looked upon as innocent creatures ; yet seems to think it not agreeable to the perfections of God, to make the state of mfantb in another world H'Jorjc than a slate of nonexistence. But this to me appears plainly A giving tip. that grand point of the vn}mt.ation of Ad-4im*K ^inv 1x)lh in w hole and in part. For it supposes it to |ye luot'riijhti for God to bring any e-cil on a child of Adam, 'wblcH-Vs-'ifinocent as to personal sin, without ftaijingfor it, or balafrvcinc^ It with good ; eo that still the state of the child sbaitbt" 4s ^^oof/, as couid-be demanded in ^'z/5;/c<?, in case of >:[ncT(i innocence. ^Vhich plainly supposes that the child is iu>t exposed 10 any proper/.z^rz/f/;7;?r/zr at al!, or is not at all in tlUi: to divir.r jusiice, on tiie account of Adam's sin. For if the child were iru'y u> debt, then surely justice might take some:hing from Mm tiithout fmyingfor it^ or Vi'iihoxxi giving that which makes its state ^d^ good, as mere inTiocence could in justice require. If ]\e owca the suffering of some fiunishwent^ then there is wo need that justice should requite the infant ibr sufPoring that puni^jhment; ov make ufifor it, by confer-I'm?; some gocd, that tshaU countervail it, and in effect remove and disannul it; so that, on the whole, good and evil shall be at an even balance, yea, so that the scale o^good -shall preponderate. Ifit is unjust in a judge to or^ler any quantity of inoney to Iwi taken f ora another without raying him again, •^nd fully making it u<[-) io hini, it must be because he had justly ibrfeited none at all.

It seems to me pretty manifest that none can, in good consistence with themselves, own a real imputation of the i^uilt of Adam's first sin to his posterity, without owning that they 'dve justly viewed and treated as aimiers, truly guilty and children of ivratk on that account ; nor unless they allow a just imputation of the whole of the evil of that transgres-^?ion ; at least all that pertains to the essence of that act, as a full and complete violation of the covenant which

ORIGIMAL SIN.

Cod Iwd established ; even as much as if cacli one of mankind had ihc like covenant established wiih him sinj^ly, ana had by the like direct and full act cf r» hr!!'i!>. •.■'.! 'f-.J jr i^r himself.

CHAPTER IV.

tVhcrein several other Objections are coiuldcrcd.

DR. TAYLOR objects ac^ainst Adam's posterity's bein**' supposed to come into the world under ?k forfeiture of GodN blessin^^ and subject to his curse ihmugrh i\is sin....Thai at the restoration of the world after the ilood, God pronouncet? equivalent or greater blessings on Noah and his sons than he did on Adam at his creation, when he saiJ, " Be fruitful iind inuUiply, and replenish the earth, and have dominion over the fish of the sea," Sec*

To this I answer, i'n the followrnp^ remarks.

I. As it has been already shewn, that in t!)c threa'emn^^ denounced for Adam's sin, tl;ere was nolhin?;; which appears inconaialent wilh the co7itinuance of this/irr^rnr life for a season, or with the /iroj':agathij^ his kind ; so for the like reavoa, there appears nothii.pj in that threateriinj^, upon the supposition thut it reached Adam's posterity, incoveisft-nt with thetr enjoying ihe temfioral dlrasintr,^ of the p"escnt life, as lonp^ ax this is continued ; even those tcmpcrcl bleAsinj^s whith God pronounced on Adam at his first creation. For 1% must be observed, that tiic blessinp:s which Gr.d pronounced on Adam^ nhcn ! e Ilrst cica'cd him, aiul rfjre the trial -f't^ obrcfieacTp

S44 ORIGINAL SIN.

•were not the same with the blessinp;s which were susfiendeti on /2is obedience. The blessings thus suspendec!, were the blessings of eternal life ; which, if he had maintained his integrity through his trial, would have been pronounced upon him afterwards ; when God, as his judge, should have given him his reward. God might, indeed, if he had pleased, imme' diately have deprived him oUife^ and of all temfioral blessings given him before. But those blessings pronounced on him beforehand, were not the things, for the obtaining of which his trial was appointed. These were reserved^ till the issue of his trial should be seen, and t/ien to be pronounced in the blessed sentence, which would have been passed upon him by his judge, when God came to decree to him his reward for his approved fidelity. The pronouncing these latter blessings on a degenerate race, that had fallen under the threatening denounced, would indeed (without a redemption) have been inconsistent with the constitution which had been established. But the giving Ihem the former kind of blessings, which were not the things suspended on the trial, or dependent on his fidelity (and these to be continued for a season) was not at all inconsistent therewith.

2. It is no more an evidence of Adam's posterity's bein^ not included in the threatening, denounced for his eating thr. forbidden fruit, That they still have the ;ew/2orc/blessings ot fruitfulness and a dominion over the creatures continued to them, than it is an evidence of Adam*s being not included m that threatening himself, that he had these blessings continued to him, was fruitful, and had dominion over the creatures after his fall, equally with his posterity.

3. There is good evidence, that there were blessings implied in the benedictions God pronounced on Noah and his posterity, w hich were granted on a new foundation ; on the foot of a dispensation diverse from any grant, promise or revelation w^iich God gave to Adam, antecedently to his fall, even on the foundation of the covenant of grace, established in Christ Jesus ; a dispensation, the design of which is to deliver men from the curse that came upon them by Adam's sin, and to bring them to grea'.er blessings than ever he had.

These Messinrs were pronounced on Noah and his seed,onihc same founda Ion whereon afterwurdtjihc blcssinji:'was pronounced on Abrah un and his seed, which incKulcd bolh spiritual and temporal benefits. Noah h.ul his name prophetically given him by h\< falher/.amrcA, because by him ai^d bin seed, deliverance sho'ild be obtained from the curse which came by Adam's fall. Gen. v. 29. « And he called his name J^oahj (i. e. Rest) sayini;, Tliis same shall comfort us concerninj{ our work, and toil of our haiuls. because of the ^^round which the Lord hath cursed." Pursuant to the scope and intci\t of this prophecy (which indeed seems to respect the same thin{^ with the piophecy in Gen. iii. 15) are the bl6ssinf>s pronounced on Noah after the flood. There is this evidence of these blessinu^s beini^ conveyed throuf^h ih.e cliannel of the covenant of ^racc, and by the reden)piion throuj^h Jesus Christ, that they v\cre obtained by sacrifice ; or were bcsiow-ed as the efiect of God's favor to mankind, which was in consequence of God's smclUni^ a svjtet i^avor \\\ the sacrifice which Noah offered. And it is very evident by the epistle to the Hebrews, that the ancient sacrifxes never obtained the favor of God, bi3t only by virtue of ihe relation thev had to the sacrifice of C'hrist. Now that Noah and his family had been so wonderfully saved from the wrath of God, which had destioy-ed the res* of the world, and the world Mas as it were restored from a ruined sia'c, there was a proper occasion to point to the f>reat salvation lo come by Ghrist : As ir was a common thinc^ for God, on occasion of some p;rcat temfioral salvation of his people, or restoration from a low and miserable state, to renew the intimations of the p:reat spiritual restoration of the "world by Christ's redemption.* God deals with the j^encral-ity of mankind, in their present state, f.r difiercntly, on occasion of the redemption by Jesus Christ, from what he otherwise would do ; for, bcini^ capable subjects of savin,; mcrcvi Ihcy ha^ e a day of patience and i^race, and innumerable ten»-

• It may be n(»tcd that Dr. Taylor liimiclf signifies it m hij minJ, that these blessings on Noah wrrc oa th..* foot ot the c>.KenMt of ^racc, p. 8^, o?,

^oral blessings bestowed on tbcm ; whicb, as the apostle signifies (Acts xiv. 17) are testimonies of God's reconcileablenessi to sinful men, to put them npon seekhig after God.

But beside the sense in which the posterity of Noah in general partake of these blessings of do7nirdon over tke creatures^ 8cc. Noah himself, and all such of his posterhy as-have obtained like precious faith with that exercised by him in offering his sacrifice which made it a sweet savor, and by which it procured these blessings, have dominion over the creatures, through Christ, in a more excellent sense than Adam in innocency ; as they are made kings and priests unto God, and reign with Christ, and all things are theirs, by a covenant of grace. They partake with Christ in that dominion " over the beasts of the earth, the fowls of the air, and fishes of the sea," spoken of in^ the 8th Psalm ; which is by the apostle interpreted of Christ's dominion over the world. 1 Cor. XV. 27, and Heb. ii. 7. And the time is coming when the greater part of the posterity of Noah, and each of his sons, shall partake of this more honorable and excellent dominion over the creatures, through him " in whom all the families of the earth shall be blessed." Neither is there any need of supposing that these blessings have their most complete accomplishment until many ages after they were granted, any lYjore than the blessing on Japhet, expressed in those words, 'i God shall enlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem."

But that Noah's posterity have such blessings given them through the great Redeemer, who suspends and removes the curse which came through Adam*s sin, surely is no argument that they originally, and as they be in their natural state, are not under the curse. That men have blessings throughgrace.^ is no evidence of their being not justly exposed to the curse by nature, but it rather argues the contrary: For if they did not deserve the curse, they would not depend on grace and redemption for the removal of it, and for bringing them into-a state of favor with God.

Another objection which our author strenuously urges against the doctrine of Ong'.nal Sin^ is, that it disparages the

ORIGINAL SIN. S^f

divine goodness in giving us our beings which we ought to receive with thajikfulntss^ as a great gift of God's beneficence, a::d look upon as the first, original, and fuf^clamental fruit of the divine liberality.*

To this I answer, in the following observations.

1. This argument is built on the supposed truth of a thing in dis/mtc, and so is a begging the question. It is built on this supposition, that we are not properly looked upon as one \v\i\i Qw\\first falher^ in the slate wherein God at first created him, and in his fall from that state. If we are so, it becomes the whole race to acknowledge God's great gjodncsa to them, in the state wherein mankind was made atjirst; m the hajifiy state they were then in, and the fair opportunity Ihey then had of obtaining couj^rmed and eternal happiness, and to acknowledge it as an aggravation of their apostasy, and to humble themselves, that they were so ungrateful as to rebel against their good Creator. .Certainly, we may all do this wiih as much reason, as (yea, much more than) the people of Israel in Daniel's and Nehemiah's times, did with thankfulness acknowledge God's great goodness to their fath^ ers, many ages before, and in their confessions bewailed, and took shame to themselves, for the sins committed by their fathers^ notwithstanding such great goodness. See the ixth chapter of Daniel, and ixth of Nehemiah.

2. If Dr. Taylor would imply in his objection, that it doth not consist with the goodness of God, to give mankind being in a state of misery, what ever was done before by Adam, whether he sinned, or did not sin. I reply, if it be justly so ordei:ed, that there should be a posterity of Adam, which must be looked upon as one with him, then it is no more contrary to God*s attribute of goodness to give being to his posterity in a state of punisnment, than to continue the being of the ^a/nc wicked and guilty person, who has made himself guilty, in a state of punishment. The giving being, and the continuing being are both alike the work of God's power and will, and

both are alike fundamental to all blessings of mii's presep/.

* « Page 256, 257, 260, 71,...74> S.

and future existence. And if it be said, it cannot fee justly so oidcred, iliat there ^^hould be a posterity of Adam, which Slould be looked upon as one with him, this is begging the qutsticn,

3. If our author would have us suppose that it is contrary to the attribute oi goodness forGod,in«^7/ case,by an immediate act of his power, to cause existence, and to cause new existence, which shall be an exceeding miserable existence, by reason of cx| osedness to eternal ruii ; then his own sctieme must be supposed contrary to the attiibuie of God*s goodness ; for he supposes that God vi!l raise midtiiudcs from the dead at the last day (which will be giving new existence to their bodies, and to bodily life and sense) in oider only to their suffering eternal dtstruciion,

4. Notwiihsian(-ing we are so sinful and miserable, as we are by nature, yet we may have great reason to bless God, that he has given us our being under so glorious a dispensation of grace throuiih Jesus Chiist ; by which we have a liappy opj ortunity to be c?f/zrfrfr/frorn this sin and misery, and to ( btain U' speakable, e'ernal hapfiincss. And because, through our own wicked inclinaticni, we are disposed so to TiCglect ai)d abu^e this mercy, as to fail of final benefit by it, this is no reason why we ought not to be thankful for it, even according to our author's own sentiments. " What (says l.c*) if" the nvhole ivorld lies in ivickedncss, and few therefore shall be saved, have men no reason to be thankful, because they are wicked and ungrateful, and abuse their,being and G(.d*s bounty ? Suppose our own rvil inclinations do withhold us,** [viz. fiom seeking after happiness, which under the light of the gospel we are placed within the nearer and.easier reach of] " suppose the wh(Je Ci^.ristian world should lie in wickedness, and but few Christians should be saved ; is it therefore certainly trm-, that we cannot reasonably thank God for the gospel V* AVeil, and though the evil iyiclirMtwns^ which hinder our seeking and obtaining happiness by so glorious an n^vanlage, are what we are born with, yet if iliose inclination^,

ORIGINAL SIN. S4g

ate our fault of 67/2, that alters not the case ; and to say, they are not our sin, is still beggin^^ the qxicstion. Yea, it will follow from several thinj^s asserted by our author, put together, that notwiihstandini^ men are born in such circumstances, as that they are under a very great imfirobability of ever becoming? ri(fh(eou.<;, yet they niay have reason to t-e thankful for their beini;. Thus, particularly, those that were born and Jived nmong the Heathen, before Ciu'ist came. For Dr. Taylor asserts, that all men have reason of thankfulness for their bc-injj ; and yet he supposes, that the Heathen world, taken as a collective body, were dead in sin, and coukl no' deliver or help themselves, and tnerefore stood in necessity of the Christian dispensation. And not only so, but he supposes, tiiat the Christian world is now at lenj^th brought to the like deplorable and helpless circumstances, and needs a new dispensation for its relief; as I observed before. According to these things, the world in genera), not only formerly, but even at this day, are dead in sin, and helpless as to their salvation ; and therefore the generality of them that are born into it, are much more likely to perish, than otherwise, till the new dispensation comes : And yet he supposes, we all have reason to be thankful for our being. Yea, further still, I think, according to our author's doctrine, men may have great reason to be thanHful to God for bringing them into a state, which yet, as the case is, is attended with 7ni^ery^ as lis certain consequence. As, with respect to God's raising' the wicked to life, at the last day ; which, he supposes, is in itself a great ^."nr/?/, procured by Christ, and the wonderful grace of God through him : And if it be the fruit of God's v/onderful grace, surely men ouo-he to be thankful for that grace, and praise Ciod foi- it. Our doctrine of Original Sin, therefore, no more disparages God's goodness in man's formation in the womb, than his doctrine disparages God's goodness in their resurrection from the grave.

Another argument which Dr. Taylor makes use of, ao;ainst the doctrine of Original Sin, is what the scripture reveals of the process of the day o^ judguwyit; wiiich represents the judge as dealing with men singly and separalchjy rendering? to

every man according to his deeds, and accoriling to the im provenient he has made of the particular powfrs and talents God has given him personalty.*

But this objection will vanish, if we consider what is the e?id or design of that public judgment. Now this will not be^ that God mikyjind out what men are, or what punishment or reward is proper for them, or in order to the passing a right judgment of these things within himself, which is the end of human trials ; but it is to tnanifest what men are, to their own consciences, and to the world. As the day of judgment is called the day of the revelation of the righteous judg?nent of God; in order to this, God will make use of evidences^ or proofs. But the proper evidences of the wickedness of men's hearts^ (the true seat of all wickedness) both as to corruption of r.ature, and additional pollution and guilt, are men's ivorks.

The special end of God's public judgment will be, to make a proper, perfect, open distincizGn among men, rightly to state and manifest their difference one from another, in order to that separation and difference in the eternal retribution, that is to follow : And this difference will be made to appear, by their personal "joorks.

There are two things, with regard to which men will be tried, and openly distinguished by the perfect judgment oi' God at the last clay ; according to the twofold real distinction subsisting among mankind, viz. (1.) ThQ difference of state ; ih&t firimary and grand distinction, whereby all mankind are divided into two sorts, the righteous and the wicked. (2.) That secondary distinction, whereiby both sorts differ from others in the sarne general siaicyin'<legrees of additional fruits of righteousness and wickedness. Now the judge, in order to manifest both these, will judge men according to their personal works. But to inquire at the day of judgment, whether Adam sinned or no, or whether men are to be looked upon as one with him? and so partakers in his sin, is what in no re?-T>tct tends to manifest either of these distinctions.

* Page 65, 66, 111, 5..' ; '

ORIGINAL SIN. Snv

y. Jhejirat ihinc^ to be manifested, will be the sfate, that flach man is in, with respect to the grand distinction of th» wliole world of mankind into ri,!^^htcous and ivicked; or, in ■mctaphoi'icul hxnguage, 'w/:rat i\[\d tared; or, the children of the kingdom of Ghiist, and the children of the ni'icked one ; the latter, the head of the apostasy ; but the former, the head of the restoration and recovery. The judge, in manifesling this, will prove men's hearts by their ivorks, in such as have had opportunity to perform any works in the body. The evil 'ivvrks of tiie children of the ivicked one will be the proper Tnanifcstation and evidence or proof of whatever belongs to the general stale of such ; and particularly they will prove, that they belong to the kingdom of the great deceiver, and head of the apostasy, as they will demonstrate the exceeding corruption of their nature, and full consent of their hearts to the common apostasy ; and also that their hearts never relinquished the apostasy, by a cordial adherence to Christ, the great restorer. The judge will also make use of the good Tjorks of the righteous to shew their interest in the redemption of Christ; as thereby will be manifested the sincerity of their hearts in their acceptance of, and adherence to the Redeemer and his righteousness. And in thus proving the state of men's hearts by their actions, {he circumstcnces o^ those actions must necessarily come into consideration, to manifest the true quality of their actions ; as, each one's talents, opportunities, advantages, light, motives, &c.

2. The other thing to be manifested, will be that secondary distinction^ wherein particular persons, both righteous and' wicked, differ from one another, in the degree of secondary good or evil, tliat is something beside what is common to ail in the sa7nc general state : Tne degree of evil fruit, which is additional to the guilt and corruption of the whole body of apostates and enemies ; and the dtgrce of personal goodness and good fiuit, which is a secondary goodness, with respect to the righteousness and merits of Christ, which belong to all by that sincere faith manifested in all. Of this also each one's ivorks,, with their circumstances, oppovtuni'.ics, talents,, kc. will be the proper evidence.

As to the nature and aggravations of the general aipostasy' by Adam's sin, and also the nature and sufficiency of the re* demption by Jesus Christ, the great restorer, though both tliese will have vast influence on the eternal slate, which men shall be adjudged to, yet neither of ihem will properly belong to the trial men will be the subjects of at that day, in ord; r to the manifestation of their state^ wherein they are distingimihed one from another. They will belong to the business of that day no otherwise, than the manifestation of the great truths of religion in general; as the nature and perfections of God, the dependence ot mankind on God, as their creator and preserver. See. Such truths as these will also have great influence on the eternal state, which men will then be adjudged lo, as they aggravate the guilt of man's wickedness, and must be considered in order to a due estimate of Christ's righteousness, and men's personal virtue ; yet, being of general and equal concernment, will not properly belong to the trial of particular persons.

Another thing urged by our author particularly against the imputation of Adam's sin, is this : " Though, in scripture, action is frequently said to be imfiutedf reckoned-^ accomited to a person, it is no other than his own act and deed !"* In the same place he cites a number of places of scripuire, where these words are used, which he says are all that he can find in the Bible.

. But we are no way concerned with this argument at present, any further than it relates to iinfiutatioii of sin^ or sinful action. Therefore all that is in the argument, which relates to the present purpose, is this : That the word is so often applied in scripture to signify Cod's imputing personal sin, but never once to his imputing Adam's ^\w....So often !....Yio^ often ?....BvU tivice. There are but two of all those places which he reckons up, that speak of, or so much as have any reference to, God's irn/iuting sm to any person, where there is any evidtnce that only personal sin is meant ; and they are Lcvit. :Lvii. 3, 4, and 2 Tim. iv. 16. All therefore the argur

ment comes to, is this : That the word, imfiute, is applied in scripture, tivo times, to the case of God's imputing sin, and neither of those times to signify the imputing of Adam's sin, but both times it has reference to personal sin ; therefore Adam's sin is not imputed to his postrnly. And this is to be noted, that one of these two places, even that in Lcvit. xvii. 3, 4, noes not speak of imputing the act committed, but another not committed. The words are, " What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killcth an ox or lamb or goal in the camp, or thai killeth it out of the camp, and bring-eth it not unto the door of the labernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord, before the tabernacle of the Lord, blood shall be imfiuted unto that man ; he hath shed blood ; that man shall be cut off from among his people, i. e. plainly, viurder shall be imputed to him : He shall be put to death for it, and therein punished with the same severity as if he had slain a man. It is plain by I^ai. Ixvi. 3, that in some cases, a shedding the blood of beasts^ in an unlawful manner, was imfiuted io them, as if they sleiv a man.

But whether it be so or not, alihough in boih these places the word, impute^ be applied to personal sin, and to the very act done by the person bpoken of, and in ten more places ; or although this could be said of all the places, which our author reckons up ; yet that the word, imfiute, is never expressly applied to Adam's sin, does no more argue, that it is not imputed to his posterity, than it argues, that pride, unbelief, lying, theft, oppression, persecution, fornication, adultery, sodomy, perjury, idolatry, and innumerable other paiticular moral evils, are never imputed to the persons that committed them, •r in whom they are ; because the word, imfiute, though so ©flen used in scripture, is never applied to any of these kinds «f wickedness.

1 know not what can be said here, except one of these two things : That though these sins are not expressly said to be imputed^ yet other words are used that do as plainly and certainly imply that they are imputed, as if it were said so expressly. ; Very well, and so I say with respect to the imputation of Adam's sin. The thing meant by the word, imfiut^: 2 W

S^4 ORIGINAL SIN.

may be as plainly and certainly expressed by using othw words, as if that word were expressly used ; and more cer» tainlijy because the words used instead of it, may amount to an exfilanation of this word. And this, I think, is the very case here. Though the word, imfitUe^ is not used with respect to Adam's sin, yet it is said, All ha-ue sinned; which, respecting infants, can be true only of their sinning by his sin. And, it is said. By his disobedience many ivtre made siir-Tiers ; and, Judgment and condemnation came u/ion all by that sin ; and that, by this means, death) [the wages of sin] passed on all men^ &c. Which phrases amount to full and precise explanations of the word, impute ; and therefore do more certainly determine the point really insisted on.

Or, perhaps it will be said. With respect to those personal sins forementioned, pride^ unbeliefs &c. it is no argument, they are not imputed to those who are guilty of them, that the very word, impute^ is not applied to them ; for the loord itself is rarf/i/used ; not one time in a hundred, and perhaps five hundred, of those wherein the thing meant is plainly implied, or may be certainly inferred. Well, and the same also may be replied likewise, with respect to Adam's sin.

It is probable, Dr. Taylor intends an argument against Orif^inal Sin, by that which he says in opposition to what R, R. suggests of c/«7c?rew*« discovering the princifdes of iniquity ^ and seeds of sin^ before they are capable of moral action^* \iz. That little children are made patterns of humility ^^ meekness and innocence^ in Malth. xviii. 3....1 Cor. xiv. 20, and Psal. cxxxi. 2.

But when the utmost is made of this, there can be no shadow of reason, to understand more by these texts, than that little children are recommended as patterns in regard of a negative virtue, innocence with respect to the exercises and fruits of sin, harmlessness as to the hurtful effects of it ; and that image of meekness and humility arising from this, in conjunction with a natural tenderness of mind, fear, selfdifii-dence, yieldableness, and confidence in parents and others older than themselves. And so, they are recommended ns

• Pag« 77, 7&, S.

ORIGINAL SIN. S55

patterns of virtue no more than cloves^ which are an harmless sort of creature, and have an image of the virtues of meekness and love. Even according to Dr. Taylor's own doctrine, no more can be made of it than this : For his sclicme will not admit of any such thing as fiosilive virtue, or virtuous disposition, in infants ; he insisting (as was observed before) that virtue must be the fruit of thought and rejiection. But there can be no thought and reflection, that produces posiiive virtue, in children, not yet capable of moral action ; and it is such children he speaks of. And that little children have a negative virtue, or innocence, in relation to the fiositive acts and hurtful effects of vice, is no argument that they have not a corrujn nature within them : For let their nature be ever so corrupt, yet surely it is no wonder that they be not guilty of positive wicke<i action, before they are capable of any moral action at all. A young viper has a malignant nature^ though Incapable of doins: a malignant action, and at present appearing a harmless creature.

Another objection, which Dr. Taylpr and some others offer ap;ainst this doctrine, is, That it fioiira contemfit ufion the human nature.^

But their declaiming on this topic is like addressing the affections and conceits oi children, rather than rational arguing with men. It seems, this doctrine is not com/ilaisani enough. I am sensible, it is not suited to the taste of some, who are so very delicate (to say no worse) that they can bear iioihinf^: but compliment and flattery. No contempt is by this doctrine cast upon the noble faculties and capacities o^ man*s nature or the exalted business, and divine and immortal happiness he is made capable of. And as to speaking ill of man's present moral sia*,e^ I presume, it will not be denied, that shame helonG:s to them that are truly sinful; and to suppose, ■that this is not the native character of mankind, is still but meanly begging the question^ If we, as we come into the world, are truly sinful, and consequently miserable^ he acts but di friendly part to us, who endeavors fully to discover and

• Page 74> 75' ^

$66 ORIGINAL SIN.

manifest our disease. Whereas, on the contrary, he acts an unfriendly part, who to his utmost hides it from us ; and so, in effect, does what in him lies to prevent our seeking a remedy from that, which, if not remedied in time, must bring us finally to shame and everlasting contempt^ and end in perfect and remediless destruction hereafter.

Another objection^ which some have made against this doctrine, much like the former, is, That it tends to beget in Us an ill ofiinion of our felloii^ creatures^ and so to promote ill nature and mutual hatred.

To which I would say, If it be truly so, that we all come ^nful into the world, then our heartily acknowledging it, tends to promote fiumility: But our disowning that sin and t:uilt, which truly belongs to us, and endeavoring to persuade ourselves that we are vastly better than in truth we are, e^is t6 ft foolish selfexaltation and pride. And it is manifesi, by tea-Son, experience, and the word of God, that firide is the chief source of all the contention^ mutual hatred^ and /// w/V/, whirh are so prevalent in thfe' world ; and that nothing so effeciually promotes the contrary tempers and deportments, as humility. This doctrine teaches us to think no worse of others, than of ourselves : It teaches us, that we ar6 alU as we are by nature, tompanions in a miserable, helpkss condition ; which, under a revelation of the divine mercy, tends to promote mutual tompassiom. And nothing has a greater tendency to promote those amiable dispositions of rnercy, forbearance, long suffering, gentleness and forgiveness, than a sense of our own extreme unworthiness and niisery, and the infinite need we have of the divine pity, forbearance and iorgiveness, together with a hope of obtaining mercy. If the doctrine, which teaches that mankind are corrupt by nature, tends to promote ill willf "why should not Dr. Taylor's doctrine tend to it as much ? For he teaches us, that the generality of mankind are very fvickrd^ having made themselves so by their own free choice, without any necessity ; which is a way of becoming wicked, that renders men truly worthy o^ resentment; but the other, rj}t at ally even according to his own doctrine*

ORIGINAL SIN. W^

Another exclamation against this doctrine, Is, That it xends to hinder comfort and joi/, and to firomote melancholy and gloominess of mind.

To which I shall briefly say, Doubtless, supposinj^ men are really become sinful, and so exposed to the displeasure of God, by ivliafever means, if ihey once come to have their eye» opened, and are not very stupid, the reflection on their c se will tend to make them sorroiuful; and it is ft, il should. Men, with whom this is the case, may well be filled with sor* row, till they are sincerely willing to forsake their sins, and turn to God. But there is nothing in this doctrine, that in the least stands in the way of comfort and exceeding joy, to such as find in their hearts a sincere willingness, wholly to forsake all sin, and give their hearts and whole selves to Christ, and comply with the gospel method of salvation by

him.

Another thmg objected is, that to make men believe that wickedness belongs to their very nature, tends to encourage them in 6m, and plainly to lead them to all manner of iniquity ; because they are taught, that sin is natural, and therefore necessary and unavoidable J*

But if this doctrine, which teaches that sm is natural to us, does also at the same time teach us, that it is never the better, or less to be condemned, for its being natural, then it does not at all encourage sin, any more than Dr. Taylor's doctrine encourages wickedness, when it is become ?m;e/tfrar^; who teaches, that such as by custom have contracted strong habits of sin, are unable to helix themselves^ And is it reasonable to represent it as encouraging a man's boldly neglecting ^nd wilfully continuing in his disease, without seeking a cure, to tell him of his disease, to shew him that his disease is re^ and very fatal, and what he can never cure himself of; yeX withal directing him to a great/lAt/sfc/an, who is sufficient for his restoration ? But for a more particular answer to what is objected against the doctrine of our naturalimyiorewc^ and

» Page 231, and some other places. + See his exposition of Rooi. vii, p. «C5...!«ao. But especially in hi» Paraphra:c and Kciss on the Epistle;

inability^ as being an encouragement to go on in sin, and a discouragement to the use of all means for our help, I must for brevity refer the reader to what has been largely written on this head in my discourse on the Freedom of the Will.

Our author is pleased to advance another notion, among others, by way of objection against the doctrine of Original Sin ; that if this doctrine be true, it would be unlawful to beget children. He says,* '^ If natural generation be the means of unavoidably conveying all sin and wickedness into the world, it must itself be & sinful and tmlawful ih'm^," Now, if there be any force of argument here, it lies in this proposition, " Wiiatsoever is a means or occasion of the certain, infallible existence of sin and wickedness, must itself he sinful." But I imagine Dr. Taylor had not thoroughly weighed this prop* osilion, nor considered where it would carry him. For God*s continuing in being the devil, and others that are finally given up to wickedness, will be attended, most certainly and infallibly, with an eternal series of the most hateful and horrid wickedness. But will any be guilty of such vile blasphemy, as to say, therefore God's upholding them in being is itself a sinfjd thing ? In the same place our author says, « So far as we are generated in sin, it must be a sin to generate." But there is no appearance of evidence in that position, any more than in this : " So far as any is upheld in existence in sin, it is a ain to uphold them in existence.** Yea, if there were any rea§on in the case, it would be strongest in the latter position ; for parents, as Dr. Taylor himself observes, are not the aU" thors of the beginning of existence ; whereas, God is truly the author of the continuance of existence. As it is the known >vill of God, to continue Satan and vniLions of others in bdng^ though the most sure consequence is the continuance of a vast infernal world, full of everlasting hellish ivickcdnens ; so it is part of the revealed will of God, that this world of mankind should be continued, and the spedes /iro/iagated^ for his own wise and holy purposes ; which will is complied with by the parents joined in lawful marriage ; whose children, though

• Page 145.

they come into the world in sin, yet are capable subjects cff eternal holiness and happiness ; which infinite benefits for their children, parents ha^e great reason to encourat^e a hope of, in the way of giving up ihcir children to*. God in faith, through a Redeemer, and bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I think, this may be answer enough to such a cavil.

Another objection is, that the doctrine of Original Sin is no oftener^ and ^o more plainly spoken of in scripture ; it being, if true, a very important doctrine. Dr. Taylor, in many-parts of his book suggests to his readers, that there are very feio texts^ in the whole Bible, wherein there is the least appearance of their teaching any such doctrine.

Of this I took notice before, but would here say further, That the reader who has perused the preceding defence of this doctrine, must now be left to judge for himself, whether there be any ground for such ari allegation ; whether there be not texts in sufficient number, both in the Old Testament and New, that exhibit undeniable evidence of this great article of Christian divinity ; and whether it be not a doctrine taught in the scripture with great plainness. I think there are few, if any, doctrines of revelation, taught more plainly and expressly. Indeed, it is taught in an explicit manner more in the New Testament, than m the Old ; which is not to be -wondered at; it being thus with respect to all the most important doctrines of revealed religion.

But if it had been so, that this doctrine were rarely taught in scripture ; yet if we find that it is indeed a thing declared to us by God, if there be good evidence of its being held forth to us by any word of his, then what belongs to us, is, to believe his word, and receive the doctrine which he teaches us, and not, instead of this, to prescribe to him how often he shall speak of it, and to insist upon knowing what reasons he has for speaking of it no oftener^ before we will receive what he teaches us, or to pretend that he should give us an account, why he did not speak of it so plainly as we think he ought to have done, soo7ier than he did. In this way of proceeding, if it be reasonable, the Sadducees of old, who denied any resur-

xection or future state, mii^ht have maintained their ciausi; against Christ, when he blamed them for " not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God ;" and for not understanding by the scripture that there would be a resurrection to spiritual enjoyment, and not to animal life, and sensual gratifications; and they might have insisted that these doctrines, if true, were very important^ and therefore ought to have been spoken of in the scriptures oftener and more exfilicitly^and not that the church of God should be left, till that lime, with only a/fw, oZ»sc«re intimations of that which so infinitely concerned them. And they might w ith disdain have rejected Christ*s argument by way of inference^, from God*s calling himself, in the Books of Moses, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For answer, they might have said, that Moses was sent on purpose to teach the people the mind and will of God ; and therefore, if these doctrines were true, he ought in reason and in truth to have taught them plainly and frequently, and not have left the people to spell out so important a doctrine, only from God's saying, that he was the God of Abraham, 8cc.

One great end of the scripture is;, to teach the world what wanner of being God is ; about which the world, without revelation, has been so wofuUy in the dark ; and that God is an injinite beings is a doctrine of great imfiortance^ and a doctrine sufficiently taught in the scripture. But yet it appears to me, this doctrine is not taught there, in any measure, wiih such exfilicitness 2^Y\d precisio?!^ as the doctrine of Original Sin ; and the Socinians, who deny God*s omnipresence and omniscience, have as much room left them for cavil, as the Pelagians, who deny Original Sm.

Dr. Taylor particularly urges, that Christ says not one word of this doctrine throughout the four gospels ; which doctrine, if true, being so important, and what so nearly concerned the great woik of redemption, which he came to work out (as is supposed) one would think, it should have been emphatically spoken of in every page of the gospels,*

•Figc 242,843.

In reply to this, it may be observed, that by the account given in the four gospels, Christ was continually saying those thini^s which plainly imfiUed^ that all men in their original state are sinful and miserable. As, when he declared that " they which are whole, need not a physician, but they which are sick \* that " he came to seek and to save that which was lost ;"t that it was necessary for all to be born again^ and to be converted^ and that otherwise they could not enter into the kingdom of heaven ;\ and that all were sinntrs^ as well aS those whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices, &c. and that every one luho did not re/ient, should fierish ;§ withal directing every one to firay to God for forgiveness of sin ;\\ using our necessity of forgiveness from God, as an ar;^ument "with all to forgive the injuries of their neighbors ;^ teaching that earthly parents, though kind to their children, are in themselves evil ;** and signifying, that things carnal and corrufic^ are properly the things ofmen;\\ warning his disciples rather to beware of men, than of wild beusts \\\ often representing the world as evil^ as wicked in its works, at enmity with truth and holiness^ and hating him ;§§ yea, and teaching plainly, that all men are extremely and inexpressibly sinful, owing ten thousand talents to their divine creditor.(|lj

And whether Christ did not plainly teach Mcodemus thfc doctrine of original total depravity, when he came to him to know what his doctrine was, must be I6ft to the reader to judge, from what has been already observed on John iii. 1.... 11. And besides, Christ, in the course of his preaching, took the most proper method to convince men of the corruption of their nature, and to give them an effectual and practical knowledge of it, in application to themselves, in particular, by teaching and urging the holy and strict latv of God, in its extent and spirituality and dreadful threatenings. Which, above all things, tends to search the hearts of men,

*Matt.ix. 12. f Matt, xviil. ii,Lukexix. lo. | Matt, xviii. 3. ^Lukcxiii. i....5. II Matt. vi. 12, Luke Xi. 4 UMatt. vi. 14, i5,and xviii. 35. **MaU. vii. 11. ft Matt. xvi. 23. XX Matt. x. 16, 17. \^ Joha vU. 7, viii. e^, xr>. 17, XV. 18, 19. Ijll Matt, xviii. 81, to the end.

2X

J62 ORIGINAL SIN.

and to teach them their inbred, exceeding depravity; ne! merely as a matter of speculation, but by proper conviction of conscience ; vhich is the only knowledge of Original Sitij that can avail to prepare the mind for receivine: Christ's redemption ; as a man's sense of his own sickness prepares him to apply in crood earnest to the physician.

And as to Christ's beinp: no more frequent and particular in mentioninp: and incukating this point in a doctrinal manner, it is probable one reason to be given for it, is the same that is to be ei^en for his speaking no oftener of God's creating the ivcrld ; vhich, though so important a doctrine, is scarce ever spoken of in any of Christ's discourses ; and no wonder, seeing this was a matter which the Jews, to whom he confined hi persona] ministry, had all been instructed in from their forefathers, and never was called in question am.ong them. And there is a great deal of reason, from the ancient Jewish writers, to suppose that the doctrine of Orig-Snal sin had ever been allowed in the open profession of that people ;* though they were generally, in that corrupt lime,

• What IS found in the more ancient of the Jewish Rabbies, vho havfr vrrotc since the coming of Chr'St. is an argument of this. M^ny things of. this sort are taken notice of by Stapferus, in his Theologia PoUmica before mentioned. Some of these things which are there cited by him in Latin, 1 shall-here faithfully give in English, for the sake of the English reader.

**....So Manasseh, concerning Human Frailty, page 129. Gen. viii. 21. <♦/ will not ofiy more curse the earth for man*s sake ; for the appetite of man is-ivxljrom his youth;" that is, from the time when he comes forth from his moth* er's womb. For at the same time that he sucks the breasts, he followg his lust ; and while he is yet an infant, he is under the dominion of anger, envy, hatred, and other vices to which that tender age is obnoxious. Prov xxii. 15. Solomon says, *' Foolishness is bound to the mnd of a child." Concerning which place, R. Levi Ben Gersom ohser-ves thus : ^^ Foolishness^ as it were, grows ta him in his very beginning.'" Concerning this sin, which is common and ©rig-inal to all men, David said. Psalm Ji. 5. '* Behold, I was begotten in iniquity, and in sin did my mother warm me " Upon which place Eben Ezra says thus ; *' Behold, because of the concupiscence which is innate in the heart of man, it is said, I am begotten in iniquity" And the sense is, that there is implanted ia the heart of man, Jetzer harang, an evil figment, from his nativity.

" And Manasseh Ben Israel, de Fragil. page «. " Behold, I was formed in. f«ifuifv, and in sin hath my mother warmed m:,** But whether this be undo.

^very far from a practical conviction of it; and many notion* -were then prevalent, especially amonj^ the Pharisees, which were indeed inconsistent with it. And though on account of these prejudices they might need to have this doctrine explained and applied to them, yet it is well known, by all acquainted with tiieir Bibles, tliat Christ, for wise reasons, spake

stood concerning the common mother, which was Eve, or whether David spake only of his own mother, he would sijjuify, that sin is as it were natural^ and inseparable in this life. For it ia to be observed, that Eve conceived aftet the transgression was commiitcd ; and as many as were begotten afterwards,, were not brought forth in a conformity to the rule of right reason, but in conformity to disorderly and lustful atfec ions." He adds, " One of the w.se men o? the Jews, namely, H. Aha^ rightly observed, David would signify that jt is impossible, even for pious men who excel in virtue, never to com> mit anv sin *' job also asserts tho same thing with David, chap. xiv. 4, saying, " Who will givt a clean thing from an unclean ? Truly not one." Concerning which words Aben Ezra says thus : '* The sense is the same with that, / ■Siai begotten in iniquity., because man is made out of an unclean thing." Stap" ferus^ Theolog. Polem. Tom. iii, p 36, 37,

Id. Ibid, p 133, &c. '■'■So Sal Jarchi adGemaran,Cod. Schabhath, fol. 14a, p. a. *' And this is not only to be referred to sinners, because all the pofteri-ty of \ht first man are in like manner fubjected to all the curses pronounced ou him " And Manasseh Etw Israel, in his Preface to Human Fraiity, says, *' I had a mind to shew by what means it came to pass, that when iht first father •t all had lost his righteousness,his posterity are begotten liable to ihcsame punm ishment with him." And Munsterus, on the gos-pel of Matthew, cites the following words from the bo-k called The Bundle of Myrrh : "The blessed Lord laid to the first man, when he cursed him. Thorns and thistles skallit bring fo->ih to thee: and thou shdlt eat the herb 0/ike field. The thing which he means, is, that because of his sin oil who should descend from him, should be W'cked and perverse, like t^iorns and thistles, according to that word of the Lord, speaking to the Prophet : Thorns and iiritaton are with theSy and thou dwellest amo^'g scorpions And all thjs is from the serpent, who was the Devil, Sam-miel, who emitted a mort lerous and corruptive poison into Eve, and became the cause of death to Adam himself, v/hen he ate the fruit. Remarkable is the place quoted in Joseph de Fois^n. against Martin Raymund, p. 471, of Master Menachcm Hakanatensis, Sect Bereschit, from Midrasch Tehillim, which is cited bv Hoornbekius, against the Jews, in these words : ♦« It is no wonder that the sin of Adam and Eve is written and sealed with the king's ring, and to be propagated to all following generations ; because on the day that Adarn was created, al. things were ftnis. ed ; so that he stood forth tlje f)crfection and completion of the whole workmanship oi the world; so whn^

more sparingly and obscurely of several of the most important doctrines of revealed religion, relating to the necessity, grounds, nature, and way of his redemption, and the method of the justification of sinners, while he lived here in the flesh, and left these doctrines to be more plainly and fully opened and inculcated by the Holy Spirit, after his ascension.

fte sinned, the whole world sinned, whose sin we bear and suffer. But the matter is not thus with respect to ihff sins of his posterity." Thus far Stap-ferus.

Besides these, 2i& Ainszvort/i on Gen.viii. 21, observes, <« In BereshithRalba^ (a Hebrew commentary on this place) a Rabbin is said to be asked, When is the evil imagination put into man ? And he answered, From the hour that he is formed." And in Pool's Synopsis it is added from Grotius, *'So Rabbi Salomon interprets Gen. viii. 21. The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth^ of its being evil from the time thai he is taken out of his mother's bowels '* Aben Ezra thus interprets Psalm li. 5. I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did. my mother conceive me ; that evil concupiscence is implanted in the heart from childhood, as if he v^erc formed in it; and by my mother, he understands Eve, who did not bear children till she had sinned. And so Kafvcnaki says, How shall I avoid sinning ? My original is corrupt, and from thence are those sins. So Manasseh Ben Israel, from this place (Psalm li. 5) concludes that not only David, but all m^akind, ever since sin was introduced into the world, do sin from their original. To this purpose is the answer of Rabbi Hakkadosch^ which there is an account of in the Talmud. From what time dees concupiscence rule over man ? From (he very moment of his frst formation, or from his nativity f-Anfw. From his formation." Pool's Synops. in Loc.

On these things 1 observe, there is the greatest reason to suppose that these old Rabbies of the Jewish nation, who gave such heed to the Tradition oj the Elders, would never have received this doctrine of Original Sin^ had it not been delivered down to them from iht'irforefathers. For it is a doctrine very disagreeable to those practical principles and notions wherein the religion of the unbelieving Jews most fundamentally difets from the religion maintained among Christians ; particularly their notion oijustifiation by their own righteousness and privileges as the children of Abraham, &c. without standing in need of any satisfaction by the sufferings of the Messiah. On which account the modern Jews do now uuivcisally reject the doctrine of Original Sin, and corruption of nature, as Stapferus observes. And it is not at all likely that the ancient Jews, if no such doctrine had been received by tradition from the fathers, would have taken it up from the Christians, whom they had in such great contempt and enmity ; especially as it is a doctrine so peculiarly agreeable to the Christian notion of the spiritual salvation of Jesus and so contrary tb their carnal notions of the Messiah, and of his salvation aad kingdom, a^d

But if after all, Christ did not speak of this doctrine often enough to suit Dr. Taylor, he might be asked, Why he supposes Christ did no oftcner^ and no nxove/ilainly teach some of /lis (Dr. Taylor's) doctrines, which lie so mucii insists on ? As, That temporal death comes on all mankind by Adam; and, That it comes on them by him, not as a punishment or

so contrary to their opinion of themselves, and a doctrine, which men in general are so apt to be prejudiced against. And besides, these Rablics do expressly refer to the opinion of tht'w forefathers ; as R. Manassek says, " According to the opinidti of the ancients, none are subject to death, but those v/h'ich have sinned : For where there is nosing there is no death."....Stzpier, Tom. iii. p. 37, 38.

But we have more direct evidence, that the doctrine of Original Sin ww truly a received doctrine among the ancient Jews, even before the coming of Christ. This appears by ancient Jewish writings, which were written before Christ; as, in the apocrypha, a Esdras, iii 2j. V For the first Adam, bearing a^ wicked heart, transgressed, and was overcome;; and so be all thty that arc horn of him. Th\xi infirmity was made permanent; and the law also in the heart of the people, with the malignity of the root; so that the good departed away, and the evil abode still:"....2 Esdras iv. 30. ♦' For the grain of evil seed hath been sown in the heart of Adam, from the beginning ; and how much ungodliness hath it brought up unto this time ? And how much shall it yet bring forth, till the time of threshing shall coaie ?" And chap. rii. 46. " It had been better, not to have given the earth unto Adam ; or else, when it was given him, to have restrained him from sinning ; for what, profit is it, for men now in this present time, to live in heaviness, and after death, to look for punishment ? O thou Adam, what hast thou done ! For though it was thou tbat sinned, thou art not fallen alone, but we all that come efthee." And we K3d, Eccl. XXV. 24. "Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her ice all die.*'

As this doctrine of original corruption was constantly maintained in the church of God from the beginning ; so from thence, in all probability, as well as from the evidence of it in universal experience, it was, that the wiser //Mi/;<;?j maintained the like doctrine Particularly Plato, that great philosopher, so distinguished for his veneration of ancien traditions, and diligent inquiries after them. Gale, in his Court of the Gentiles, observes si follows: " Plato says (Gorg. fol. 493.) / have heard from the wise men, that we are now dead, and that the body is but our sepulchre. And in his Timceas Locrus (fol. 1C3) he says, The cause of vitiosity is from our parents, and frst principles, rather than from ourselves. So that we never relinquish those actions, which lead us to follow tiuse primitive blemishes of our first parents. P/a/o mentions the corrup, tioA 9f the will, and seems to disown ^nyfru will to true good j albeit he al-

•calamity, but as a great/at^or, being made a rich benefit, and Z fruit of God's abundant grace, by Christ's redemfition, v/ho came into the world as a second Adam for this end. Surely, if this were so, it was of vast imfiortance, that it should be <known to the church of God in all ages, who saw death reigning over infants, as well as others. If infants were indeed perfectly zVznocenr, was it not ne-dl\il, that the c/m^-n of that which was such a melancholy and awful dispensation towards 30 many millions of innocent creatures, stiouid be known, in order to prevent the worst thoughts of God from arising in the minds of the constant spectators of so mysterious and gloomy a dispensation ? But why then such a total silence about it, for four thousand years together, and not one word of it in all the Old Testament ; nor one wofd of it in all the four gosfiels ; and indeed not one word of it in the whole Bi" hie, but only as forced and wrung out by Dr. Taylor's arts of criticism and deduction, against the plainest and strongest evidence !

As to the arguments, made use of by many late writers, from the universal moral sense, and the reasons they offer from experience, and observation of the nature of mankind, to shew that we are born into the world with principles of vir*

lows some tvtpvia,^ or natural disposlfeons, to civil good, in some great heroes. Socrates asserted the corruption of human nature, or uttKov efrt^yroir. Grotiui afHrms, that the philosophers acknowledged, it was connatural to men,

tO«rt."

Seneca (Benef. v. 14) says, *'Wickedness has not its first beginning io VIxzVcd. practice: though by that it is first exercised and made manifest." And Plutarch (de Sera vindicta) says, " Man does not first become wicked, when •he first manijests hintse!Jso : Buc he hath wickedness/rom the beginning ; and he skews it as so m as he finds opportunity and ability. As men rightly judge, that the sting is not first engendered in scorpions w-hen they strike, or the poison in vipers when they bite"....Poors Synops. on Gen. viii. »i.

To which may be subjoined what Juvenal says,

....Ad mores miuTi recurrit

Damnatos.Jixa et maluri nescia."

Englished thus, in prose;

Nature, a thing fixed and not knowing how to change, rcturrj to it« vickcd manners, Watti's Ruin and Recovery,

tue ; vritha natural prevailing: relish, approbation, and love of ulg^hteousncss, truth, and p^oodness, and of whatever tends to the pub'ic welfare ; with a prevailing natural disposition to dislike, to resent and condemn what is selfish, unjust and immoral ; and a native bent in mankind to mutual benevolence, tender compassion, &c. those who have had such objections flg^ainst the doctrine of Original Sin, thrown in their way, and desire to see them particularly considered, I ask leave ta refer them to a Treatise on the Miture of true Virtue^ lying by me prepared for the press, which may ere long be exhibited to public view.

CONCLUSIOISr.

On the whole, I observe, There are some other things, besides arguments, in Dr. Taylor's book, which are calculated to influence the minds, and bias the judgments of some sorts of readers. Here, not to insist on the taking profession he makes, in many places, of sincerity^ humility^ meekness^ moi^^ty, charity, &c. in his searching after truth ; and freely proposing his thoughts, with the reasons of them, to others ;* nor on his magisterial assurance, appearing on many occasions, and the high contemfit h: sometimes expresses of the opinions and arguments of very excellent divines and fathers in the church of God, who have thought differently horn. him :t Both of which things, it k not unlikely, may have a degree of influence on some of his readers. (However, that they may have only their jusC influence, these things might properly be compared together, and set in contrast, one with the other.)....! say, not to dwell on these matters, I would take some notice of another thing, observable in the writings of Dr. Taylor, and many of the late opposers of the more peculiar doctrines of Christianuy, tending (especially wiiUjuve^ mile and vnivary readers (not a little to abate the force, and

• See his Preface, and p 6, 237, 265, 267, 175, 5. + Page ii», 185, »50i «6»i >59i 161, 183, x8«, 77f •^.

S6S ORIGINAL SIN.

prevent the due effect, of the clearest scri/iture evidences) id favor of those important doctrines; and particularly to make void the arguments taken from the writings of the Apostle Paul, in which those doctrines are more plainly and fully re- , vealed, than in any other part of the Bible. What I mean, is this : These gentlemen express a high opinion of this apostle, and that very justly, for his eminent genius, hib admirable sagacity, strong powers of reasoning, acquired leaitling, Sec. They speak of him as a writer....of masterly address, of extensive reach, and deep design, every where in his epistles, almost in every word he says. This looks exceeding sfie^ cious : It carries a plausible appearance of Christian zcal^ and attachment to the Holy Scrijitures^ in such a testimony of high veneration for that great apostle, who was not only the principal instrument of propagating Christianity, but with his own hand wrote so considerable a part of the New Testament. And I am far from determining, with respect at least to some of these writers, that they are not sincere in their declarations, or that all is mere artifice^ only to make way for the reception of their own peculiar sentiments. However, it tends greatly to subserve such a purpose ; as much as if it were designedly contrived, with the utmost subtlety, for that end. Hereby their incautious readers are prepared the more easily to be drawn into a belief, that they, and others in their way of thinking, have not rightly understood many of those things in t^iis apostle's writings, which before seemed very filain to them ; and they are also prepared, by a prepossession m favor oi ihtSQ neiu nuritersi to entertain a favorable thought of the intci'Jiretaiions put by them upon the words and phrases of this apostle ; and to admit in many passages a meaning which before lay entirely out of sight; quite foreign to all that in the view of a common reader seems to be their obvious sense ; and most remote from the expositions agreed in, by those ■which used to be esteemed the greatest divines, and best commentators. For they must know, that this apostle, being a man of no vulgar undersliinding, it is nothing strange if his meaning lies very drc/i; and no wonder then, if the superfi^ cial discerning and observation of vulgar Christians, or indeed

ORIGINAL SIN. S69

of the herd of common divines, such as the Westminster As' sembliji &c. falls vastly short of the apostle's reach, and frequently does not enter into the true spirit and design of Paul's epistles. They must understand, that the Jirst reformers, and preachers and expositors in general, both before and since the reformation, for fifteen or sixteen hundred years past, were too unlearned and shortsighted^ to be capable of penetrating into the sense, or fit to undertake the making comments on the writings of so great a man as this apostle ; or else had dwelt in a cave oi bigotry and stufierstition^ too gloomy to allow them to use their own uiiderstandings with freedom, in reading the scripture. But at the same time, it must be understood, that there is risen up, now at length in this happy age of light and liberty, a set of men, of a more free and generous turn of mind, a more inquisitive genius, and better discernment. By such insinuations they seek advantage to their cause ; and thus the most unreasonable and extravagant interpretations of scripture are palliated and recommended : So ihat, if the simple reader is not very much on his guard, if he <loes not clearly see with his own eyes, or has too much indolence, or too little leisure, thoroughly to examine for himself (as few, alas, are .willing to be at the pains of acquainting themselves thoroughly with the apostle's writings, and of comparing one part of them with another, so as to be fully able to judge of these gentleman's glosses and pretences) in this case, he is in danger of being imposed on with delusive appearances ; as he is preparer^ by this fair pretext of exalting the sagacity of the apostle, and by a parade of learning, criticism, exact version, penetration into the new scope, and discerning of wonderful connexions, together with the airs these writers assume of dictatorial peremptoriness, and contempt of old opinions and old expositions ; I say, such an one is by these thinj^s prepared to swallow strange doctrine, as trusting to the superior abilif'es of these modern interpreters* But I humbly cor.ceive, their interpretations, particularly of the Apostle Paul's writings, though in some things ingenious, yet in many things concerning these great articles of religirn, are cxiremtly absurd, and demonstrably disagrees-2 Y

sro ORIGINAL SIN.

ble, in the highest degree, to his real design, to the language he commonly uses, and to the doctrines currently taught in his epistles. Their criticisms, wiien examined, appear far more subtle, than solid ; and it seems as if nothing can possibly be strong enough, nothing perspicuous enough, in any composure whatever, to stand before such liberties as these writers indulge : The plainest and most nervous discourse is analyzed and criticised, till it dissolves into nothing, or till it becomes a thing of little s'.gnifirance : The holy scripture is subtilized into a mere mist; or made to evaporate into a thin cloud, that easily puts on any shape, and is moved in any direction, with a puff of wind, jvist as the manager pleases. It is not in the nature and power of language, to aiford sufficient defence against such an art, so abused ; as, I imagine, a due consideration of some things I have had occasion in the preceding discourse to observe, may abundantly convince us.

But this, with the rest of what I have offered on this sub^ ject of Original Sin, must be left to every candid reader to judge of, for himself; and the success of the whole must now be left with God, who knows what is agreeable to his own mind, and is able to make his own truths prevail; however mysterious they may seem to the poor, partial, narrow, and extremely imperfect views of mortals, while looking through a cloudy and delusory medium ; and however disagreeable they may be to the innumerable prejudices of men's hearts: And who has promised, that the gospel of Christ, such as is really his, shall finally be victorious ; and has assured us, that the ivord which goeth out of his mouth, shall not return to him -voidy but shall accomfilish that which he jileaseth, and shall firos^ per in the thing ivhereto he sends it. Let God arise, and plead hi* own cause, and glorify his own great name. Amen.

FINIS.

Edwards's Works.

ISAIAH THOMAS, Jun.

Has noti) in Press, aijd will be published and ready for sale in a feiv weeks,

The complete works of the Rev. JONATHAN EDWARDS, Ministerof the Gospelin Northampton, Massachusetts, and afterwards President of the College in Newjersey....In Eight Volumes, Octavo.

EDITOR'S ADDRESS,

To the FIRST AMERICAN EDITION-

THE Editor, in offerinj^ to the religious public? the Works oi Preddent EDWARDS, in what may, perhaps for this country, without impropriety, be called a standard edition, has {^ratified his personal attachment to this excellent man-He has sought also the advancement of the great doctrines of the cross, particularly among the younger clergy, and the excitement of their zeal by a persuasive example. Here they will have truth, accompanied not with evidence only, but with demonstration. Here they will learn that conclusive arguing is as applicable to morals as to mathematics. Here they will see sophistry stript of Its disguises, and systems of learned error frittered to nothing. Here they will have before them an example of research, the force of which they will not be able to resist. Modern times scarce furnish a more irnitable character.

President EDWARDS began his career of virtuous exertion at an early period of life, and pursued it with a zeal and steadiness which could not but be successful. He had an object worthy of his pursuit, and he never lost sight of it. If much is to be ascribed to his talents, no less is to be attributed to his industry. And his industry is particularly imitable as it sprung from the best motives. Founded in the supreme love of God, and an ardent desire to do as much good as possible, it could not be conversant with trifles or degenerate into pastime. These writings are in part the fruit ot it. They are f. aught with instruction, and are entitled to a diligent and repealed perusal. The honorary declaration made in the

Preface lo the English edition of these works, as it is entitled to full approbation, may properly have a place here. " Al-thouj^h we do not consider ourselves responsible for every sentiment of the Author, whose works we publish, we will nevertheless freely acknowledge, that were we to assume any such responsibility, or were we disposed to hold up the writing's of any fallible man, as forming our standard of faith, we should not hesitate to give our most decided preference to F.DWARUS and OWJEN. In these authors we see the F.oundest principles united wjlh the most fervent charity." In similar terms another respectable English divine writes to his friend in America (March 25, 1808.)...." JONATHAN EDWARDS is, in my esteem, the Conj/ihaus of modern divines, as Dr. OWEN was of the preceding century. EDWARDS is every day rising in esteem among dissenters, so that his works sell very fast.'*

It has been the Ediior'^s aim to meet the expectations which the proposals warranted the patrons of the work to form. He has used his best discretion in the arrangement, and as far as his attention would go, in the midst of many and pressing avocations, has labored to have the typography correct, li was found necessary to use a smailer type than was 6rst intended. This is a material advantage to the subscriber, as he has proportionably a greater quantity of matter in each page. The pages have also swelled to a greater number than was promised. After all, a few posthumous, unfinished discourses of the author, and some of his miscellanies, consisting principally of quotation, we have been necessitated to omit. The multiplying of notes, upon the plan of elucidating and correcting ihe sentiments oj so sagacious a divine, was, after reflection, and after obaerving with some carefulness how others have done in this matter, thought too adventurous. An index to assist the reader in recurring to particular subjects, will be an acceptable substitute for these. That the work may be extensively useful, is the hope and prayer of the Editor, SAMUEL AUSTIN.

WoRCESTEii, (Mass.) Jsi'ovember 1, 1808.

Lathrop's Sermoiu

I. THOMAS, fun. is now preparing for the j'rcss, the Firsts 6'fco7Zif and 7'/?ir(f Volumes of LATHROP's SERMONS, corrected and enlarged, with many vahiablc additional Sermons, by the Author....The whole of his Sermons will be for sale in Six Octavo Volumes.

/