The Doctrine of Original Sin Year: 1757 1. A FEw years ago, a friend put into my hands Dr. Taylor's "Doctrine of Original Sin," which I read carefully over and partly transcribed, and have many times since diligently considered. The author is doubtless a person of sense, nay, of unusu ally strong understanding, joined with no small liveliness of imagination, and a good degree of various learning. He has likewise an admirable command of temper, so that he almost everywhere speaks as one in good humour. Add to this, that he has a smooth and pleasing, yet a manly and nervous, style. And all these talents he exerts to the uttermost, on a favourite subject, in the Trea tise before us; which he has had leisure for many years to revise, file, correct, and strengthen against all objections. 2. So finished a piece surely deserves the consider ation of all those masters of reason which the age has produced. And I have long hoped that some of those would attempt to show how far the doctrine there laid down is true; and what weight there is in the arguments which are produced in confirmation of it. I know not how to believe that all the Clergy in England are of the same opinion with this author. And certainly there are some whom all his skill in Greek, and even in Hebrew, does not make afraid. I should rejoice had any of these undertaken the task, who are, in many respects, better qualified for it; particularly in this, that they have time upon their hands; they have full leisure for such an employment. But since none else will," I cannot but speak, though lying under many peculiar disad vantages. I dare not be silent any longer: Necessity is laid upon me to provide those who desire to know the truth with some antidote against that deadly poison which has been diffusing itself for several years through our nation, our Church, and even our Universities. Nay, one (I hope, only one) Father of the Church has declared that he knows no book more proper than this to settle the principles of a young Clergyman. Is it not time, then, for "the very stones to cry out P"

Is it not time, then, for "the very stones to cry out P" 3. For this is not a point of small importance; a question that may safely be determined either way. On the contrary, it may be doubted whether the scheme before us be not far more dangerous than open Deism itself. It does not shock us like bare faced infidelity: We feel no pain, and suspect no evil, while it steals like "water into our bowels," like "oil into our bones." One who would be upon his guard in reading the works of Dr. Middleton, or Lord Bolingbroke, is quite open and unguarded in reading the smooth, decent writings of Dr. Taylor; one who does not oppose, (far be it from him !) but only explain, the Scripture; who does not raise any difficulties or objections against the Christian Reve lation, but only removes those with which it had been unhappily encumbered for so many centuries ! 4. I said, than open Deism : For I cannot look on this scheme as any other than old Deism in a new Since the writing of this, I have seen several Tracts, which I shall have occasion to take notice of hereafter. There are likewise many excellent remarks on this subject in Mr. Hervey's Dialogues. dress; seeing it saps the very foundation of all revealed religion, whether Jewish or Christian. "Indeed, my L ," said an eminent man to a person of quality, "I cannot see that we have much need of Jesus Christ." And who might not say, upon this supposition, "I cannot see that we have much need of Christianity?" Nay, not any at all; for "they that are whole have no need of a Physician; " and the Christian Revelation speaks of nothing else but the great "Physician" of our souls; nor can Christian Philosophy, whatever be thought of the Pagan, be more properly defined than in Plato's word: It is Separeta rvX's, "the only true method of healing a distempered soul." But what need of this, if we are in perfect health P If we are not diseased, we do not want a cure. If we are not sick, why should we seek for a medicine to heal our sickness?

If we are not sick, why should we seek for a medicine to heal our sickness? What room is there to talk of our being renewed in "knowledge" or "holiness, after the image wherein we were created," if we never have lost that image if we are as knowing and holy now, nay, far more so, than Adam was immediately after his creation ? If, therefore, we take away this foundation, that man is by nature foolish and sinful, "fallen short of the glorious image of God," the Christian system falls at once; nor will it deserve so honourable an appella tion, as that of a "cunningly devised fable." 5. In considering this confutation of the Christian system, I am under some difficulty from Dr. Taylor's manner of writing. It is his custom to say the same thing (sometimes in different, sometimes in nearly the same words) six or eight, perhaps twelve or fif teen times, in different parts of his book. Now, I have accustomed myself, for many years, to say one and the same thing once only. However, to comply with his manner as far as possible, I shall add, at proper inter vals, extracts from others, expressing nearly the same sentiments which I have before expressed in my own words. 6. I am sensible, in speaking on so tender a point as this must needs be, to those who believe the Chris tian system, there is danger of a warmth which does no honour to our cause, nor is at all countenanced by the Revelation which we defend. I desire neither to show nor to feel this, but to "speak the truth in love," (the only warmth which the gospel allows,) and to write with calmness, though not indifference. There is likewise a danger of despising our oppo ments, and of speaking with an air of contempt or disdain. I would gladly keep clear of this also; well knowing that a diffidence of ourselves is far from implying a diffidence of our cause: I distrust myself, not my argument. O that the God of the Christians may be with me! that his Spirit may give me under standing, and enable me to think and "speak as the oracles of God," without going from them to the right hand or to the left November 30, 1756.

that his Spirit may give me under standing, and enable me to think and "speak as the oracles of God," without going from them to the right hand or to the left November 30, 1756. BEFoRE we attempt to account for any fact, we should be well assured of the fact itself. First, therefore, let us inquire what is the real state of mankind; and, in the Second place, endeavour to account for it. I. First, I say, let us inquire, What is the real state, with regard to knowledge and virtue, wherein mankind have been from the earliest times? And what state are they in at this day? I. 1. What is the state, (to begin with the former branch of the inquiry,) with regard to knowledge and virtue, wherein, according to the most authentic accounts, mankind have been from the earliest times? We have no authentic account of the state of mankind in the times antecedent to the deluge, but in the writings of Moses. What then, according to these, was the state of mankind in those times? Moses gives us an exact and full account: God then "saw that the wickedness of man was great, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen. vi. 5, 12, 13.) And this was not the case of only part of mankind; but "all flesh had cor rupted his way upon the earth: " And accordingly God said, "The end of all flesh is come, for the earth is filled with vio lence through them." Only Noah was "righteous before God." (Gen. vii. 1.) Therefore only he and his household were spared, when God "brought the flood upon the world of the ungodly," and destroyed them all from the face of the earth. "Let us examine the most distinguishing features in this draught. Not barely the works of their hands, or the works of their tongue, but "every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts was evil." The contagion had spread itself through the immer man; had tainted the seat of their principles, and the source of their actions. But was there not some mixture of good? No; they were only evil: Not so much as a little leaven of piety, unless in one single family. But were there no lucid intervals; no happy moments wherein virtue gained the ascendancy?

But were there no lucid intervals; no happy moments wherein virtue gained the ascendancy? None; every imagination, every thought was only evil continually." 2. Such was the state of mankind for at least sixteen hundred years. Men were corrupting themselves and each other, and proceeding from one degree of wickedness to another, till they were all (save eight persons) ripe for destruction. So deplorable was the state of the moral world, while the natural was in its highest perfection. And yet it is highly probable, that the inhabitants of the earth were then abundantly more numerous than ever they have been since, considering the length of their lives, falling little short of a thousand years, and the strength and vigour of their bodies, which we may easily gather from the time they were to continue; to say nothing of the fertility of the earth, probably far greater than it is at present. Consequently, it was then capable of sustaining such a number of inhabitants as could not now subsist on the produce of it. 3. Let us next take a view of the "families of the sons of Noah," the inhabitants of the earth after the flood. The first remarkable incident we read concerning them is, that while "they were all of one language, they said one to another, Let us build a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth." It is not easy to determine what were the peculiar aggra vations which attended this attempt. But it is certain, there was daring wickedness therein, which brought upon them the very thing they feared; for "the Lord," by "confounding their language," (not their religious worship: Can we suppose God would confound this?) "scattered them abroad upon the face of all the earth." (Gen. xi. 4, 9.) Now, whatever par ticulars in this account may be variously interpreted, thus much is clear and undeniable, that all these, that is, all the in habitants of the earth, had again "corrupted their way;" the universal wickedness being legiblein the universal punishment. Mr. Hervey's Theron and Aspasio: Dial. 11. 4. We have no account of their reforming their ways, of any universal or general repentance, before God separated Abraham to himself, to be the father of his chosen people. (Gen. xii.

xii. 1, 2.) Nor is there any reason to believe, that the rest of mankind were improved either in wisdom or virtue, when "Lot and Abraham separated themselves, and Lot pitched his tent toward Sodom." (Gen. xiii. 11, 12.) Of those among whom he dwelt it is particularly remarked, "The men of Sodom" (and of all "the cities of the plain") "were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly;" (Gen. xiii. 13;) so that not even "ten righteous persons" could be found among them : The consequence of which was, that "the Lord rained upon them brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." (Gen. xix. 24.) 5. We have no ground to suppose that the other inhabit ants of the earth (Abraham, with his family and descendants, excepted) had either the knowledge or the fear of God, from that time till Jacob "went into Egypt." This was then, as well as for several ages after, the great seat of learning; inso much that "the wisdom of the Egyptians" was celebrated even to a proverb. And indeed for this end, as well as "to save much people alive," (Gen. l. 20,) did "God send Joseph into Egypt," even "to inform their Princes after his will, and to teach their Senators wisdom." And yet not long after his death, as their King "knew not Joseph," so his people knew not God. Yea, they set him at defiance: They and their King provoked him more and more, and "hardened their hearts" against him; even after they had "seen his wonders in Egypt," after they had groaned under his repeated vengeance. They still added sin to sin, till they constrained the Lord to destroy them with an utter destruction; till the divided "waters returned, and covered the chariots and horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh." 6. Nor were the other nations who then inhabited the earth, any better than the Egyptians; the true knowledge and spiritual worship of God being confined to the descendants of Abraham. "He had not dealt so with other nations, neither had the Hea thens knowledge of his laws." (Psalm cxlvii. 20.) And in what state were the Israelites themselves? How did they worship the God of their fathers? Why, even these were "a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation that set not their heart aright.

Why, even these were "a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation that set not their heart aright. They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law. They provoked him at the sea, even at the Red Sea; " (Psalm lxxviii. 8, 10; cvi. 7; Exod. xiv. 11, 12;) the very place where he had so signally delivered them. "They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped the molten image," (Psalm cvi. 19,) where they had heard the Lord, but a little before, saying, out of the midst of the fire, "Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image; thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them." And how amazing was their beha viour during those whole forty years that they sojourned in the wilderness! even while he "led them in the day-time with a cloud, and all the night with a light of fire!" (Psalm lxxviii. 14.) Such were the knowledge and virtue of God's peculiar people, (certainly the most knowing and virtuous nation which was then to be found upon the face of the earth,) till God brought them into the land of Canaan;-considerably more than two thousand years from the creation of the world. None, I presume, will say there was any other nation at that time more knowing and more virtuous than the Israelites. None can say this while he professes to believe, according to the scriptural account, that Israel was then underatheocracy, under the immediate government of God; that he conversed with their subordinate governor "face to face, as a man talketh with his friend;" and that God was daily, through him, conveying such instructions to them as they were capable of receiving. 7. Shall we turn our eyes for a moment from the scriptural to the profane account of mankind in the earliest ages? What was the general sentiment of the most polite and knowing nation, the Romans, when their learning was in its utmost perfection? Let one, who certainly was no bigot or enthusiast, speak for the rest. And he speaks home to the point: Nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus teterrima belli Causa; sed ignotis perierunt mortibus omnes Quos venerem incertam rapientes more ferarum, Viribus editior caedebat, ut in grege taurus.

And he speaks home to the point: Nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus teterrima belli Causa; sed ignotis perierunt mortibus omnes Quos venerem incertam rapientes more ferarum, Viribus editior caedebat, ut in grege taurus. "Full many a war has been for women waged Ere half the world in Helen's cause engaged; But, unrecorded in historic verse, Obscurely died those savage ravishers, Who like brute beasts the female bore away, Till some superior brute re-seized the prey: A a wild bull, his rival bull o'erthrown, Claims the whole subject herd, and reigns alone." I doubt he who gives this, not as his peculiar opinion, but as what was then a generally-received notion, would scarce have allowed even so much as Juvenal, Pudicitiam Saturno rege moratam In terris............... "Chastity did once, I grant, remain On earth, and flourish'd in old Saturn's reign : " Unless one should suppose the reign of Saturn to have expired when Adam was driven out of Paradise. I cannot forbear adding another picture of the ancient dignity of human nature, drawn by the same masterly hand. Before men dwelt in cities, he says, this Turpe pecus, glandem atque cubilia propter, Unguibus et pugnis, dein fustibus, atque ita porro Pugnabant armis, quae post fabricaverat usus. "The human herd, unbroken and untaught, For acorns first, and grassy couches fought; With fists, and then with clubs maintain'd the fray, Till, urged by hate, they found a quicker way, And forged pernicious arms, and learn'd the art to slay." What a difference is there between this and the gay, florid accounts which many moderns give of their own species ! 8. But to return to more authentic accounts: At the time when God brought the Israelites into Canaan, in what state were the rest of mankind? Doubtless in nearly the same with the Canaanites, with the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, and the rest of the seven nations. But the wickedness of these, we know, was full; they were corrupt in the highest degree. All manner of vice, all ungodliness and unright eousness, reigned among them without control; and therefore the wise and just Governor of the world gave them up to a swift and total destruction. 9. Of Israel, indeed, we read, that they "served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the Elders that over lived Joshua." (Josh. xxiv.

xxiv. 31.) And yet even at that time they did not serve Him alone; they were not free from gross idolatry; otherwise, there had been no need of his giving them that exhortation a little before his death: "Now, therefore, put away the strange gods which are among you," the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the river Jordan. (Verse 23.) What gods these were, we learn by the words of Amos, cited by St. Stephen: "O ye house of Israel, have ye offered sacrifices to me by the space of forty years? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them." (Acts vii. 42, 43.) 10. The sacred history of what occurred within a short space after the death of Joshua, for some hundred years, even until the time that Samuel judged Israel, gives us a large account of their astonishing wickedness during almost that whole period. It is true, just "when God smote them, then they sought him; they returned, and inquired after God." Yet "their heart was not right with him, neither were they steadfast in his covenant." (Psalm lxxviii. 34, 37.) And we find little alteration among them for the better in the succeeding ages; insomuch that, in the reign of Ahab, about nine hundred years before Christ, there were only "seven thousand left in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal." (1 Kings xix. 18.) What manner of men they were for the next three hundred years, we may learn from the books of the Kings, and from the Prophets; whence it fully appears that, except a few short intervals, they were given up to all manner of abominations; by reason of which the name of the Most High was the more abundantly blasphemed among the Heathens. And this continued, until their open rebellion against God brought upon the whole nation of the Jews (a hundred and thirty-four years after the captivity of the ten tribes, and about six hundred before Christ) those terrible and long-deserved calamities which made them a spectacle to all that were round about them. The writings of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jeremiah, leave us noroom to think that they were reformed by those calamities.

The writings of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jeremiah, leave us noroom to think that they were reformed by those calamities. Nor was there any lasting reformation in the time of Ezra, or of Nehemiah and Malachi; but they were still, as their forefathers had been, "a faithless and stub born generation." Such were they likewise, as we may gather from the books of Maccabees and Josephus, to the very time when Christ came into the world. 11. Our blessed Lord has given us a large description of those who were then the most eminent for religion: "Ye devour," says he, "widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers. Ye make" your proselytes "twofold more the children of hell than yourselves. Ye neglect the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. Ye make clean the outside of the cup, but within are full of extortion and excess. Ye are like whited sepulchres, outwardly beautiful, but within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damna tion of hell!" (Matt. xxiii. 14, c.) And to these very men, after they had murdered the Just One, his faithful follower declared, "Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye." (Acts vii. 51.) And so they continued to do, until the wrath of God did indeed "come upon them to the uttermost;" until eleven hundred thousand of them were destroyed, their city and temple levelled with the dust, and above ninety thousand sold for slaves, and scattered into all lands. 12. Such in all generations were the lineal children of Abra ham, who had so unspeakable advantages over the rest of man kind; "to whom pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises:" Among whom, therefore, we may reasonably expect to find the greatest eminence of knowledge and virtue. If these then were so stupidly, brutishly ignorant, so desperately wicked, what can we expect from the heathen world, from them who had not the knowledge either of his law or promises? Certainly we cannot expect to find more goodness among them.

Certainly we cannot expect to find more goodness among them. But let us make a fair and impartial inquiry; and that not among wild and barbarous nations, but the most civilized and refined. What then were the ancient Romans? the people whose virtue is so highly extolled, and so warmly commended to our imitation? We have their character given by one who cannot deceive or be deceived, the unerring Spirit of God. And what account does he give of these best of men, these heroes of antiquity? "When they knew God," says he, at least as to his eternity and power, (both implied in that appel lation, which occurs more than once in their own poet, Pater omnipotens, "Almighty Father,") "they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful." (Rom. i. 21, c.) So far from it that one of their oracles of wisdom (though once he stumbled on that great truth, Nemo unquam vir magnus sine afflatu divino fuit,-''There never was any great man without the afflatus or inspiration of God;" yet, almost in the same breath) does not scruple to ask, Quis pro virtute aut sapientiá gratias diis dedit unquam " "Who ever thanked God for virtue or wisdom?" No, why should he? since these are "his own aequisition, the pure result of his own industry." Accordingly, another virtuous Roman has left it on record, as an unques tioned maxim, Haec satis est orare Jovem, quae donat et aufert: Det vitam, det opes; aquum mí animum ipse parabo. "Enough for common benefits to pray, Which Jove can either give or take away: Long life or wealth his bounty may bestow; Wisdom and virtue to myself I owe." So "vain" were they become "in their imaginations!" So were their "foolish hearts darkened !" (Rom. i. 21, c.) 13. But this was only the first step: They did not stop here.

But this was only the first step: They did not stop here. "Professing themselves wise," they yet sunk into such gross, astonishing folly, as to "change the glory of the incorruptible God" (whom they might have known, even from their own writers, to be Wastam Mens agitans molem, et magnose corpore miscens, "The all-informing soul That fills the mighty mass, and moves the whole") "into an image made like to corruptible man; yea, to birds, to beasts, to creeping things!" What wonder was it then, that, after they had thus "changed his glory into an image, God gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves?" How justly, when they had "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator," did he "for this cause," punishing sin by sin, "give them up unto vile affections! For even the women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." Yea, the modest, honourable Roman matrons (so little were they ashamed !) wore their priapi openly on their breasts. "And likewise the men burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly." What an amazing testimony of this is left us on record, even by the most modest of all the Roman poets! Formosum pastor Corydon ardebat Alerim / How does this pattern of heathen chastity avow, without either fear or shame, as if it were an innocent, at least, if not laudable, passion, their "burning in lust one toward another l" And did men of the finest taste in the nation censure the song, or the subject of it? We read nothing of this; on the contrary, the universal honour and esteem paid to the writer, and that by persons of the highest rank, plainly shows that the case of Corydoh, as it was not uncommon in any part of the Roman dominions, so it was not conceived to be any blemish, either to him or his master, but an innocent infirmity. Meantime, how delicate an idea of love had this favourite of Rome and of the Muses! Hear him explaining himself a little more fully on this tender point: Eheu ! quâm pingui macer est mihi taurus in agro / Idem amor eritium est pecori, pecorisque magistro.

quâm pingui macer est mihi taurus in agro / Idem amor eritium est pecori, pecorisque magistro. Idem amor The same love in the bull and in the man What elegance of sentiment 1 Is it possible anything can exceed this? One would imagine nothing could, had not the same chaste poet furnished us with yet another scene, more abundantly shocking than this: Pasiphäen nivei solatur amore juvencil "He comforts Pasiphäe with the love of her milk-white bull!" Nihil supra ! The condoling a woman on her unsuc cessful amour with a bull shows a brutality which nothing can exceed! How justly then does the Apostle add, "as they did not like," or desire, "to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to an undiscerning mind, to do those things which are not convenient!" In consequence of this, they were "filled with all unrighteousness," vice of every kind, and in every degree; in particular "with fornication," (taking the word in its largest sense, as including every sin of the kind,) "with wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, with envy, mur der, debate, deceit, malignity;" being "haters of God," the true God, the God of Israel, to whom they allowed no place among all their herd of deities; "despiteful, proud, boasters," in as eminent a degree as ever was any nation under heaven ; "inventors of evil things," in great abundance, of mille nocendi artes,t both in peace and war; "disobedient to parents," although duty to these is supposed to be inscribed on the hearts of the most barbarous nations; "covenant-breakers," even Nothing can exceed this.-EDIT. t A thousand arts of annoyance.-EDIT. of those of the most solemn kind, those wherein the public faith was engaged by their supreme Magistrate; which, notwith standing, they made no manner of scruple of breaking, when ever they saw good; only colouring over their perfidiousness, by giving those Magistrates into their hands with whom the "covenant" was made. And what was this to the purpose? Is the King of France, or the republic of Holland, at liberty to violate their most solemn treaties at pleasure, provided they give up to the King of England the Ambassador, or General, by whom that treaty was made?

Is the King of France, or the republic of Holland, at liberty to violate their most solemn treaties at pleasure, provided they give up to the King of England the Ambassador, or General, by whom that treaty was made? What would all Europe have said of the late Czar, if, instead of punctually performing the engagements made with the Porte when in his distress, he had only given up the persons by whom he transacted, and immediately broke through them all? There is therefore no room to say, Modo Punica scripta supersint, Non minus infamis forte Latina fides. "Perhaps, if the Carthaginian writings were extant, Roman faith would be as infamous as Punic." We need them not. In vain have they destroyed the Carthaginian writings; for their own sufficiently testify of them; and fully prove that in perfidy the natives of Carthage could not exceed the senate and people of Rome. 14. They were as a nation aa top you, void of natural affection, even to their own bowels. Witness the universal custom which obtained for several ages in Rome, and all its dependencies, (as it had done before through all the cities of Greece,) when in their highest repute for wisdom and virtue, of exposing their own new-born children, more or fewer of them, as every man pleased, when he had as many as he thought good to keep; throwing them out to perish by cold and hunger, unless some more merciful wild beast shortened their pain, and provided them a sepulchre. Nor do I remember a single Greek, or Roman, of all those that occasionally mention it, ever complaining of this diabolical custom, or fixing the least touch of blame upon it. Even the tender mother in Terence, who had some compassion for her helpless infant, does not dare to acknowledge it to her husband, without that re markable preface, Ut miserè superstitiosae sumus omnes; "As we women are all miserably superstitious." 15. I would desire those gentlemen who are so very severe upon the Israelites for killing the children of the Canaanites, at their entrance into the land of Canaan, to spend a few thoughts on this.

I would desire those gentlemen who are so very severe upon the Israelites for killing the children of the Canaanites, at their entrance into the land of Canaan, to spend a few thoughts on this. Not to insist, that the Creator is the absolute Lord and Proprietor of the lives of all his creatures; that, as such, he may at any time, without the least injustice, take away the life which he has given; that he may do this in whatsoever manner, and by whatever instruments, he pleases; and consequently may inflict death on any creature by whom he pleases, without any blame either to him or them;-not to insist, I say, on this, or many other things which might be offered, let us at present fix on this single consideration: The Israelites destroyed the children for some weeks or months; the Greeks and Romans for above a thousand years. The one put them out of their pain at once, doubtless by the shortest and easiest way; the others were not so compas sionate as to cut their throats, but left them to pine away by a lingering death. Above all, the Hebrews destroyed only the children of their enemies; the Romans destroyed their own. O fair pattern indeed ! Where shall we find a parallel to this virtue 2 I read of a modern, who took up a child that fell from its mother's womb, and threw it back into the flames. (Pure, genuine human nature !) And reason good, for it was the child of a heretic. But what evil, ye worthies of ancient Rome, did ye find in your own children? I must still say, this is without a parallel even in the Papal history. 16. They were implacable, unmerciful. Witness (one or two instances of ten thousand) poor grey-headed Hannibal, (whom, very probably, had we any other accounts of him than those which were given by his bitterest enemies, we should have reverenced as one of the most amiable of men, as well as the most valiant of all the ancient Heathens,) hunted from nation to nation, and never quitted, till he fell by his own hand. Wit ness the famous suffrage, Delenda est Carthago; "Let Car thage be destroyed." Why? It was imperii aemula ; "the rival of the Roman glory." These were open, undeniable evidences of the public, national placability and mercy of the Romans.

It was imperii aemula ; "the rival of the Roman glory." These were open, undeniable evidences of the public, national placability and mercy of the Romans. Need instances of a more private nature be added? Behold, then, one for all, in that glory of Rome, that prodigy of virtue, the great, the celebrated Cato. Cato the Elder, when any of his domestics had worn themselves out in his service, and grew decrepit with age, constantly turned them out to starve, and was much applauded for his frugality in so doing. But what mercy was this? Just such as that which dwelt in Cato of Utica, who repaid the tenderness of his servant endeavour ing to save his life, to prevent his tearing open his wound, by striking him on the face with such violence as to fill his mouth with blood. These are thy gods, O Deism . These the pat terns so zealously recommended to our imitation 17. And what was the real character of that hero, whom Cato himself so admired? whose cause he espoused with such eagerness, with such unwearied diligence? of Pompey the Great? Surely never did any man purchase that title at so cheap a rate What made him great? The villany of Per penna, and the treachery of Pharnaces. Had not the one murdered his friend, the other rebelled against his father, where had been Pompey's greatness? So this stalking-horse of a party procured his reputation in the commonwealth. And when it was procured, how did he use it? Let his own poet Lucan speak: Nec quenquam jam ferre potest Cesarve priorem, Pompeiusve parem. "Nor Caesar could to a superior look; Nor patriot Pompey could an equal brook." He would bear no equal ! And this a senator of Rome! Nay, the grand patron of the republic But what a repub lican himself, when this principle was the spring of all his designs and actions ! Indeed, a less amiable character it is not easy to find among all the great men of antiquity; ambitious, vain, haughty, surly, and overbearing, beyond the common rate of men. And what virtue had he to balance these faults? I can scarce find one, even in Lucan's account: It does not appear that in the latter part of his life he had even military virtues.

I can scarce find one, even in Lucan's account: It does not appear that in the latter part of his life he had even military virtues. What proof did he give of personal courage, in all his war with Caesar? what instances of eminent conduct? None at all, if we may credit his friend Cicero; who complains heavily to Atticus, that he acted like a madman, and would ruin the cause he had undertaken to defend. 18. Let none therefore look for placability or mercy in Pompey. But was there any unmercifulness in Caesar? "Who than Julius hopes to rise More brave, more generous, or more wise?" Of his courage and sense there can be no doubt. And much may be said with regard to his contest with Pompey, even for the justice of his cause; for with him he certainly fought for life, rather than glory; of which he had the strongest convic tion (though he was ashamed to own it) when he passed the Rubicon. Nor can it be doubted but he was often merciful. It is no proof to the contrary that he rode up and down his ranks during the battle of Pharsalia, and cried to those who were engaged with the pretty gentlemen of Pompey's army, Miles, faciem feri, "Soldiers, strike at the face;" for this greatly shortened the dispute with those who were more afraid of losing their beauty than their lives, and so prevented the effusion of much blood. But I cannot get over (to say nothing of the myriads of common Gauls whom he destroyed) a short sentence in his own Commentaries: Vercingetoria per tormenta necatus. Who was this Vercingetorix? As brave a man, and (considering his years) as great a General, as even Caesar. What was his crime? The love of his parents, wife, children, country; and sacrificing all things in the defence of them. And how did Caesar treat him on this account? "He tortured him to death." O Roman mercy! Did not Brutus and Cassius avenge Vercingetorix rather than Pompey? How well was Rome represented in the prophetical vision by that beast "dreadful and terrible," which had "great iron teeth, and devoured, and brake in pieces, and stamped under his feet," all other kingdoms - II. 1.

1. Such is the state with regard to knowledge and virtue, wherein, according to the most authentic accounts, mankind was from earliest times, for above four thousand years. Such nearly did it continue, during the decline, and since the destruction, of the Roman empire. But we will wave all that is past, if it only appears that mankind is virtuous and wise at this day. This, then, is the point we are at present to consi der: Are-men in general now wise and virtuous? Our ingenious countryman, Mr. Brerewood, after his most careful and laborious inquiries, computes, that, supposing that part of the earth which we know to be inhabited were divided into thirty equal parts, nineteen of these are Heathen still; and of the remaining eleven, six are Mahometan, and only five Christian. Let us take as fair and impartial a survey as we can of the Heathens first, and then of the Mahometans and Christians. 2. And, First, of the Heathens. What manner of men are these, as to virtue and knowledge, at this day? Many of late, who still bear the Christian name, have entertained very honourable thoughts of the old Heathens. They cannot be lieve them to have been so stupid and senseless as they have been represented to be; particularly with regard to idolatry, in worshipping birds, beasts, and creeping things; much less can they credit the stories told of many nations, the Egyp tians in particular, Who are said to Have set the leek they after pray'd to. But if they do not consider who they are that transmit to us these accounts, namely, both those writers who, they profess to believe, spake "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," and those whom perhaps they value more, the most credible of their contemporary Heathens; if, I say, they forget this, do they not consider the present state of the heathen world? Now, allowing the bulk of the ancient Heathens (which itself is not easily proved) to have had as much understanding as the modern, we have no pretence to suppose they had more. What therefore they were, we may safely gather from what they are; we may judge of the past by the present.

What therefore they were, we may safely gather from what they are; we may judge of the past by the present. Would we know, then, (to begin with a part of the world known to very early antiquity,) what manner of men the Heathens in Africa were two or three thousand years ago? Inquire what they are now, who are genuine Pagans still, not tainted either with Mahometanism or Christianity. They are to be found in abundance, either in Negroland, or round the Cape of Good Hope. Now, what measure of knowledge have the natives of these countries? I do not say in metaphysics, mathematics, or astronomy. Of these it is plain they know just as much as their four-footed brethren; the lion and the man are equally accomplished with regard to this knowledge. I will not ask what they know of the nature of government, of the respective rights of Kings and various orders of subjects: In this re gard, a herd of men are manifestly inferior to a herd of ele phants. But let us view them with respect to common life. What do they know of the things they continually stand in need of? How do they build habitations for themselves and their families; how select and prepare their food; clothe and adorn their persons? As to their habitations, it is certain, I will not say, our horses, (particularly those belonging to the Nobility and Gentry,) but an English peasant's dogs, nay, his very swine, are more commodiously lodged; and as to their food, apparel, and ornaments, they are just suitable to their edifices: Your nicer Hottentots think meet With guts and tripe to deck their feet. With downcast eyes on Totta's legs, The love-sick youth most humbly begs, She would not from his sight remove At once his breakfast and his love. Such is the knowledge of these accomplished animals, in things which cannot but daily employ their thoughts; and wherein, consequently, they cannot avoid exerting, to the uttermost, both their natural and acquired understanding. And what are their present attainments in virtue? Are they not, one and all, "without God in the world?" having either no knowledge of him at all; no conception of anything he has to do with them, or they with him; or such concep tions as are far worse than none, as make him such a one as themselves.

Are they not, one and all, "without God in the world?" having either no knowledge of him at all; no conception of anything he has to do with them, or they with him; or such concep tions as are far worse than none, as make him such a one as themselves. And what are their social virtues? What are their dispositions and behaviour between man and man? Are they eminent for justice, for mercy, or truth? As to mercy, they know not what it means, being continually cutting each other's throats, from generation to generation, and selling for slaves as many of those who fall into their hands, as on that consideration only they do not murder. Justice they have mone; no courts of justice at all; no public method of re dressing wrong; but every man does what is right in his own eyes, till a stronger than he beats out his brains for so doing. And they have just as much regard to truth; cozening, cheat ing, and over-reaching every man that believes a word they say. Such are the moral, such the intellectual perfections, according to the latest and most accurate accounts, of the present Heathens, who are diffused in great numbers over a fourth part of the known world! 3. It is true, that in the new world, in America, they seem to breathe a purer air, and to be in general men of a stronger understanding, and a less savage temper. Among these, then, we may surely find higher degrees of knowledge as well as virtue. But in order to form a just conception of them, we must not take our account from their enemies; from any that would justify themselves by blackening those whom they seek to destroy. No; but let us inquire of more impartial Judges, concerning those whom they have personally known, the Indians bordering upon our own settlements, from New England down to Georgia. We cannot learn that there is any great difference, in point of knowledge, between any of these, from east to west, or from north to south. They are all equally unacquainted with European learning, being total strangers to every branch of literature, having not the least conception of any part of philosophy, speculative or practical. Neither have they (whatever accounts some have given) any such thing as a regular civil government among them.

Neither have they (whatever accounts some have given) any such thing as a regular civil government among them. They have no laws of any kind, unless a few temporary rules made in and for the time of war. They are likewise utter strangers to the arts of peace, having scarce any such thing as an artificer in a nation. They know nothing of building; having only poor, miserable, ill-contrived huts, far inferior to many English dog-kennels. Their clothing, till of late, was only skins of beasts, commonly of deer, hanging down before and behind them. Now, among those who have commerce with our nation, it is frequently a blanket wrapt about them. Their food is equally delicate, -pounded Indian corn, sometimes mixed with water, and so eaten at once; sometimes kneaded into cakes, meal and bran together, and half-baked upon the coals. Fish or flesh, dried in the sun, is frequently added to this; and now and then a piece of tough, fresh-killed deer. Such is the knowledge of the Americans, whether in things of an abstruser nature, or in the affairs of common life. And this, so far as we can learn, is the condition of all, without any considerable difference. But, in point of religion, there is a very material difference between the northern and the southern Indians: Those in the north are idolaters of the lowest kind. If they do not worship the devil appearing in person, (which many firmly believe they do, many think in credible,) certainly they worship the most vile and contempt ible idols. It were more excusable if they only "turned the glory of the incorruptible God into the image of corruptible man;" yea, or "of birds, or four-footed beasts, or reptiles," or any creature which God has made. But their idols are more horrid and deformed than anything in the visible cre ation; and their whole worship is at once the highest affront to the divine, and disgrace to the human, nature. On the contrary, the Indians of our southern provinces do not appear to have any worship at all. By the most diligent inquiry from those who had spent many years among them, I could never learn that any of the Indian nations who border on Georgia and Carolina have any public worship of any kind, nor any private; for they have no idea of prayer.

By the most diligent inquiry from those who had spent many years among them, I could never learn that any of the Indian nations who border on Georgia and Carolina have any public worship of any kind, nor any private; for they have no idea of prayer. It is not without much difficulty that one can make any of them understand what is meant by prayer; and when they do, they cannot be made to apprehend that God will answer or even hear it. They say, "He that sitteth in heaven is too high; he is too far off to hear us." In consequence of which they leave him to himself, and manage their affairs without him. Only the Chicasaws, of all the Indian nations, are an excep tion to this. I believe it will be found, on the strictest inquiry, that the whole body of southern Indians, as they have no letters and no laws, so, properly speaking, have no religion at all; so that every one does what he sees good; and if it appears wrong to his neighbour, he usually comes upon him unawares, and shoots or scalps him alive. They are likewise all (Icould never find any exception) gluttons, drunkards, thieves, dissemblers, liars. They are implacable ; never forgiving an injury or affront, or being satisfied with less than blood. They are wn merciful ; killing all whom they take prisoners in war, with the most exquisite tortures. They are murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers, murderers of their own children; it being a common thing for a son, to shoot his father or mother because they are old and past labour; and for a woman either to procure abortion, or to throw her child into the next river, because she will go to the war with her husband. Indeed, husbands, properly speaking, they have none; for any man leaves his wife, so called, at pleasure; who frequently, in re turn, cuts the throats of all the children she has had by him. The Chicasaws alone seem to have some notion of an inter course between man and a superior Being. They speak much of their beloved ones ; with whom they say they converse both day and night.

They speak much of their beloved ones ; with whom they say they converse both day and night. But their beloved ones teach them to eat and drink from morning to night, and, in a manner, from night to morning; for they rise at any hour of the night when they wake, and eat and drink as much as they can, and sleep again. Their beloved ones likewise expressly command them to torture and burn all their prisoners. Their manner of doing it is this: They hold lighted canes to their arms and legs, and several parts of their body, for some time, and then for a while take them away. They also stick burning pieces of wood in their flesh; in which condition they keep them from morning to evening. Such are at present the knowledge and virtue of the native Heathens, over another fourth of the known world. 4. In Asia, however, we are informed that the case is widely different. For although the Heathens bordering on Europe, the thousands and myriads of Tartars, have not much to boast either as to knowledge or virtue; and although the numerous little nations under the Mogul, who retain their original Hea thenism, are nearly on a level with them, as are the inhabitants of the many large and populous islands in the eastern seas; yet we hear high encomiums of the Chinese, who are as numer ous as all these together; some late travellers assuring us, that China alone has fifty-eight million of inhabitants. Now, these have been described as men of the deepest penetration, the highest learning, and the strictest integrity; and such doubtless they are, at least with regard to their understanding, if we will believe their own proverb: "The Chinese have two eyes, the Europeans one, and other men none at all." And one circumstance, it must be owned, is much in their favour, -they live some thousand miles off; so that if it were affirmed, that every Chinese had literally three eyes, it would be difficult for us to disprove it. Nevertheless, there is room to doubt even of their understanding; nay, one of the arguments often brought to prove the greatness, to me clearly demon strates the littleness, of it; namely, the thirty thousand letters of their alphabet.

Nevertheless, there is room to doubt even of their understanding; nay, one of the arguments often brought to prove the greatness, to me clearly demon strates the littleness, of it; namely, the thirty thousand letters of their alphabet. To keep an alphabet of thirty hundred letters could never be reconciled to common sense; since every alphabet ought to be as short, simple, and easy as possible. No more can we reconcile to any degree of common sense, their crippling all the women in the empire, by a silly, senseless affectation of squeezing their feet till they bear no proportion to their bodies; so that the feet of a woman at thirty must still be as small as they would be naturally when four years old. But in order to see the true measure of their understanding in the clearest light, let us look, not at women, or the vulgar, but at the Nobility, the wisest, the politest part of the nation. Look at the Mandarins, the glory of the empire, and see any, every one of them at his meals, not deigning to use his own hands, but having his meat put into his mouth by two servants, planted for that purpose, one on his right hand, the other on his left O the deep understanding of the noble lubber that sits in the midst, and Hiat, ceu pullus hirundinis / "Gapes, as the young swallow, for his food." Surely an English ploughman, or a Dutch sailor, would have too much sense to endure it. If you say, "Nay, the Mandarin would not endure it, but that it is a custom ;" I answer, Undoubtedly it is; but how came it to be a custom? Such a custom could not have begun, much less have become gene ral, but through a general and marvellous want of common Sense. What their learning is now, I know not; but notwithstand ing their boast of its antiquity, it was certainly very low and contemptible in the last century, when they were so astonished at the skill of the French Jesuits, and honoured them as almost more than human, for calculating eclipses !

What their learning is now, I know not; but notwithstand ing their boast of its antiquity, it was certainly very low and contemptible in the last century, when they were so astonished at the skill of the French Jesuits, and honoured them as almost more than human, for calculating eclipses ! And whatever progress they may have made since, in the know ledge of astronomy, and other curious, rather than useful, sciences, it is certain they are still utterly ignorant of what it most of all concerns them to know: They know not God, any more than the Hottentots; they are all idolaters to a man; and so tenacious are they of their national idolatry, that even those whom the French Missionaries called con verts, yet continued one and all to worship Confucius and the souls of their ancestors. It is true, that when this was strongly represented at Rome by an honest Dominican who came from thence, a Bull was issued out and sent over into China, forbidding them to do it any longer. But the good Fathers kept it privately among themselves, saying, the Chinese were not able to bear it. Such is their religion with respect to God. But are they not eminent for all social virtues, all that have place between man and man? Yes, according to the accounts which some have given. According to these, they are the glory of mankind, and may be a pattern to all Europe. But have not we some reason to doubt if these accounts are true? Are pride and laziness good ingredients of social virtue 7 And can all Europe equal either the laziness or pride of the Chinese Nobility and Gentry, who are too stately or too indolent even to put the meat into their own mouths? Yet they are not too proud or too indolent to oppress, to rob, to defraud, all that fall into their hands. How flagrant instances of this may any one find even in the account of Lord Anson's voyage 1 exactly agreeing with the accounts given by all our countrymen who have traded in any part of China; as well as with the observation made by a late writer in his "Geographical Grammar:" "Trade and commerce, or rather, cheating and over-reaching, is the natural bent and genius of the Chinese. Gain is their god; they prefer this to everything besides.

Gain is their god; they prefer this to everything besides. A stranger is in great danger of being cheated, if he trusts to his own judgment; and if he employs a Chinese broker, it is well if he does not join with the merchant to cheat the stranger. "Their laws oblige them to certain rules of civility in their words and actions; and they are naturally a fawning, cringing generation; but the greatest hypocrites on the face of the earth." 5. Such is the boasted virtue of those who are, beyond all degrees of comparison, the best and wisest of all the Heathens in Asia. And how little preferable to them are those in Europe! rather, how many degrees beneath them Vast numbers of these are within the borders of Muscovy; but how amazingly ignorant! How totally void both of civil and sacred wisdom ! How shockingly savage, both in their tempers and manners! Their idolatry is of the basest and vilest kind. They not only worship the work of their own hands; but idols of the most horrid and detestable forms that men or devils could devise. Equally savage, (or more so, if more can be,) as is well known, are the natives of Lapland; and, indeed, of all the countries which have been discovered to the north of Muscovy or Sweden. In truth, the bulk of these nations seem to be considerably more barbarous, not only than the men near the Cape of Good Hope, but than many tribes in the brute creation. Thus have we seen what is the present state of the Heathens in every part of the known world; and these still make up, according to the preceding calculation, very near two-thirds of mankind. Let us now calmly and impartially consider what manner of men the Mahometans in general are. 6. An ingenious writer, who, a few years ago, published a pompous translation of the Koran, takes great pains to give us a very favourable opinion both of Mahomet and his followers; but he cannot wash the Ethiop white. After all, men who have but a moderate share of reason cannot but observe in his Koran, even as polished by Mr. Sale, the most gross and impious absurdities.

Sale, the most gross and impious absurdities. To cite particulars is not now my business: It may suffice to observe, in general, that human understanding must be debased, to an inconceivable degree, in those who can swallow such absurdities as divinely revealed. And yet we know the Mahometans not only condemn all who cannot swallow them to everlasting fire, -not only appropriate to themselves the title of Mussulmen, or True Believers, - but even anathematize, with the utmost bitterness, and adjudge to eternal destruction, all their brethren of the sect of Hali, all who contend for a figurative interpretation of them. That these men, then, have no knowledge or love of God is undeniably manifest, not only from their gross horrible notions of him, but from their not loving their brethren. But they have not always so weighty a cause to hate and murder one another as difference of opinion. Mahometans will butcher each other by thousands, without so plausible a plea as this. Why is it that such numbers of Turks and Persians have stabbed one another in cool blood? Truly, because they differ in the manner of dressing their head. The Ottoman vehemently maintains, (for he has unquestionable tradition on his side,) that a Mussulman should wear a round turban; whereas the Persian insists upon his liberty of conscience, and will wear it picked before. So, for this won derful reason, when a more plausible one is wanting, they beat out each other's brains from generation to generation It is not therefore strange that, ever since the religion of Mahomet appeared in the world, the espousers of it, particularly those under the Turkish Emperor, have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are rased from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished away from the earth Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind. 7. Proceed we now to the Christian world.

Proceed we now to the Christian world. But we must not judge of Christians in general from those who are scattered through the Turkish dominions, the Armenian, Georgian, Mengrelian Christians; nor indeed from any others of the Greek communion. The gross, barbarous ignorance, the deep, stupid superstition, the blind and bitter zeal, and the endless thirst after vain jangling and strife of words, which have reigned for many ages in the Greek Church, and well nigh banished true religion from among them, make these scarce worthy of the Christian name, and lay an insuperable stumbling-block before the Mahometans. 8. Perhaps those of the Romish communion may say, "What wonder that this is the case with heretics? with those who have erred from the Catholic faith, nay, and left the pale of the Church?" But what is the case with them who have not left that Church, and who retain the Roman faith still ? yea, with the most zealous of all its patrons, the inhabitants of Italy, of Spain, and Portugal? Wherein do they excel the Greek Church, except in Italianism, received by tradition from their heathen fathers, and diffused through every city and village? They may, indeed, praise chastity, and rail at women as loudly as their forefather, Juvenal; but what is the moral of all this? Nonne putas melius, quod tecum pusio dormit This, it must be acknowledged, is the glory of the Romish Church. Herein it does excel the Greek. They excel it, likewise, in Deism. Perhaps there is no country in the world, at least in that part of it which bears the Christian name, wherein so large a proportion of the men of education are absolute Deists, if not Atheists, as Italy. And from hence the plague has spread far and wide; through France in particular. So that, did not temporal motives restrain, no small part of the French Nobility and Gentry would pay no more regard to the Christian Revelation, than do the Mandarins in China. They excel still more in murder, both private and public. Instances of the former abound all over Italy, Spain, and Portugal; and the frequency of shedding blood has taken away all that horror which otherwise might attend it.

Instances of the former abound all over Italy, Spain, and Portugal; and the frequency of shedding blood has taken away all that horror which otherwise might attend it. Take one instance of a thousand: An English gentleman was, some years ago, at an entertainment in Brescia, when one who was near him whispered a few words in his ear, which he did not well understand. He asked his host, "What did that gentleman mean by these words?" and was answered, "That he will mur der you: And an Italian is never worse than his word in this. You have no way but to be beforehand with him." This he rejected with abhorrence. But his host, it seems, being not of so tender a conscience, sent a stranger to him in the morn ing, who said, "Sir, look out of your window; I have done his business. There he lies. You will please to give me my pay." He pulled out a handful of money, in great disorder, and cried, "There, take what you will." The other replied, "Sir, I am a man of honour; I take only my pay;" took a small piece of silver, and retired. This was a man of honour among the Christians of the Romish Church ! And many such are to be found all over Italy, whose trade it is to cut throats; to stab for hire, in cool blood. They have men of conscience too. Such were two of the Catholic soldiers, under the famous Duke of Alva, who broke into the house of a poor countryman in Flanders, butchered him and his wife, with five or six children; and after they had finished their work, sat down to enjoy the fruit of their labour. But in the midst of their meal con science awaked. One of them started up in great emotion, and cried out, "O Lord! what have I done? As I hope for salvation, I have eaten flesh in Lent l" The same sort of conscience undoubtedly it was, which con strained the late Most Christian King, in defiance of the most solemn treaties, yea, of all ties, divine and human, most gra ciously to murder so many thousands of his quiet, unresisting subjects; to order his dragoons, wherever they found the Pro testants worshipping God, to fall in upon them, sword in hand, without any regard to sex or age.

As I hope for salvation, I have eaten flesh in Lent l" The same sort of conscience undoubtedly it was, which con strained the late Most Christian King, in defiance of the most solemn treaties, yea, of all ties, divine and human, most gra ciously to murder so many thousands of his quiet, unresisting subjects; to order his dragoons, wherever they found the Pro testants worshipping God, to fall in upon them, sword in hand, without any regard to sex or age. It was conscience, no ques tion, which induced so many of the Dukes of Savoy, notwith standing the public faith engaged over and over, to shed the blood of their loyal subjects, the Vaudois, like water, to ravage their fields, and destroy their cities. What but conscience could move the good Catholics of a neighbouring kingdom, in the last century,tomurder (according to their own account) two hundred and fifteen thousand Protestants in six months? A costly sacri fice this! What is a hecatomb, a hundred oxen, to two hun dred thousand men? And yet what is even this to the whole number of victims who have been offered up in Europe since the beginning of the Reformation; partly by war, partly by the Inquisition, and a thousand other methods of Romish cruelty? No less, within forty years, if the computation of an eminent writer be just, than five-and-forty millions ! Such is the conscience, such the religion, of Romish Chris tians! Of their Inquisition (the House of Mercy, as it is most unfortunately called) I should give some account, but that it has been largely described by others. Yet it may not be im proper to give a specimen of that mercy which they show to those under their care. At the Act of Faith, so called, which was celebrated some years ago, when Dr. Geddes was in Por tugal, a prisoner, who had been confined for nine years, was brought out to execution. Looking up, and seeing, what he had not seen for so long a time, the sun in the midst of heaven, he cried out, "How can any one, who sees that glorious creature, worship any but the God that made it?" The Father who attended immediately ordered a gag to be run through his lip, that he might speak no more.

Looking up, and seeing, what he had not seen for so long a time, the sun in the midst of heaven, he cried out, "How can any one, who sees that glorious creature, worship any but the God that made it?" The Father who attended immediately ordered a gag to be run through his lip, that he might speak no more. See the Christians, who have received all the advantages of education, all the helps of modern and ancient learning!"Nay, but we have still greater helps than them. We are reformed from the errors of Popery; we protest against all those novel corruptions, with which the Church of Rome has polluted ancient Christianity. The enormities, therefore, of Popish countries are not to be charged upon us: We are Protestants, and have nothing to do with the vices and villanies of Romish nations." 9. Have we not? Are Protestant nations nothing concerned in those melancholy reflections of Mr. Cowley? "If twenty thousand naked Americans were not able to resist the assaults of but twenty well-armed Spaniards, how is it possible for one honest man to defend himself against twenty thousand knaves, who are all furnished cap-à-pié, with the defensive arms of worldly prudence, and the offensive too of craft and malice? He will find no less odds than this against him, if he have much to do in human affairs. Do you wonder, then, that a virtuous man should love to be alone? It is hard for him to be otherwise. He is so when he is among ten thousand. Nor is it so uncomfortable to be alone, without any other creature, as it is to be alone in the midst of wild beasts. Man is to man all kinds of beasts, a fawning dog, a roaring lion, a thieving fox, a robbing wolf, a dissembling crocodile, a treacherous decoy, and a rapacious vulture. The civilest, methinks, of all nations, are those whom we account the most barbarous. There is some moderation and good nature in the Toupinambaltions, who eat no men but their enemies; while we learned and polite and Christian Europeans, like so many pikes and sharks, prey upon everything that we can swallow." .

There is some moderation and good nature in the Toupinambaltions, who eat no men but their enemies; while we learned and polite and Christian Europeans, like so many pikes and sharks, prey upon everything that we can swallow." . Are Protestant nations nothing concerned in that humorous but terrible picture, drawn by a late eminent hand? "He was perfectly astonished (and who would not, if it were the first time he had heard it?) at the historical account I gave him of our affairs during the last century; protesting it was only a heap of conspiracies, rebellions, murders, massacres; the very worst effects that avarice, faction, hypocrisy, perfidiousness, cruelty, rage, madness, hatred, envy, lust, malice, and ambition, could produce. Even in times of peace, how many innocent and excellent persons have been condemned to death or banish ment, by great Ministers practising upon the corruption of Judges, and the malice of factions! How many villains have been exalted to the highest places of trust, power, dignity, and profit! By what methods have great numbers, in all countries, procured titles of honour and vast estates ! Perjury, oppres sion, subornation, fraud, panderism, were some of the most excusable; for many owed their greatness to sodomy or incest; others, to the prostituting of their own wives or daughters; others, to the betraying of their country, or their Prince; more, to the perverting of justice to destroy the innocent." Well might that keen author add, "If a creature pretending to reason can be guilty of such enormities, certainly the cor ruption of that faculty is far worse than brutality itself." Now, are Popish nations only concerned in this? Are the Protestants quite clear? Is there no such thing among them (to take one instance only) as "perverting of justice," even in public courts of judicature? Can it not be said in any Protest ant country, "There is a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, according as they are paid, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white? For example : If my neighbour has a mind to my cow, he hires a Lawyer to prove that he ought to have my cow from me. I must hire another to defend my right, it being against all rules of law that a man should speak for him self.

I must hire another to defend my right, it being against all rules of law that a man should speak for him self. In pleading, they do not dwell on the merits of the cause, but upon circumstances foreign thereto. For instance: They do not take the shortest method to know what title my adver sary has to my cow; but whether the cow be red or black, her horns long or short; whether the field she grazes in be round or square, and the like. After which, they adjourn the cause from time to time; and in ten or twenty years' time they come to an issue. This society, likewise, has a peculiar cant and jargon of their own, in which all their laws are written. And these they take special care to multiply; whereby they have so confounded truth and falsehood, right and wrong, that it will take twelve years to decide, whether the field, left me by my ancestors for six generations, belong to me or to one three hundred miles off." Is it in Popish countries only that it can be said, "It does not appear that any one perfection is required towards the procurement of any one station among you; much less, that men are ennobled on account of their virtue; that Priests are advanced for their piety or learning, Judges for their inte grity, Senators for the love of their country, or Counsellors for their wisdom ?" 10. But there is a still greater and more undeniable proof that the very foundations of all things, civil and religious, are utterly out of course in the Christian as well as the hea then world. There is a still more horrid reproach to the Christian name, yea, to the name of man, to all reason and humanity. There is war in the world ! war between men I war between Christians ! I mean, between those that bear the name of Christ, and profess to "walk as he also walked." Now, who can reconcile war, I will not say to religion, but to any degree of reason or common sense? But is there not a cause ? O yes: "The causes of war," as the same writer observes, "are innumerable.

O yes: "The causes of war," as the same writer observes, "are innumerable. Some of the chief are these: The ambition of Princes; or the corruption of their Ministers: Difference of opinion; as, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether the juice of the grape be blood or wine; what is the best colour for a coat, whether black, white, or grey; and whether it should be long or short, whether narrow or wide. Nor are there any wars so furious as those occasioned by such difference of opinions. "Sometimes two Princes make a war to decide which of them shall dispossess a third of his dominions. Sometimes a war is commenced, because another Prince is too strong; sometimes, because he is too weak. Sometimes our neigh bours want the things which we have, or have the things which we want: So both fight, until they take ours, or we take theirs. It is a reason for invading a country, if the peo ple have been wasted by famine, destroyed by pestilence, or embroiled by faction; or to attack our nearest ally, if part of his land would make our dominions more round and compact. "Another cause of making war is this: A crew are driven by a storm they know not where; at length they make the land and go ashore; they are entertained with kindness. They give the country a new name; set up a stone or rotten plank for a memorial; murder a dozen of the natives, and bring away a couple by force. Here commences a new right of dominion : Ships are sent, and the natives driven out or de stroyed. And this is done to civilize and convert a barbarous and idolatrous people." But, whatever be the cause, let us calmly and impartially consider the thing itself. Here are forty thousand men gathered together on this plain. What are they going to do? See, there are thirty or forty thousand more at a little dis tance. And these are going to shoot them through the head or body, to stab them, or split their skulls, and send most of their souls into everlasting fire, as fast as they possibly can. Why so? What harm have they done to them? O none at all ! They do not so much as know them.

They do not so much as know them. But a man, who is King of France, has a quarrel with another man, who is King of England. So these Frenchmen are to kill as many of these Englishmen as they can, to prove the King of France is in the right. Now, what an argument is this l What a method of proof! What an amazing way of deciding con troversies ! What must mankind be, before such a thing as war could ever be known or thought of upon earth? How shocking, how inconceivable a want must there have been of common understanding, as well as common humanity, before any two Governors, or any two nations in the universe, could once think of such a method of decision ? If, then, all na tions, Pagan, Mahometan, and Christian, do, in fact, make this their last resort, what farther proof do we need of the utter degeneracy of all nations from the plainest principles of reason and virtue P of the absolute want, both of common sense and common humanity, which runs through the whole race of mankind? In how just and strong a light is this placed by the writer cited before l "I gave him a description of cannons, muskets, pistols, swords, bayonets; of sieges, attacks, mines, countermines, bombardments; of engagements by sea and land; ships sunk with a thousand men, twenty thousand killed on each side, dying groans, limbs flying in the air; smoke, noise, trampling to death under horses' feet, flight, pursuit, victory; fields strewed with carcases, left for food to dogs and beasts of prey; and, farther, of plundering, stripping, ravishing, burning, and destroying. I assured him, I had seen a hundred enemies blown up at once in a siege, and as many in a ship, and beheld the dead bodies drop down in pieces from the clouds, to the great diversion of the spectators." Is it not astonishing, beyond all expression, that this is the naked truth? that, within a short term of years, this has been the real case in almost every part of even the Christian world?

that, within a short term of years, this has been the real case in almost every part of even the Christian world? And meanwhile we gravely talk of the "dignity of our nature" in its present state This is really surprising, and might easily drive even a well-tempered man to say, "One might bear with men, if they would be content with those vices and follies to which nature has entitled them. I am not provoked at the sight of a pickpocket, a gamester, a politician, a suborner, a traitor, or the like. This is all according to the natural course of things. But when I behold a lump of deformity and diseases, both in body and mind, smitten with pride, it breaks all the measures of my patience; neither shall I ever be able to comprehend how such an animal and such a vice can tally together." And surely all our declamations on the strength of human reason, and the eminence of our virtues, are no more than the cant and jargon of pride and ignorance, so long as there is such a thing as war in the world. Men in general can never be allowed to be reasonable creatures, till they know not war any more. So long as this monster stalks uncon trolled, where is reason, virtue, humanity? They are utterly excluded; they have no place; they are a name, and nothing more. If even a Heathen were to give an account of an age wherein reason and virtue reigned, he would allow no war to have place therein. So Ovid of the golden age:- Nondum pracipites cingebant oppida fossa ; Non galeae, non ensis erat. Sine militis usu Mollia secure peragebant otia gentes. "Steep ditches did not then the towns surround, Nor glittering helm, nor slaughtering sword was found; Nor arms had they to wield, nor wars to wage, But peace and safety crown'd the blissful age." 11. How far is the world at present from this state 1 Yet, when we speak of the folly and wickedness of mankind, may we not except our own country, Great Britain and Ireland? In these we have such advantages for improvement, both in know ledge and virtue, as scarce any other nation enjoys. We are under an excellent constitution, which secures both our reli gious and civil liberty.

We are under an excellent constitution, which secures both our reli gious and civil liberty. We have religion taught in its primitive purity, its genuine, native simplicity. And how it prospers among us, we may know with great ease and certainty; for we depend not on hearsay, on the report of others, or on subtle and uncertain reasonings; but may see everything with our own eyes, and hear it with our own ears. Well, then, to make all the allowance possible, we will suppose mankind in general to be on a level, with regard to knowledge and virtue, even with the inhabitants of our fortunateislands; and take our measure of them from the present undeniable state of our own countrymen. In order to take a thorough survey of these, let us begin with the lowest, and proceed upward. The bulk of the natives of Ireland are to be found in or near their little cabins. throughout the kingdom, most of which are their own work manship, consisting of four earthen walls, covered with straw, or sods, with one opening in the side wall, which serves at once for door, window, and chimney. Here, in one room, are the cow and pig, the woman with her children, and the master of the family. Now, what knowledge have these rational animals? They know to plant and boil their potatoes, to milk their cow, and put their clothes on and off. if they have any besides a blanket; but other knowledge they have none, unless in religion. And how much do they know of this? A little more than the Hottentots, and not much. They know the names of God, and Christ, and the Virgin Mary. They know a little of St. Patrick, the Pope, and the Priest; how to tell their beads, to say Ave Maria and Pater Noster; to do what penance they are bid, to hear mass, confess, and pay so much for the pardon of their sins. But as to the nature of religion, the life of God in the soul, they know no more (I will not say, than the Priest, but) than the beasts of the field.

But as to the nature of religion, the life of God in the soul, they know no more (I will not say, than the Priest, but) than the beasts of the field. And how very little above these are the numerous inhabit ants of the northern parts of Scotland, or of the islands which lie either on the west or the north side of that kingdom I What knowledge have these, and what religion? Their re ligion usually lies in a single point, in implicitly believing the head of their clan, and implicitly doing what he bids." Meantime they are, one and all, as ignorant of rational, scriptural religion, as of Algebra; and altogether as far from the practice as from the theory of it. "But it is not so in England: The very lowest of the peo ple are here better instructed." I should be right glad to find it so; but I doubt a fair trial will show the contrary. I am afraid we may still say of thousands, myriads of peasants, men, women, and children, throughout our nation, "Wild as the untaught Indian's brood, The Christian savages remain; Strangers, yea, enemies to God, They make thee spill thy blood in vain." The generality of English peasants are not only grossly, stupidly, I had almost said, brutishly ignorant as to all the arts of this life, but eminently so with regard to religion and the life to come. Ask a countryman, What is faith? What is repentance? What is holiness? What is true religion? and he is no more able to give you an intelligible answer, than if you were to ask him about the north-east passage. Is there, then, any possibility that they should practise what they know nothing of? If religion is not even in their heads, can it be in their hearts or lives? It cannot. Nor is there the least savour thereof, either in their tempers or conversation. Neither in the one, nor the other, do they rise one jot above the pitch of a Turk or a Heathen. Perhaps it will be said, "Whatever the clowns in the midland counties are, the people near the sea-coasts are more civilized." Yes; great numbers of them are, in and near all our ports; many thousands there are civilized by smuggling.

Perhaps it will be said, "Whatever the clowns in the midland counties are, the people near the sea-coasts are more civilized." Yes; great numbers of them are, in and near all our ports; many thousands there are civilized by smuggling. The num bers concerned herein, upon all our coasts, are far greater than can be imagined. But what reason, and what religion, have these that trample on all laws, divine and human, by a course of thieving, or receiving stolen goods, of plundering their King and By a late Act of Parliament, there is a happy alteration made in this particular. country? I say King and country; seeing, whatever is taken from the King, is in effect taken from the country, who are obliged to make up all deficiencies in the royal revenue. These are, therefore, general robbers. They rob you and me, and every one of their countrymen; seeing, had the King his due customs, a great part of our taxes might be spared. A smuggler, then, (and, in proportion, every seller or buyer of uncustomed goods) is a thief of the first order, a highwayman or pickpocket of the worst sort. Let not any of those prate about reason or religion. It is an amazing instance of human folly, that every government in Europe does not drive these vermin away into lands not inhabited. We are all indebted to those detachments of the army which have cleared some of our coasts of these public nuisances; and indeed many of that body have, in several respects, de served well of their country. Yet can we say of the soldiery in general, that they are men of reason and religion? I fear not. Are not the bulk of them void of almost all knowledge, divine and human P And is their virtue more eminent than their knowledge? But I spare them. May God be mer ciful to them 1 May he be glorified by their reformation, rather than their destruction Is there any more knowledge or virtue in that vast body of men, (some hundred thousands,) the English sailors? Surely no. It is not without cause, that a ship has been called, "a floating hell." What power, what form, of religion is to be found in nine out of ten, shall I say, or ninety-nine out of a hundred, either of our merchantmen, or men-of-war?

It is not without cause, that a ship has been called, "a floating hell." What power, what form, of religion is to be found in nine out of ten, shall I say, or ninety-nine out of a hundred, either of our merchantmen, or men-of-war? What do the men in them think or know about religion? What do they practise; either sailors or marines? I doubt whether any heathen sailors, in any country or age, Greek, Roman, or Barbarian, ever came up to ours, for profound ignorance, and barefaced, shameless, shocking impiety. Add to these, out of our renowned metropolis, the whole brood of porters, draymen, carmen, hackney-coachmen, and I am sorry to say, Noblemen and Gentlemen's footmen, (together making up some thousands,) and you will have such a collection of knowing and pious Christians as all Europe cannot exceed ! "But all men are not like these." No; it is pity they should. And yet how little better are the retailers of brandy or gin, the inhabitants of blind alehouses, the oyster-women, fish wives, and other good creatures about Billingsgate, and the various clans of pedlars and hawkers that patrol through the streets, or ply in Rag-fair, and other places of public resort These, likewise, amount to several thousands, even within the Bills of Mortality. And what knowledge have they? What religion are they of ? What morality do they practise? "But these have had no advantage of education, many of them scarce being able to write or read." Proceed we, then, to those who have had these advantages, the officers of the Excise and Customs. Are these, in general, men of reason, who think with clearness and connexion, and speak perti nently on a given subject? Are they men of religion; sober, temperate, fearing God and working righteousness; having a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man? How many do you find of this kind among them? men that fear an oath; that fear perjury more than death; that would die rather than neglect any part of that duty which they have sworn to perform; that would sooner be torn in pieces, than suffer any man, under any pretence, to defraud His Majesty of his just right?

men that fear an oath; that fear perjury more than death; that would die rather than neglect any part of that duty which they have sworn to perform; that would sooner be torn in pieces, than suffer any man, under any pretence, to defraud His Majesty of his just right? How many of them will not be deterred from doing their duty either by fear or favour, regard no threatenings in the execution of their office, and accept no bribes, called presents? These only are wise and honest men. Set down all the rest as having neither religion nor sound reason. "But surely tradesmen have." Some of them have both ; and in an eminent degree. Some of our traders are an honour to the nation. But are the bulk of them so 7 Are a vast majority of our tradesmen, whether in town or country, I will not say religious, but honest men? Who shall judge whether they are or no? Perhaps you think St. Paul is too strict. Let us appeal then to Cicero, an honest Heathen. Now, when he is laying down rules of honesty between man and man, he proposes two cases: 1. Antisthenes brings a ship load of corn to Rhodes, at a time of great scarcity. The Rhodians flock about him to buy. He knows that five other ships laden with corn will be there to-morrow. Ought he to tell the Rhodians this, before he sells his own corn? "Undoubtedly he ought," says the Heathen; "otherwise, he makes a gain of their ignorance, and so is no better than a thief or a robber." 2. A Roman Nobleman comes to a Gentleman to buy his house, who tells him, "There is another going to be built near it, which will darken the windows," and, on that ac count, makes a deduction in the price. Some years after, the Gentleman buys it of him again. Afterward he sues the Nobleman for selling it without telling him first that houses. were built near, which darkened the windows. The Noble man pleads, "I thought he knew it." The Judge asks, "Did you tell him or not?" and, on his owning he did not, determines, "This is contrary to the law, Ne quid dolo malo. fiat, Let nothing be done fraudulently," and sentences him immediately to pay back part of the price.

fiat, Let nothing be done fraudulently," and sentences him immediately to pay back part of the price. Now, how many of our tradesmen come up to the heathen standard of honesty? Who is clear of dolus malus, such fraud as the Roman Judge would immediately have con demned? Which of our countrymen would not have sold his corn, or other wares, at the highest price he could 7 Who would have sunk his own market, by telling his customers there would be plenty the next day? Perhaps scarce one in twenty. That one the Heathen would have allowed to be an honest man; and every one of the rest, according to his sen tence, is "no better than a thief or a robber." I must acknowledge, I once believed the body of English merchants to be men of the strictest honesty and honour. But I have lately had more experience. Whoever wrongs the widow and fatherless, knows not what honour or honesty means. And how very few are there that would scruple this! I could relate many flagrant instances. But let one suffice: A merchant dies in the full course of a very extensive business. Another agrees with his widow, that provided she will recommend him to her late husband's correspondents, he will allow her yearly such a proportion of the profits of the trade. She does so; and articles are drawn, which she lodges with an eminent man. This emi nent man positively refuses to give them back to her; but gives them to the other merchant, and so leaves her entirely at his mercy. The consequence is, the other says, there is no profit at all; so he does not give her a groat. Now, where is the honesty or honour, either of him who made the agreement, or him who gave back the articles to him? That there is honour, nay, and honesty, to be found in ano ther body of men, among the gentlemen of the law, I firmly believe, whether Attorneys, Solicitors, or Counsellors. But are they not thinly spread? Do the generality of Attorneys and Solicitors in Chancery love their neighbour as themselves, and do to others what (if the circumstances were changed) they would have others do to them? Do the generality of Counsellors walk by this rule, and by the rules of justice, mercy, and truth?

Do the generality of Counsellors walk by this rule, and by the rules of justice, mercy, and truth? Do they use their utmost endeavours, do they take all the care which the nature of the thing will allow, to be assured that a cause is just and good before they undertake to defend it? Do they never knowingly defend a bad cause, and so make themselves accomplices in wrong and oppression? Do they never deliver the poor into the hand of his oppressor, and see that such as are in necessity have not right? Are they not often the means of withholding bread from the hungry, and raiment from the naked, even when it is their own, when they have a clear right thereto, by the law both of God and man? Is not this effectually done in many cases by protracting the suit from year to year? I have known a friendly bill preferred in Chancery by the consent of all parties; the manager assuring them, a decree would be procured in two or three months. But although several years are now elapsed, they can see no land yet; nor do I know that we are a jot nearer the conclusion than we were the first day. Now, where is the honesty of this? Is it not picking of pockets, and no better? A Lawyer who does not finish his client's suit as soon as it can be done, I cannot allow to have more honesty (though he has more prudence) than if he robbed him on the highway. "But whether Lawyers are or no, sure the Nobility and Gentry are all men of reason and religion." If you think they are all men of religion, you think very differently from your Master, who made no exception of time or nation when he uttered that weighty sentence, "How difficultly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven l'' And when some who seem to have been of your judgment were greatly astonished at his saying, instead of retracting or soft ening, he adds, "Verily I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." You think differently from St.

"But whether Lawyers are or no, sure the Nobility and Gentry are all men of reason and religion." If you think they are all men of religion, you think very differently from your Master, who made no exception of time or nation when he uttered that weighty sentence, "How difficultly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven l'' And when some who seem to have been of your judgment were greatly astonished at his saying, instead of retracting or soft ening, he adds, "Verily I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." You think differently from St. Paul, who declares, in those remarkable words, veri fied in all ages, "Not many rich men, not many noble are called," and obey the heavenly calling. So many snares sur round them, that it is the greatest of all miracles, if any of them have any religion at all. And if you think they are all men of sound reason, you do not judge by fact and expe rience. Much money does not imply much sense; neither does a good estate infer a good understanding. As a gay coat may cover a bad heart, so a fair peruke may adorn a weak head. Nay, a critical judge of human nature avers, that this is generally the case. He lays it down as a rule, Sensus communis in illá Fortund rarus : "Common sense is rarely found in men of fortune." "A rich man," says he, "has liberty to be a fool. His fortune will bear him out." Stultitiam patiuntur opes : But, Tibi par vula res est: "You have little money, and therefore should have common sense." I would not willingly say any thing concerning those whom the providence of God has allotted for guides to others. There are many thousands of these in the Established Church; many among Dissenters of all denominations. We may add, some thousands of Romish Priests, scattered through England, and swarming in Ireland. Of these, therefore, I would only ask, "Are they all moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon them that office and ministry?" If not, they do not "enter by the door into the sheep-fold;" they are not sent of God.

Of these, therefore, I would only ask, "Are they all moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon them that office and ministry?" If not, they do not "enter by the door into the sheep-fold;" they are not sent of God. Is their "eye single?" Is it their sole intention, in all their ministrations, to glorify God, and to save souls? Otherwise, "the light which is in them is darkness." And if it be, "how great is that darkness l'' Is their "heart right with God?" Are their "affections set on things above, not on things of the earth?" Else, how will they themselves go one step in the way wherein they are to guide others? Once more: "Are they holy in all manner of conversation, as He who hath called them is holy?" If not, with what face can they say to the flock, "Be ye follow ers of me, as I am of Christ?" 12. We have now taken a cursory view of the present state of mankind in all parts of the habitable world, and seen, in a general way, what is their real condition, both with regard to knowledge and virtue. But because this is not so pleasing a icture as human pride is accustomed to draw ; and because those who are prepossessed with high notions of their own beauty, will not easily believe thatit is taken from the life; I shall endeavour to place it in another view, that it may be certainly known whether it resembles the original. I shall desire every one who is willing to know mankind, to begin his inquiry at home. First, let him survey himself; and then go on, step by step, among his neighbours. I ask, then, First, Are you throughly pleased with your self? Say you, Who is not? Nay, I say, Who is? Do you observe nothing in yourself which you dislike, which you cannot cordially approve of? Do you never think too well of yourself? think yourself wiser, better, and stronger than you appear to be upon the proof? Is not this pride? And do you approve of pride? Was you never angry without a cause, or farther than that cause required? Are you not apt to be so? Do you approve of this? Do not you frequently resolve against it, and do not you break those resolutions again and again?

Do not you frequently resolve against it, and do not you break those resolutions again and again? Can you help breaking them? If so, why do you not? Are not you prone to "unreasonable desires," either of pleasure, praise, or money? Do not you catch yourself desiring things not worth a desire, and other things more than they deserve? Are all your desires proportioned to the real intrinsic value of things? Do you not know and feel the contrary? Are not you continually liable to "foolish and hurtful desires?" And do not you frequently relapse into them, knowing them to be such; knowing that they have before "pierced you through with many sorrows?" Have you not often resolved against these desires, and as often broke your resolutions? Can you help breaking them? Do so; help it, if you can; and if not, own your helplessness. Are you throughly pleased with your own life? Nihilna vides quod nolis ? "Do you observe nothing there which you dislike?" I presume you are not too severe a judge here; nevertheless, I ask, Are you quite satisfied, from day to day, with all you say or do? Do you say nothing which you after wards wish you had not said? do nothing which you wish you had not done? Do you never speak anything contrary to truth or love? Is that right? Let your own conscience deter mine. Do you never do anything contrary to justice or mercy? Is that well done? You know it is not. Why, then, do you not amend? Moves, sed nil promoves. You resolve, and resolve, and do just as you did before. Your wife, however, is wiser and better than you. Nay, perhaps you do not think so. Possibly you said once, "Thou hast no faults, or I no faults can spy; Thou art all beauty, or all blindness I." But you do not say so now : She is not without faults; and you can see them plain enough. You see more faults than you desire, both in her temper and behaviour: And yet you cannot mend them; and she either cannot or will not. And she says the very same of you. Do your parents or hers live with you? And do they, too, exercise your patience? Is there nothing in their temper or behaviour that gives you pain?

Is there nothing in their temper or behaviour that gives you pain? nothing which you wish to have altered P Are you a parent yourself? Parents in general are not apt to think too meanly of their own dear offspring. And, probably, at some times you admire yours more than enough; you think there are none such. But do you think so upon cool reflection? Is the behaviour of all your children, of most, of any of them, just such as you would desire, toward yourself, toward each other, and toward all men ? Are their tempers just such as you would wish; loving, modest, mild, and teachable? Do you observe no self will, no passion, no stubbornness, no ill-nature or surliness among them? Did you not observe more or less of these in every one of them, before they were two years old? And have not those seeds ever since grown up with them, till they have brought forth a plentiful harvest? Your servants, or apprentices, are probably older than your children. And are they wiser and better? Of all those who have succeeded each other for twenty years, how many were good servants? How many of them did their work "unto the Lord, not as pleasing man, but God?" How many did the same work, and in as exact a manner, behind your back as before your face? They that did not were knaves; they had no religion; they had no morality. Which of them studied your interest in all things, just as if it had been his own? I am afraid, as long as you have lived in the world you have seen few of these black swans yet. Have you had better success with the journeymen and labour ers whom you occasionally employ? Will they do the same work if you are at a distance, which they do while you are stand ing by ? Can you depend upon their using you, as they would you should use them? And will they do this, not so much for gain, as for conscience sake? Can you trust them as to the price of their labour? Will they never charge more than it is fairly worth?

Will they never charge more than it is fairly worth? If you have found a set of such workmen, pray do not conceal so valuable a treasure; but immediately advertise the men, and their places of abode, for the common benefit of your countrymen. Happy you who have such as these about your house ! And are your neighbours as honest and loving as they? They who live either in the same, or in the next house; do these love you as themselves? and do to you, in every point, as they would have you do to them? Are they guilty of no untrue or unkind sayings, no unfriendly actions towards you? And are they, (as far as you see or know,) in all other respects, reasonable and religious men? How many of your neighbours answer this character? Would it require a large house to contain them? But you have intercourse, not with the next neighbours only, but with several tradesmen. And all very honest; are they not? You may easily make a trial. Send a child, or a coun tryman, to one of their shops. If the shopkeeper is an honest man, he will take no advantage of the buyer's ignorance. If he does, he is no honester than a thief. And how many tradesmen do you know who would scruple it? Go a little farther. Send to the market for what you want. "What is the lowest price of this?" "Five shillings, Sir." "Can you take no less?" "No, upon my word. It is worth it, every penny." An hour after he sells it for a shilling less. And it is really worth no more. Yet is not this the course (a few persons excepted) in every market throughout the king dom? Is it not generally, though not always, "Cheat that cheat can: Sell as dear as you can, and buy as cheap P" And what are they who steer by this rule better than a company of Newgate-birds? Shake them all together; for there is not a grain of honesty among them. But are not your own tenants, at least, or your landlord, honest men ? You are persuaded they are. Very good: Remember, then, an honest man's word is as good as his bond.

Very good: Remember, then, an honest man's word is as good as his bond. You are preparing a receipt, or writing, for a sum of money, which you are going to pay or lend to this honest man. Writ fing ! What need of that? You do not fear he should die soon. You did not once think of it. But you do not care to trust him without it; that is, you are not sure but he is a mere knave. What, your landlord, who is a Justice of Peace; it may be, a Judge; nay, a Member of Parliament; possibly a Peer of the realm ! And cannot you trust this Honourable, if not Right Honourable, man, without a paltry receipt? I do not ask whether he is a whoremonger, an adulterer, a blasphemer, a proud, a passionate, a revengeful man: This, it may be, his nearest friends will allow; but do you suspect his honesty too? 13. Such is the state of the Protestant Christians in Eng land. Such their virtue, from the least to the greatest; if you take an impartial survey of your parents, children, ser vants, labourers, neighbours; of tradesmen, Gentry, Nobility. What then can we expect from Papists? what from Jews, Mahometans, Heathens? And it may be remarked, that this is the plain, glaring, appa rent condition of human kind. It strikes the eye of the most careless, inaccurateobserver, who does not trouble himself with any more than their outside. Now, it is certain the generality of men do not wear their worst side outward. Rather, they study to appear better than they are, and to conceal what they can of their faults. What a figure, then, would they make, were we able to touch them with Ithuriel's spear! What a pros pect would there be, could we anticipate the transactions of the great day ! could we "bring to light the hidden things of dark ness, and make manifest the thoughts and intents of the heart!" This is the plain, naked fact, without any extenuation on the one hand, or exaggeration on the other. The present state of the moral world is as conspicuous as that of the natural. Ovid said no more concerning both, near two thou sand years since, than is evidently true at this day.

Ovid said no more concerning both, near two thou sand years since, than is evidently true at this day. Of the natural world he says, (whether this took place at the fall of man, or about the time of the deluge,) Jupiter antiqui contraxit tempora veris, Perque hyemes, astusque, et indequales autumnos, Et breve ver, spatiis exegit quatuor annum. "The God of nature, and her sovereign King, Shorten'd the primitive perennial spring: The spring gave place, no sooner come than past, To summer's heat, and winter's chilling blast, And autumn sick, irregular, and uneven : While the sad year, through different seasons driven, Obey'd the stern decree of angry Heaven." And a man may as modestlv deny, that spring and summer, autumn and winter, succeed each other, as deny one article of the ensuing account of the moral world: Irrupit vena pejoris in aevum Omne nefas: Fugere pudor, verumque, fidesque ; In quorum subiere locum, fraudesque, dolique, Insidiaque, et vis, et amor sceleratus habendi. "A flood of general wickedness broke in At once, and made the iron age begin: Wirtue and truth forsook the faithless race, And fraud and wrong succeeded in their place; Deceit and violence, the dire thirst of gold, Lust to possess, and rage to have and hold." What country is there now upon earth, in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, be the inhabitants Pagans, Turks, or Christians, concerning which we may not say? Vivitur ex rapto: Non hospes ab hospite tutus: Filius ante diem patrios inquirit in annos; Victa jacet pietas ; et Virgo cade madentes Ultima caelestum terras Astraa reliquit. They live by rapine. The unwary guest Is poison'd at the inhospitable feast. The son, impatient for his father's death, Numbers his years, and longs to stop his breath: Extinguish'd all regard for God and man; And Justice, last of the celestial train, Spurns the earth drench'd in blood, and flies to heaven again." 14. Universal misery is at once a consequence and a proof of this universal corruption. Men are unhappy, (how very few are the exceptions !) because they are unholy. Culpam paena premit comes: "Pain accompanies and follows sin." Why is the earth so full of complicated distress? Because it is full of complicated wickedness. Why are not you happy? Other circumstances may concur, but the main reason is, be cause you are not holy.

Other circumstances may concur, but the main reason is, be cause you are not holy. It is impossible, in the nature of things, that wickedness can consist with happiness. A Roman Heathen tells the English Heathens, Nemo malus felix : "No vicious man is happy." And if you are not guilty of any gross outward vice, yet you have vicious tem pers; and as long as these have power in your heart, true peace has no place. You are proud; you think too highly of yourself. You are passionate; often angry without rea son. You are self-willed; you would have your own will, your own way, in everything; that is, plainly, you would rule over God and man; you would be the governor of the world. You are daily liable to unreasonable desires: Some things you desire that are no way desirable; others which ought to be avoided, yea, abhorred, as least as they are now circumstanced. ...And can a proud or a passionate man be happy? O no ! ex perience shows it is impossible. Can a man be happy who is full of self-will? Not unless he can dethrone the Most High. Can a man of unreasonable desires be happy? Nay, they "pierce" him "through with many sorrows." I have not touched upon envy, malice, revenge, covetous ness, and other gross vices. Concerning these it is univer sally agreed, by all thinking men, Christian or Heathen, that a man can no more be happy while they lodge in his bosom, than if a vulture was gnawing his liver. It is supposed, in deed, that a very small part of mankind, only the vilest of men, are liable to these. I know not that; but certainly this is not the case with regard to pride, anger, self-will, foolish de sires. Those who are not accounted bad men are by no means free from these. And this alone (were they liable to no other pain) would prevent the generality of men, rich and poor, learned and unlearned, from ever knowing what happiness IneallS. 15. You think, however, you could bear yourself pretty well; but you have such a husband or wife, such parents and child ren, as are intolerable ! One has such a tongue, the other so perverse a temper! The language of these, the carriage of those, is so provoking; otherwise you should be happy enough.

The language of these, the carriage of those, is so provoking; otherwise you should be happy enough. True; if both you and they were wise and virtuous. Mean while, neither the vices of your family, nor your own, will suffer you to rest. Look out of your own doors: "Is there any evil in the city, and" sin "hath not done it?" Is there any misfortune or misery to be named, whereof it is not either the direct or remote occasion? Why is it that the friend or relation for whom you are so tenderly concerned is involved in so many troubles? Have not you done your part toward making them happy? Yes, but they will not do their own: One has no management, no frugality, or no industry; another is too fond of pleasure. If he is not what is called scandalously vicious, he loves wine, women, or gaming. And to what does all this amount? He might be happy; but sin will not suffer it. Perhaps you will say, "Nay, he is not in fault; he is both frugal and diligent; but he has fallen into the hands of those who have imposed upon his good-nature." Very well; but still sin is the cause of his misfortunes; only it is another's, not his own. If you inquire into the troubles under which your neigh bour, your acquaintance, or one you casually talk with, labours, still you will find the far greater part of them arise from some fault, either of the sufferer or of others; so that still sin is at the root of trouble, and it is unholiness which causes unhappiness. And this holds as well with regard to families, as with re gard to individuals. Many families are miserable through want. They have not the conveniences, if the necessaries, of life. Why have they not? Because they will not work: Were they diligent, they would want nothing. Or, if not idle, they are wasteful; they squander away, in a short time, what might have served for many years. Others, indeed, are diligent and frugal too; but a treacherous friend, or a malicious enemy, has ruined them; or they groan under the hand of the oppressor; or the extortioner has entered into their labours. You see, then, in all these cases, want (though in various ways) is the effect of sin.

You see, then, in all these cases, want (though in various ways) is the effect of sin. But is there no rich man near? none that could relieve these innocent sufferers, without impairing his own fortune? Yes; but he thinks of nothing less. They may rot and perish for him. See, more sin is implied in their suffering. But is not the family of that rich man himself happy? No; far from it; perhaps farther than his poor neighbours. For they are not content; their "eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor" their "ear with hearing." Endeavouring to fill their souls with the pleasures of sense and imagination, they are only pouring water into a sieve. Is not this the case with the wealthiest families you know? But it is not the whole case with some of them. There is a debauched, a jealous, or an ill-natured husband; a gaming, passionate, or imperious wife; an undutiful son; or an imprudent daughter,-who banishes happiness from the house. And what is all this but sin in various shapes; with its sure attendant, misery? In a town, a corporation, a city, a kingdom, is it not the same thing still? From whence comes that complication of all the miseries incident to human nature, war? Is it not from the tempers "which war in the soul?" When nation rises up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, docs it not necessarily imply pride, ambition, coveting what is another's; or envy, or malice, or revenge, on one side, if not on both ? Still, then, sin is the baleful source of affliction; and consequently, the flood of miseries which covers the face of the earth,-which overwhelms not only single persons, but whole families, towns, cities, kingdoms, is a demonstrative proof of the overflowing of ungodliness in every nation under heaven I. 1. THE fact then being undeniable, I would ask, How is it to be accounted for? Will you resolve it into the prevalence of custom, and say, "Men are guided more by example than reason?" It is true: They run after one another like a flock of sheep, (as Seneca remarked long ago) non qua eundum est, sed qua itur: "Not where they ought to go, but where others go." But I gain no ground by this; I am equally at a loss to account for this custom.

Will you resolve it into the prevalence of custom, and say, "Men are guided more by example than reason?" It is true: They run after one another like a flock of sheep, (as Seneca remarked long ago) non qua eundum est, sed qua itur: "Not where they ought to go, but where others go." But I gain no ground by this; I am equally at a loss to account for this custom. How is it (seeing men are rea sonable creatures, and nothing is so agreeable to reason as virtue) that the custom of all ages and nations is not on the side of virtue rather than vice? If you say, "This is owing to bad education, which propagates ill customs;" I own, education has an amazing force, far beyond what is com monly imagined. I own, too, that as bad education is found among Christians as ever obtained among the Heathens. But I am no nearer still; I am not advanced a hair's breadth toward the conclusion. For how am I to account for the almost universal prevalence of this bad education? I want to know when this prevailed first; and how it came to pre vail. How came wise and good men (for such they must have been before bad education commenced) not to train up their children in wisdom and goodness; in the way wherein they had been brought up themselves? They had then no ill precedent before them: How came they to make such a precedent? And how came all the wisdom of after-ages never to correct that precedent? You must suppose it to have been of ancient date. Profane history gives us a large account of universal wickedness, that is, universal bad education, for above two thousand years last past. Sacred history adds the account of above two thousand more: In the very beginning of which (more than four thousand years ago) "all flesh had corrupted their ways before the Lord!" or, to speak agreeably to this hypothesis, were very corruptly educated. Now, how is this to be accounted for, that, in so long a tract of time, no one nation under the sun has been able, by whole some laws, or by any other method, to remove this grievous evil; so that, their children being well educated, the scale might at length turn on the side of reason and virtue?

Now, how is this to be accounted for, that, in so long a tract of time, no one nation under the sun has been able, by whole some laws, or by any other method, to remove this grievous evil; so that, their children being well educated, the scale might at length turn on the side of reason and virtue? These are questions which I conceive will not easily be answered to the satisfaction of any impartial inquirer. But, to bring the matter to a short issue: The first parents who educated their children in vice and folly, either were wise and virtuous themselves, or were not. If they were not, their vice did not proceed from education; so the supposition falls to the ground: Wickedness was antecedent to bad education. If they were wise and virtuous, it cannot be supposed but they would teach their children to tread in the same steps. In mowise, therefore, can we account for the present state of mankind from example or education. 2. Let us then have recourse to the oracles of God.

Let us then have recourse to the oracles of God. How do they teach us to account for this fact, that "all flesh corrupted their way before God," even in the antediluvian world; that mankind was little, if at all, less corrupt, from the flood to the giving of the law by Moses; that from that time till Christ came, even God's chosen people were a "faithless and stubborn generation," little better, though certainly not worse, than the Heathens who knew not God; that when Christ came, both "Jews and Gentiles'' were "all under sin; all the world was guilty before God;" that, even after the gospel had been preached in all nations, still the wise and virtuous were a "little flock;" bearing so small a proportion to the bulk of mankind, that it might yet be said, "The whole world lieth in wicked ness;" that, from that time, "the mystery of iniquity" wrought even in the Church, till the Christianswere little better than the Heathens; and, lastly, that at this day "the whole world," whether Pagan, Mahometan, or nominally Christian, (little, indeed, is the flock which is to be excepted,) again "lieth in wickedness; " doth not "know the only true God; " doth not love, doth not worship him as God; hath not "the mind which was in Christ," neither "walketh as he walked; " doth not practise justice, mercy, and truth, nor do to others as they would others should do to them; how, I say, do the oracles of God teach us to account for this plain fact? 3. They teach us, that "in Adam all die; " (1 Cor. xv. 22, compared with Genesis ii. iii.;) that "by" the first "man came '' both natural and spiritual "death;" that "by" this "one man sin entered into the world, and death." in consequence of sin; and that from him "death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned." (Rom. v. 12.) But you aver, that "no evil but temporal death came upon men in consequence of Adam's sin." And this you endea vour to prove by considering the chief scriptures which are supposed to relate thereto. The first you mention is Genesis ii.

The first you mention is Genesis ii. 17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." On this you observe: "Death was to be the consequence of his disobedience. And the death here threatened can be opposed only to that life God gave Adam when he created him." True; but how are you assured that God, when he created him, did not give him spiritual as well as animal life? Now, spiritual death is opposed to spiritual life. And this is more than the death of the body. "But this is pure conjecture, without a solid foundation; for no other life is spoken of before." Yes, there is; "the image of God" is spoken of before. This is not, therefore, pure conjecture; but is grounded upon a solid foundation, upon the plain word of God. Allowing then that "Adam could understand it of no other life than that which he had newly received;" yet would he naturally understand it of the life of God in his soul, as well as of the life of his body. "In this light, therefore, the sense of the threatening will stand thus: 'Thou shalt surely die; as if he had said, I have "formed thee of the dust of the ground, and breathed into thy nostrils the breath of lives;'" (Third Edition, p. 8;) both of Dr. Taylor's "Doctrine of Original Sin," Part I., to whom I address myself in what follows. What is quoted 'rom him, generally in his own words, is inclosed in cummas. animal life, and of spiritual life; and in both respects thou "art become a living soul." "But if thou eatest of the for bidden tree, thou shalt cease to be a living soul. For I will take from thee" the lives I have given, and thou shalt die spiritually, temporally, eternally. But "here is not one word relating to Adam's posterity. Though it be true, if he had died immediately upon his trans. gression, all hisposterity must have been extinct with him." It is true; yet "not one word" of it is expressed. There fore, other consequences of his sin may be equally implied, though they are no more expressed than this. 4. The second scripture you cite is Gen.

The second scripture you cite is Gen. iii., from verse 7 to 24. (Pages 9, 10.) On this you observe: Here "we have some consequences of our first parents' sin before God judged them; some appointed by his judicial sentence; and some which happened after that sentence was pronounced." "Immediately upon their transgression, they were seized with shame and fear. Guilt will always be attended with shame. And a state of guilt is often in Scripture expressed by being naked. Moses 'saw that the people were naked; for Aaron had made them naked to their shame among their enemies." (Exod. xxxii. 25.)" Certainly, naked does not mean guilty here; but either stripped of their ornaments, (xxxiii. 5, 6) or of their swords, or their upper garment. "Thy nakedness shall be uncovered; yea, thy shame shall be seen." (Isaiah xlvii. 3.) Here also nakedness does not mean guilt; but is to be taken literally, as mani festly appears from the words immediately preceding: "Make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers." (Verse 2.) And, "Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his gar ments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame." (Rev. xvi. 15.) The plain meaning is, lest he lose the graces he has received, and so be ashamed before men and angels. "Their fear is described: "Adam and his wife hid them selves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. (Gen. iii. 8.) They had no such fear while they were innocent; but now they were afraid to stand before their Judge." This is all you can discern in the Mosaic account as the consequence of our first parents' sin, before God judged them. Mr. Hervey discerns something more. I make no apology for transcribing some of his words: "Adam violated the precept, and, as the nervous original expresses it, "died the death.' He before possessed a life incomparably more excellent than that which the beasts en joy. He possessed a divine life, consisting, according to the Apostle, "in knowledge, in righteousness, and true holi ness.' This, which was the distinguishing glory of his na ture, in the day that he ate the forbidden fruit was extinct. "His understanding, originally enlightened with wisdom, was clouded with ignorance. His heart, once warmed with heavenly love, became alienated from God his Maker.

His heart, once warmed with heavenly love, became alienated from God his Maker. His passions and appetites, rational and regular before, shook off the government of order and reason. In a word, the whole moral frame was unhinged, disjointed, broken. "The ignorance of fallen Adam was palpable. Witness that absurd attempt to hide himself from the eye of Omni science among the trees of the garden. His aversion to the all-gracious God was equally plain; otherwise, he would never have fled from his Maker, but rather have hasted on the wings of desire, into the place of the divine manifestation. "A strange variety of disorderly passions were evidently predominant in his breast. Pride; for he refuses to acknow ledge his guilt, though he cannot but own the fact. Ingrati tude; for he obliquely upbraids the Creator with his gift, as though it had been a snare rather than a blessing: 'The woman thou gavest me.' The female criminal acts the same unhumbled part. She neither takes shame to herself, nor gives glory to God, nor puts up a single petition for pardon. "As all these disasters ensued upon the breach of the com mandment, they furnish us with the best key to open the meaning of the penalty annexed. They prove beyond any argument that spiritual death and all its consequences were comprised in the extent of the threatening." (Theron and Aspasio, Dial. 11.) 5. However, "no other could in justice be punishable for that transgression, which was their own act and deed only." If no other was justly punishable, then no other was punished for that transgression. But all were punished for that transgression, namely, with death. Therefore, all men were justly punishable for it. By punishment I meansuffering consequent upon sin, or pain inflicted because of sin preceding. Now, it is plain, all man Kind suffer death; and that this suffering is consequent upon Adam'ssin. Yea, and that this pain is inflicted on all men because of his sin. When, therefore, you say, "Death does descend to us in consequence of his transgression," (Doctrine of Original Sin, p. 20) you allow the point we contend for; and are very welcome to add, "Yet it is not a punishment for his sin." You allow the thing. Call it by what name you please.

Call it by what name you please. But "punishment always connotes guilt." It always connotes sin and suffering; and here are both. Adam sinned; his posterity suffer; and that, in consequence of his sin. But "sufferings are benefits to us." Doubtless; but this does not hinder their being punishments. The pain I suffer as a punishment for my own sins may be a benefit to me, but it is a punishment nevertheless. But "as they two only were guilty of the first sin, so no other but they two only could be conscious of it as their sin." No other could be conscious of it as their sin, in the same sense as Adam and Eve were; and yet others may "charge it upon themselves in a different sense, so as to judge themselves "children of wrath" on that account. To sum up this point in Dr. Jennings's words: "If there be anything in this argument, that Adam's posterity could not be justly punishable for his transgression, because it was his personal act and not theirs, it must prove universally, that it is unjust to punish the posterity of any man for his personal crimes. And yet most certain it is, that God has in other cases actually punished men's sins on their posterity. Thus the posterity of Canaan, the son of Ham, is punished with slavery for his sin. (Gen. ix. 25, 27.) Noah pronounced the curse under a divine afflatus, and God confirmed it by his providence. So we do in fact suffer for Adam's sin, and that too by the sentence inflicted on our first parents. We suffer death in consequence of their transgression. Therefore we are, in some sense, guilty of their sin. I would ask, What is guilt, but an obligation to suffer punishment for sin? Now since we suffer the same penal evil which God threatened to, and inflicted on, Adam for his sin; and since it is allowed, we suffer this for Adam's sin, and that by the sentence of God, appointing all men to die, because Adam sinned; is not the consequence evident? Therefore we are all some way guilty of Adam's sin." (Jennings's Vindication.) 6. "The consequences appointed by the judicial sentence of God are found in that pronounced on the serpent, or the woman, or the man." "The serpent is cursed, Gen. iii.

iii. 14, 15. And those words in the fifteenth verse: 'I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: He' (so the He brew) "shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel,' imply, that God would appointhis only-begotten Sonto maintain a kingdom in the world opposite to the kingdom of Satan, till he should be born of a woman, and by his doctrine, example, obedience, and death, give the last stroke, by way of moral means, to the power and works of the devil." I do not understand that expression, "By way of moral means." What I understand from the whole tenor of Scrip ture is, that the eternal, almighty Son of God, "who is over all, God blessed for ever," having reconciled us to God by his blood, creates us anew by his Spirit, and reigns till he hath destroyed all the works of the devil. "Sentence is passed upon the woman, (verse 16,) that she should bring forth children with more pain and hazard than otherwise she would have done." How? With "more pain and hazard" than otherwise she would have done! Would she otherwise have had any pain at all? or have brought forth children with any hazard? Hazard of what? Certainly, not of death. I cannot comprehend this. "Lastly, the sentence upon the man (verses 17-19) first affects the earth, and then denounces death upon himself. "After sentence pronounced, God, having clothed Adam and Eve, drove them out of paradise." Here, "observe, (1.) A curse is pronounced on the serpent and on the ground; but no curseupon the woman and the man." But a curse fell upon them in that very moment wherein they transgressed the law of God. For, "cursed is everyone that continuethnotin all things which are" contained "in the law to do them." Vainly, therefore, do you subjoin, "Though they are subjected to sorrow, labour, and death, these are not inflicted under the notion of a curse." "Surely they are; as the several branches of that curse which he had already incurred; and which had already notonly "darkened and weak ened his rational powers," but disordered his whole soul. "Observe, (2.) Here is not one word of any other death, but the dissolution of the body." Nor was it needful.

"Observe, (2.) Here is not one word of any other death, but the dissolution of the body." Nor was it needful. He felt in himself that spiritual death, which is the prelude of death everlasting. "But the words, 'Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return, restrain this death to this dissolution alone." "This dissolution alone" is expressed in those words. But how does it appear, that nothing more is implied ? The direct contrary appears from your own asser tions; for if these words refer clearly to those, "And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of lives;" and if "the judicial act of condemnation clearly implieth the depriving him of that life which God then breathed into him;" it undeniably fol lows, that this judicial act implieth a deprivation of spiritual life as well as temporal; seeing God breathed into him both one and the other, in order to his becoming "a living soul." It remains, that the death expressed in the original threat ening, and implied in the sentence pronounced upon man, includes all evils which could befal his soul and body; death temporal, spiritual, and eternal. 7. You next cite 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22 : "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." On this you observe, (1) "The Apostle is in this chapter proving and explaining the resurrection. It is this fact or event, and no other, which he here affirms and demonstrates." If you mean, "The resurrection of the body to that life which it enjoyed in this world is the only thing which the Apostle speaks of in this chapter," your assertion is palpably false; for he speaks therein of "that glorious life" both of soul and body, which is not, cannot be, enjoyed in this world. You observe, (2.) "It is undeniable, that all mankind 'die in Adam;' all are mortal, in consequence of his sin." (3.) "It is equally clear, that ' by Christ came the re surrection of the dead: 'That, in Christ,' all who die in Adam, that is, all mankind, "are made alive." It is neither clear nor true, that St.

You observe, (2.) "It is undeniable, that all mankind 'die in Adam;' all are mortal, in consequence of his sin." (3.) "It is equally clear, that ' by Christ came the re surrection of the dead: 'That, in Christ,' all who die in Adam, that is, all mankind, "are made alive." It is neither clear nor true, that St. Paul affirms this, in either of the texts before us: For in this whole chapter he speaks only of the resurrection of the just, of "them that are Christ's." (Verse 23.) So that from hence it cannot be inferred at all, that all mankind will be "made alive." Admitting then, "that the "resurrection of the dead, and being 'made alive," are expressions of the same signification;" this proves. nothing; since the Apostle affirms neither one nor the other, of any but of those "who are fallen asleep in Christ." (Verse 18.) It is of these only that he here asserts, their death came by the first, their resurrection by the second, Adam; or, that in Adam they all died; in Christ, they all are made alive. Whatever life they all lost by means of Adam, they all recover by means of Christ. "From this place we cannot conclude that any death came upon mankind in consequence of Adam's sin, beside that. death from which mankind shall be delivered at the resur rection." Nay, from this place we cannot conclude, that mankind in. general shall be delivered from any death at all; seeing it does not relate to mankind in general, but wholly and solely to "them that are Christ's." But from this place we may firmly conclude that more than the mere death of the body came even upon these by man, by Adam's sin; seeing the resurrection which comes to them by man, by Christ, is far more than the mere removal of that. death: Therefore their dying in Adam implies far more than the bare loss of the bodily life we now enjoy; seeing their "being made alive in "Christ implies far more than a bare recovery of that life. Yet it is true, that whatever death came on them by one man, came upon all mankind; and that in the same sense wherein they "died in Adam," all mankind died likewise.

Yet it is true, that whatever death came on them by one man, came upon all mankind; and that in the same sense wherein they "died in Adam," all mankind died likewise. And that all mankind are not "made alive in "Christ, as they are, is not God's fault, but their own.- I know not therefore what you mean by saying, that after Dr. Jennings has proved this whole chapter, and consequently the two verses in question, to relate wholly and solely to the resurrection of the just, "he leaves you in full possession of your argument." Surely if he proves this, he wrests your whole argument out of your hands. He leaves you not one shred of it. 8. "We come now," you say, "to the most difficult scrip ture which speaks of this point: "'As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; even 'so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. "'For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. "'Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. "'But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. "'And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one' offence 'to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. "'For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they who receive the abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. "'Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. "'For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Romans v.

"'For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Romans v. 12-19.)" On this you observe: (1.) That this passage "speaks of temporal death, and no other." That it speaks of temporal death is allowed; but not that it speaks of no other. How prove you this? Why thus: "He evidently speaks of that death which 'entered into the world' by Adam's sin; that death which is common to all mankind; which "passed upon all men; that death which "reigned from Adam to Moses;' that whereby the 'many,' that is, all mankind, "are dead.'" He does so; but how does it appear that the death which "entered into the world by "Adam's sin; which is common to all mankind; which "passed upon all men;" which "reigned from Adam to Moses;" and whereby the many, that is, all mankind, are dead; how, I say, does it appear, from any or all of these expressions, that this is tem poral death only P Just here lies the fallacy: "No man," say you, "can deny that the Apostle is here speaking of that death." True; but when you infer, "Therefore he speaks of that only," we deny the consequence. 9. You affirm : (2.) "By judgment to condemnation, (verses 16, 18,) he means the being adjudged to the forementioned death; for the 'condemnation' inflicted by the 'judgment' of God (verse 16) is the same thing with "being dead." (Verse 15.)" Perhaps so; but that this is merely the death of the body still remains to be proved; as, on the other hand, that "the gift, or free gift," opposed thereto, is merely deliverance from that death. You add: "In all the Scriptures there is recorded but one 'judgment to condemnation; one sentence, one judicial act of condemnation, which 'came upon all men.'" Nay, in this sense of the word, there is not one; not one for mal sentence, which was explicitly and judicially pronounced upon "all mankind." That which you cite, (Gen. iii.

iii. 17, 19,) was not; neither does all that sentence, in fact, "come upon all men." "Unto dust shalt thou return," does come upon all; but that other part does not,-"In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life." This was formally pronounced, and actually fulfilled upon Adam; but it is not fulfilled upon all his posterity. 10. You affirm: (3) "These words, in the 19th verse, "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners," mean the same as those in the 18th, "As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation.'" Not exactly the same. The being "made sinners" is different from the being judged, condemned, or punished as such. You subjoin: "But these words, "By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to conden nation, answer in sense to those, (verse 17,) "By one man's offence death reigned by one.'" (Ibid.) Neither is this exactly true. "Condemnation" came first; and in consequence of this, "death reigned." You add: "And by "death' most certainly is intended no other than temporal death." Most certainly this cannot be proved. Therefore it does not fol low, "that these words, "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners," mean no more than, "By one man's dis obedience' mankind were made subject to temporal death." "Review," you say, "this reasoning, and see if you can find any flaw in it." There are several; but the grand flaw lies in the very first link of the chain. You have not yet proved that "death throughout this passage means only the death of the body." This flaw is not amended by your observing that St.

You have not yet proved that "death throughout this passage means only the death of the body." This flaw is not amended by your observing that St. Paul was a Jew, and wrote to Jews as well as Gentiles; that he often uses Hebrew idioms; and that "the Hebrew word which signi fies to be a sinner, in Hiphil signifies to condemn, or make (that is, declare) a man a sinner by a judicial sentence;" that you can, by the help of your Concordance, "produce fifteen Hebrew texts, in which the word is so taken :" (Pages 31, 32:) For if it would follow from hence, that, "By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation," is just equivalent with, "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners;" still this does not prove that the death in question is no other than temporal death. But indeed it does not follow, that two expressions are just equivalent, because one Hebrew word may contain them both; nor can it, therefore, be inferred from hence, that, "Many were made sinners," is just equivalent with, "Judgment came upon all men to condemnation." Rather, the former expres sion answers to "All have sinned;" the latter, to "Death passed upon all men." Sin is the cause of their condemnation, and not the same thing with it. You go on : "Besides all this, it is here expressly affirmed, that the many are 'made sinners' by the disobedience of another man." It is expressly affirmed; and by an inspired Apostle; therefore I firmly believe it. "But they can be made sinners by the disobedience of another in no other sense than as they are sufferers." How is this proved ? We grant the Hebrew words for sin and iniquity are often used to signify suffering. But this does not prove that the phrase, "Were made sinners," signifies only, they were made sufferers. "So 'Christ was made sin for us." No.; not so, but as he was "made an offering for sin." "He suffered on account of the sins of men, and so he 'was made sin." Yes, "a sin-offering." But it is never said, he was made a sinner; therefore the expressions are not parallel. But he need not have been made sin at all, if we had not been made sinners by Adam.

But he need not have been made sin at all, if we had not been made sinners by Adam. "And men suffer on account of Adam's sin, and so they are made sinners." Are they made sinners so only That remains to be proved. "It seems then confirmed, beyond all doubt, that 'by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, meaneth only, By Adam's sin, the many, that is, all mankind, 'were made subject to death." He that will believe it (taking death in the common sense) may; but you have not confirmed it by one sound argument. 11. You affirm, (4.) "The Apostle draws a comparison between Adam and Christ; between what Adam did, with the consequences of it, and what Christ did, with the consequences of that. And this comparison is the main thing he has in view." This is true. "The comparison begins at the twelfth verse: 'Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin," there he stops awhile, and brings an argument to prove, that death came on mankind through Adam's trans gression." (Pages 37, 38.) He does so; but not before he had finished his sentence, which literally runs thus: "As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, even so death passed upon all men, in that all had sinned." The comparison, therefore, between Adam and Christ begins not at the twelfth but the fourteenth verse. Of this you seem sensible yourself, when you say, "Adam is the 'pattern of Him that was to come.' Here a new thought starts into the Apostle's mind." For it was not a new thought starting into his mind here, if it was the same which he began to express at the twelfth verse. You proceed: "The extent of the free gift in Christ answers to the extent of the consequences of Adam's sin; nay, abounds far beyond them. This he incidentally handles, verses 15-17, and then resumes his main design, verses 18, 19, half of which he had executed in the twelfth verse." Not one jot of it. That verse is a complete sentence, not half of one only.

That verse is a complete sentence, not half of one only. And the particle therefore, prefixed to the eighteenth verse, shows, that the discourse goes straight forward; and that this, as well as the nineteenth verse, are closely connected with the seventeenth Allowing, then, that "the Apostle draws a comparison between the disobedience of Adam, by which all men are 'brought under condemnation, and the "obedience of Christ,' by which all men are, in some sense, "justified unto life;'" (page 40;) still it does not appear either that this condemna tion means no more than the death of the body, or that this justification means no more than the resurrection of the body. 12. You affirm, (5.) "The whole of the Apostle's argument stands upon these two principles, that, by the 'offence of one,' death passed upon all men; and, by "the obedience of one,' all are justified." This is allowed. But I cannot allow your interpretation of, "Sin is not imputed, where there is no law;" or, as you would oddly, and contrary to all precedent, translate it, "where law is not in being." "The sins of mankind," say you, "were not imputed, were not taxed with the forfeitnre of life, because the law which subjects the transgressor to death was not then in being; for it was abrogated upon Adam's transgression, and was not again in force till revived by Moses." On this I would ask, (1.) Where is it written, that "the law which subjected the transgressor to death was abrogated by Adam's transgression?" I want a clear text for this. (2.) Suppose it was, how does it appear that it was not again in force till revived by Moses? (3.) Did not that law, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," "subject the trans gressor to death?" And was it "not in force" after Adam's transgression, and before Moses? (4.) What do you mean by that ambiguous expression, "Were not taxed with the for feiture of life?" Your argument requires that it should mean, "Were not punished or punishable with death." But is this true? Were not the sins of the men of Sodom, and, in deed, the whole antediluvian world, punished with death during that period? (5.) Was not every wilful, impenitent trans gressor, during this whole time, subject to death everlasting?

(5.) Was not every wilful, impenitent trans gressor, during this whole time, subject to death everlasting? Neither can I allow that unnatural interpretation of, "Them who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgres sion;" "Had not sinned against law, making death the pe nalty of their sin, as Adam did." Do not the words obviously mean, "Had not sinned by any actual sin, as Adam did?" Nay, "the Sodomites and Antediluvians are no objection to this." That is strange indeed! But how so? "Because extraordinary interpositions come under no rule, but the will of God." What is that to the purpose? Their sins were actually punished with death, "during that space wherein," you say, "mankind were not subject to death for their trans gression." They were subject to death for their transgressions, as God demonstrated by those extraordinary interpositions. You add, "That law, 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, makes death the penalty of mur der." It does; and thereby overthrows your whole assertion. "No; for, (1.) It was not enacted till the year of the world 1657." Well, and if it had been enacted only the year before Moses was born, it would still have destroyed your argument. But, (2) "It is given as a rule for Magistrates in executing justice, and not as a declaration of the penalty of sin to be inflicted by God himself." What then? What does it matter, whether the penalty annexed by God were inflicted by God or man? However, I suppose this punishment on the Antediluvians, and on Sodom and Gomorrah, was "inflicted by God himself." But, (3) "None of these were made mortal by those sins." Certainly, infallibly true! And yet the case of any of these abundantly proves, that the law was in force from Adam to Moses, even according to your own definition of it: "A rule of duty with the penalty of death annexed, as due to the transgressor from God." 13. You affirm, (6.) "The consequences of Adam's sin answer those of Christ's obedience; but not exactly: 'Not as the offence, so is the free gift.

You affirm, (6.) "The consequences of Adam's sin answer those of Christ's obedience; but not exactly: 'Not as the offence, so is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace' (or favour) 'of God and the gift" (the benefits that are) 'by grace, which is by one mail Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.' (Verse 15.) That is, he hath in Christ bestowed benefits upon man kind, far exceeding the consequences of Adam's sin; in erect ing a new dispensation, furnished with a glorious fund of light and truth, means and motives." (Pages 43,44.) This is true; but how small a part of the truth ! What a poor, low account of the Christian dispensation 1 You go on: "'Not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift : For the judgment was by one offence to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification;' (verse 16;) that is, the grace of God in Christ discharges mankind from the consequences of Adam's one offence." Does it en tirely discharge them from these consequences? from sorrow, and labour, and death, which you affirmed a while ago to be the only consequences of it that affect his posterity? It "also sets them quite to rights with God, both as to a conformity to the law and eternal life." Is not this allowing too much? Is it well consistent with what you said before? "In the 19th verse, the Apostle concludes the whole argument: "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.'" (Page 29, et seq.) "Were made sinners," you aver means only, "were made mortal." If so, the counterpart, "made righteous," can only mean, "made immortal." And that you thought so then, appears from your citing as a parallel text, "In Christ shall all be made alive;" which you had be fore asserted to mean only, "shall be raised from the dead."

"In the 19th verse, the Apostle concludes the whole argument: "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.'" (Page 29, et seq.) "Were made sinners," you aver means only, "were made mortal." If so, the counterpart, "made righteous," can only mean, "made immortal." And that you thought so then, appears from your citing as a parallel text, "In Christ shall all be made alive;" which you had be fore asserted to mean only, "shall be raised from the dead." 14. "Hence it followeth, First, that the abounding of God's grace, and the blessing by that grace, doth not respect the consequences of Adam's sin, hath no reference to his transgression, but to the grace of God, and the obedience of Christ." "The abounding of God's grace," you inform us, "has reference to the grace of God." Most sure: But this does not prove that it has no reference to the con sequences of Adam's sin. If we gain more blessing by Christ than we lost by Adam, it is doubtless abounding grace. But still it has a reference to Adam's transgression, and the con sequences of it. It is over these that it abounds; therefore it has a manifest respect to them. "It followeth, Secondly, that in the 18th and 19th verses the Apostle considers the effects of Christ's obedience only so far as they answer to, and reverse the consequences of, Adam's disobedience; the additional benefits flowing there from having been mentioned apart in the 15th, 16th, and 17th verses." In those verses the Apostle does un doubtedly show how the blessing by Christ abounded over the curse by Adam. But what then? How does this prove that the 18th and 19th verses do not respect all the benefits mentioned before? Without question they do: They are a general conclusion, not from one, but all the preceding verses. "Again observe, that the 'justification to life' is such a justification as comes upon all men." It may in some sense; but does it in fact? According to your sense of it, it comes upon none.

According to your sense of it, it comes upon none. For if it means, "the discharging men from the consequences of Adam's sin; and if the only consequences of that sin are sorrow, labour, and death;" it is manifest, no man upon earth is justified to this day. But you go on: "As justification to life comes upon all men." No; not in the proper scripture sense of justifica tion. That term is never once in the Bible used for the resurrection, no more than for heaven or hell. It may be proper here, once for all, to observe, that what St. Paul says of abounding grace is simply this: (1.) The condemnation came by "one offence" only; the acquittal is from "many offences." (2.) They who receive this shall enjoy a far higher blessing by Christ than they lost by Adam. In both these respects, the consequences of Christ's death abound over the consequences of Adam's sin. And this whole blessing by Christ is termed, in the 18th verse, "jus tification;" in the 19th, "being made righteous." "Further, the phrase, "being made righteous, as well as 'being made sinners, is a Hebrew way of speaking." I do not allow that: Both the phrases, caëla Taofia. 8ucatow, or aplaptoot, are pure and good Greek. That, therefore, there is any Hebraism at all in these expressions, cannot be admitted without proof. If, then, the same He brew word does signify to "make righteous," and to "acquit in judgment," it does not follow that the Greek word here translated, "made righteous," means only "being acquitted." You yourself say the contrary.

If, then, the same He brew word does signify to "make righteous," and to "acquit in judgment," it does not follow that the Greek word here translated, "made righteous," means only "being acquitted." You yourself say the contrary. You but now defined this very gift, "the benefits that are by grace;" (page 44;) and, in explaining those very words, "The free gift is of many offences unto justification," affirmed, That is, "the grace of God in Christ not only discharges mankind from the conse quences of Adam's sin, but also sets them quite to rights with God, both as to a conformity to the law, and as to eternal life." And is this no more than "acquitting them in judgment," " or reversing the sentence of condemnation?" Through this whole passage, it may be observed that "the gift," "the free gift," "the gift by grace," mean one and the same thing, even the whole benefit given by the abounding grace of God, through the obedience of Christ; abounding both with regard to the fountain itself, and the streams: Abundant grace producing abundant blessings. If, then, these verses are "evidently parallel to those 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22," it follows even hence, that "dying," and "being made alive," in the latter passage, do not refer to the body only; but that "dying" implies all the evils, temporal and spiritual, which are derived from Adam's sin; and "being made alive," all the blessings which are derived from Christ, in time and in eternity. Whereas, therefore, you add, "It is now evident, surely beyond all doubt," (strong expressions!) "that the conse quences of Adam's sin here spoken of are no other than the 'death' which comes upon all men:" I must beg leave to reply, It is not evident at all; nay, it is tolerably evident, on the contrary, that this "death" implies all man ner of evils, to which either the body or soul is liable. 15. You next reconsider the 12th verse, which you under stand thus: "Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," namely, in Adam.

You next reconsider the 12th verse, which you under stand thus: "Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," namely, in Adam. "'All have sinned;' that is, are subjected to death through that one offence of his." You said before, "'Death passed upon all men," means, all were by a judicial sentence made subject to death." And here you say, "'All have sinned, means, all have been sub jected to death." So the Apostle asserts, "All were subjected to death, because all were subjected to death !" Not so: Sin is one thing, death another; and the former is here assigned as the cause of the latter. Although the criticism on ep' Go is liable to much exception, yet I leave that and the Hebrew citations as they stand; because, though they may cause many readers to admire your learning, yet they are not to the point. "Seeing then the phrase, "All are made sinners, hath been demonstrated to signify, all are subjected to death by a judicial sentence; and seeing the Apostle's whole argument turns on this point, that all men die through the one offence of Adam; who can doubt but, 'All have sinned," means the same with, "All are made sinners?'" (Pages 53, 54.) I do not doubt it; but I still deny that either phrase means no more than, "All are in a state of suffering." 16. In order fully to clear this important text, I shall here subjoin some of Dr. Jennings's remarks: "The Apostle having treated in the preceding chapter of the cause and manner of a sinner's justification before God, namely, through the merits of Christ, and by faith in his blood, and having spoken of the fruits of justification in the former part of this chapter, he proceeds, in the verses before us, to illustrate our salvation by Christ, by comparing it with our ruin by Adam. He compares Adam with Christ, and shows how what we lost by the one is restored by the other with abundant advantage.

He compares Adam with Christ, and shows how what we lost by the one is restored by the other with abundant advantage. He makes Adam to be a figure or type of Christ; considering them both as public persons, representing, the one, all his natural descendants; the other, all his spiritual seed; the one, Adam, all mankind, who are 'all guilty before God;' the other, Christ, all those 'who obtain the righteousness of God, which is by faith to all them that believe." "Concerning the consequences of Adam's sin upon his posterity, we have here the following particulars: "(1.) That by one man sin entered into the world; that the whole world is some way concerned in Adam's sin. And this indeed is evident, because, "(2.) Death, which is 'the wages of sin, and the very punishment threatened to Adam's first transgression, 'en tered by sin, and passed upon all men, is actually inflicted on all mankind. Upon which it is asserted in the next words, "(3.) That all have sinned: 'Even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.' All men then are deemed sinners in the eye of God, on account of that one sin, of which alone the Apostle is here speaking. And, "(4.) Not only after, but before, and 'until the law, given by Moses, 'sin was in the world;' and men were deemed sinners, and accordingly punished with death, through many generations. Now, "sin is not imputed where there is no law; nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses; " plainly showing, that all mankind, during that whole period, had sinned in Adam, and so died in virtue of the death threatened to him; and death could not then be inflicted on mankind for any actual sin, because it was inflicted on so many infants, who had neither eaten of the forbidden fruit, nor committed any actual sin whatever, and therefore had not sinned in any sense, "after the similitude of Adam's transgression.' Therefore, "(5.) It was 'through the offence of one that many are dead. (Verse 15.) "By one offence death reigned by one.' (Verse 17.) And seeing the sin of Adam is thus punished in all men, it follows, "(6.) That they were all involved in that sentence of con demnation which God passed upon him.

(Verse 15.) "By one offence death reigned by one.' (Verse 17.) And seeing the sin of Adam is thus punished in all men, it follows, "(6.) That they were all involved in that sentence of con demnation which God passed upon him. "The judgment was by one to condemnation." (Verse 16.) "By one offence judg ment came upon all men to condemnation." (Verse 18.) And, since it is so plain that all men are actually punished for Adam's sin, it must needs follow, "(7.) That they "all sinned in Adam. By one man's diso bedience many were made sinners. They were so constituted sinners by Adam's sinning, as to become liable to the punish ment threatened to his transgression. "Between Adam and Christ, the type and the antitype, St. Paul draws the parallel in the following particulars: "(1.) Both have done something by which many others are affected, who either lose or gain by what they did: 'Through the offence of one many are dead; by one, the gift of grace hath abounded to many.' (Verse 15.) "(2.) That which the first Adam did, by which many, that is, all men receive hurt, was sin, offence, and disobedience: They all suffer by one that sinned. (Verse 16) "By the offence of one, by one man's disobedience." (Verses 18, 19.) That which the second Adam did, by which many, that is, all who believe, receive benefit, is righteousness and obedi ence: 'By the righteousness of one, by the obedience of one.' (Verses 18, 19.) "(3.) The detriment which all men receive through Adam is, that they "are made sinners;' that 'judgment is come upon them to condemnation; in consequence of which, death, the wages of sin, is inflicted on every one of them. The benefit which all believers receive through Christ is grace, or the favour of God, justification, righteousness, or sanctification, and eternal life: 'The grace of God, and the gift by grace, hath, by one man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men' who receive it 'to justification of life. By the obedience of one, many are made righteous." (Verses 15, 18, 19.) "Thus the Apostle shows the parity between the effects of Adam's sin, and of Christ's righteousness.

By the obedience of one, many are made righteous." (Verses 15, 18, 19.) "Thus the Apostle shows the parity between the effects of Adam's sin, and of Christ's righteousness. Only in two instances he shows that the effect of the latter vastly exceeds the effect of the former: "(1.) It removes many sins, besides that one sin of Adam, which so affected all his posterity: "If through one offence many be dead, much more the grace of God by Jesus Christ hath abounded to many. The judgment was by one to con demnation; but the free gift is of many offences unto justifi cation." (Verses 15, 16.) "(2.) Christ raises believers to a far happier state than that which Adam enjoyed in paradise: "Much more they who receive abundanceof grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reignin life by one, Jesus Christ." (Verse 17.)" (Jennings's Vindication.) 17. Your paraphrase on the text, (Taylor's Doctrine, c., pp. 55-64) being only a repetition of what you had said over and over before, does not require any separate consideration. Only I must observe a few mistakes which have not occurred before: (1) "The resurrection is the first and fundamental step in the gospel salvation." No; "He shall save his people from their sins;" this is the first and fundamental step. (2.) You have very grievously mistaken the meaning of four texts in John vi. : "This is the Father's will, that, of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (Verse 39) "This is the will of Him that sent me, that everyone that seeth the Son, and believethon him, should have everlasting life: And I will raise him up at the last day." (Verse 40.) "No man can come to me except the Father draw him: And I will raise him up at the last day." (Verse 44.) "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (Verse 54.) Now, you cite all these texts as relating to the general resurrection, whereas not one of them relates to it at all. They are all promises made to true believers only; and relate wholly and solely to the resurrection of the just. 18.

18. It remains then, all that has been advanced to the con trary notwithstanding, that the only true and rational way of accounting for the general wickedness of mankind, in all ages and nations, is pointed out in those words: "In Adam all die." In and through their first parent, all his posterity died in a spi ritual sense; and they remain wholly "dead in trespasses and sins," till the second Adam makes them alive. By this "one man sin entered into the world, and passed upon all men:" And through the infection which they derive from him, all men are and ever were, by nature, entirely "alienated from the life of God; without hope, without God in the world." (1.) Your Appendix to the first part of your book is wholly employed in answering two questions: "One is, How is it con sistent with justice, that all men should die by the disobedience of one man? The other, How shall we account for all men's rising again, by the obedience of another man, Jesus Christ?" You may determine the former question as you please, since it does not touch the main point in debate. I shall therefore take no farther pains about it, than to make a short extract of what Dr. Jennings speaks on the head: "(2.) As to the first question, Dr. Taylor gets rid of all diffi culty that may arise from the consideration of God's justice, by ascribing it wholly to his goodness, that 'death passed upon all men." "Death, he tells us, 'is upon the whole a benefit.' It is certain that believers in Christ receive benefit by it. But this gentleman will have death to be an 'original benefit, and that to all mankind; merely intended to increase the vanity of all earthly things, and to abate their force to delude us." He afterward displays the benefit of shortening human life to its present standard: 'That death being nearer to our view, might be a powerful motive to regard less the things of a transitory world. But does the "nearer view of death,' in fact, produce this effect? Does not the common observation of all ages prove the contrary? Has not covetousness been the peculiar vice of old age?

Has not covetousness been the peculiar vice of old age? As death is nearer to the view, we plainly see that men have more and more regard for the things of a transitory world. We are sure, therefore, that death is no such benefit to the generality of men. On the contrary, it is the king of terrors to them, the burden of their lives, and bane of their pleasures. To talk, therefore, of death's being a benefit, an original benefit, and that to all mankind, is to talk against the common sense and experience of the whole world. "It is strange, death should be originally given by God as a benefit to man, and that the shortening of man's life afterward should be designed as a farther benefit; and yet that God should so often promise his peculiar people long iife as the reward of obedience, and threaten them with death as a punish ment of disobedience "'But the Scripture, he says, "affirms that sufferings are the chastisements of our heavenly Father, and death in parti cular. But does not every chastisement suppose a fault? Must he not be a cruel father who will chasten his children for no fault at all? If then God does but chasten us for Adam's sin, the fault of it must some way lie upon us; else we suppose God's dealings with his children to be unreasonable and unrighteous." (Vindication, p. 36, c.) (3.) I would only add two or three obvious questions: (i.) Did God propose death as a benefit in the original threatening? (ii.) Did he represent it as a benefit in the sentence pronounced on Adam : "Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return?" (iii.) Do the inspired writers speak of God's "bringing a flood on the world of the ungodly, as a benefit, or a punishment?" (iv.) Do they mention the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as designed for a benefit to them? (v.) Is it by way of benefit that God declares, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die?" Certainly this point is not defensible. Death is pro perly not a benefit, but a punishment. (4.) The other question is, "How shall we account for all men's rising again, by the obedience of another man, Jesus Christ?" (Taylor's Doctrine, c., p.

(4.) The other question is, "How shall we account for all men's rising again, by the obedience of another man, Jesus Christ?" (Taylor's Doctrine, c., p. 70.) "To set this in a clear light, I ask another question: What was it that gave the glorious Personage, emblemized by "the Lamb," (Rev. v. 1, c.,) his superior worthiness, his prevailing interest in God, beyond all others in heaven and earth? It was his being slain; that is, his obedience to God, and good will to men: It was his consummate virtue. 'Thou artworthy.' Why? Because thou hast exhibited to God such an instance. of virtue, obedience, and goodness. Thou hast sacrificed thy life in the cause of truth, and 'hast redeemed us" by that act of the highest obedience." (Pages 71, 72.) With what extreme wariness is this whole paragraph worded! You do not care to say directly, "Jesus Christ is either a little God, or he is no God at all." So you say it indirectly, in a heap of smooth, laboured, decent circumlocutions. Yet permit me to ask, Was "that act of obedience, the original and sole ground" of his prevailing interest in God, and of his worthiness, not only "to open the book," but "to receive" from all the armies of heaven "the power, and the riches, and the wisdom, and the strength, and the honour, and the glory, and the blessing?" (Rev v. 12.) And is this act the original and the sole ground, why "all men" must "honour him even as they honour the Father?" Yea, and why "every creature which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all that are in them, say, To him that sitteth upon the throne and to the Lamb, is the blessing, and the honour, and the glory, and the power, for ever and ever?" (Verse 13.) "To Him that sitteth on the throne and to the Lamb :" Does that mean, to the great God and the little God? If so, when all "creatures in heaven and earth," all throughout the universe, thus "honour him even as they honour the Father," are they not doing him too much honour? "My glory," saith the Lord, "I will not give to another." How comes it then to be given to the Lamb?

glory," saith the Lord, "I will not give to another." How comes it then to be given to the Lamb? (5.) You proceed: "The worthiness of Christ is his consum mate virtue, obedience to God, and benevolence to his crea tures." Is this the only ground of his worthiness to be "honoured even as the Father?" Is it on this ground alone, that "all the angels of God" are to "worship him?" Or rather, because "in the beginning," from everlasting, he "was with God, and was God?" "Virtue is the only price which purchaseth everything with God. True virtue, or the right exercise of reason, is true worth, and the only valuable consideration which prevails with God." Do youthen conceive this to be the exact meaning of St. Paul, when he says, "Ye are bought with a price?" and that where he speaks of "the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood," he means with his own virtue? Agreeable to which, "Thou hast redeemed us by thy blood," must mean, by the right exercise of thy reason Well, then, might Father Socinus say, Tota redemption is nostrae per Christum meta phora: "The whole metaphor of our redemption by Christ." For on this scheme there is nothing real in it. "It was not the mere natural power or strength of the Lamb, but his most excellent character." Sir, do "you honour the Son, even as you honour the Father?" If you did, could you possibly talk of him in this strain? However, all this does not affect the question; but it still remains an unshaken truth, that all men's dying in Adam is the grand cause why "the whole world lieth in wickedness." NEWINGTON, January 18, 1757. 1. In your Second Part you profess to "examine the princi pal passages of Scripture, which Divines have applied in support of the doctrine of original sin; particularly those cited by the Assembly of Divines in their Larger Catechism." (Pages 87, 88.) To this I never subscribed; but I think it is in the main a very excellent composition, which I shall therefore cheerfully endeavour to defend, so far as I conceive it is grounded on clear Scripture. But I would first observe in general, with Dr.

But I would first observe in general, with Dr. Jennings, that there are two kinds of texts in the ensuing collection: Some that directly prove, others that properly illustrate, the doctrine of original sin. And there are so many in which it is either directly spoken of, or evidently implied, that the author might well have spared his observation, "The Scripture speaks very sparingly of the consequences of Adam's sin upon us, because as these are freely reversed to mankind by Christ, we are not so much concerned to know them." The fact here affirmed is equally true with the reason assigned for it. 2. The First proposition in the Catechism, which relates to original sin, is this: "The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descend ing from him by ordinary generation, sinned with him, and fell with him, in that first transgression. "'God hath made of one blood all nations of men." (Acts xvii. 26.)" (Pages 91, 92.) I believe Dr. Jennings's remark here will suffice: "This is quoted to prove that all mankind descend from Adam. But Dr. Taylor adds, "That is, hath made all the nations of the world of one species, endowed with the same facul ties.'" (Jennings's Vindication, p. 49, c.) And so they might have been, if all men had been created singly and separately, just as Adam was; but they could not then, with any propriety of language, have been said to be of one blood. This Scripture, therefore, is very pertinently quoted to prove what it is brought for. That 'Adam was a public person, including all his pos terity, and, consequently, that all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression, the Assembly have proved very methodically and substantially: First, from Gen. ii. 16, 17, where death is threatened to Adam in case of his sinning; then from Romans v. 12-20, and l Cor. xv. 21, 22, where we are expressly told that "all men die in Adam;" and that, "by his offence, judgment is come upon all men to condemnation." Proposition. "All mankind sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression." Which they prove by Gen. ii. 16, 17, compared with Romans v. 15-20.

15-20. On this you remark, "The threatening, 'Thou shalt surely die," is addressed to Adam personally; and therefore nothing can be concluded thence, with regard to Adam's posterity." (Pages 93, 94.) Is this consequence good? Was not the sentence also grounded on this threatening, "Unto dust thou shalt return," personally directed to him? And is this nothing to his posterity? Nay, does it not from this very consideration appear, that all his posterity were concerned in that threatening, because they are all partakers of the death which was so threatened to Adam? "But we cannot gather from Romans v., or 1 Cor. xv., 'that all mankind sinned in Adam, if we understand sinned as distin guished from suffering." It has been largely proved that we can; and that sinning must necessarily be understood there, as distinguished from suffering. "But the Apostle says, "The offence of one' brought death into the world; whereas, had all mankind sinned in Adam when he sinned, then that offence would not have been 'the offence of one,' but of millions." It might be, in one sense, the offence of millions, and in another, "the offence of one." "It is true, Adam's posterity so fell with him in that first transgression, that if the threatening had been immediately executed, he would have had no posterity at all." The threatening ! What was the threatening to them? Did not you assure us, in the very last page, "The threatening is addressed to Adam personally; and therefore nothing can be concluded from thence with regard to his posterity?" And here you say, Their very "existence did certainly fall under the threatening of the law, and into the hands of the Judge, to be disposed of as he should think fit." As he should think fit. Then he might, without any injustice, have deprived them of all blessings; of being itself, the only possible ground of all ! And this, for the sin of another. You close the article thus: "We cannot from those passages conclude, that mankind, by Adam'soffence, incurred anyevil but temporal death." Just the contrary has been shown at large. 3. Their Second proposition is, "The fall brought man kind into a state of sin and misery." To prove this, they cite Romans v. 12; a proof which all the art of man cannot evade; and Romans iii.

12; a proof which all the art of man cannot evade; and Romans iii. 23, "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." "But this," you say, "means only, Jews as well as Gentiles, men of all nations, have sinned." Nay, it is most certain, as Dr. Jennings observes, that he "means all men of all nations; or he means nothing to the purpose of his conclusion and his inferences. (Verses 19-22.) The Apostle concludes from the view he had given before of the universal corruption of mankind, that "every mouth must be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God." (Verse 19.) From whence he draws two inferences: (1) "Therefore by the works of the law there shall no flesh be justified.' (2.) The only way of justification for all sinners is, "by faith in Jesus Christ. For there is no difference, as to the way of justification; 'for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.' And, therefore, whoever they are whom Dr. Taylor excludes from this 'all,' ('all have sinned,') he must likewise exclude from having any need of justification by Christ." (Jennings's Vin dication, p. 50, c.) Be this as it may, it is certain, (1.) That mankind are now in a state of sin and suffering. (2.) That they have been so in all ages, nearly from the time that Adam fell. Now, if his fall did not bring them into that state, I would be glad to know what did. 4. Their Third proposition is, "Sin is any want of con formity to, or transgression of, the law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature." "This," you say, "has no immediate relation to our present design." (Taylor's Doctrine, c., p. 98.) But it had to theirs; which was to illustrate the preceding assertion: "That the fall of Adam brought man kind into a state of sin," in both these senses of the word. 5.

5. Their Fourth proposition is, "The sinfulness of that state into which man fell consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin; the want of that righteousness wherein he was created; and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indis posed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions." On the first article of this you say, "Adam's first sin was attended with consequences which affect all his posterity. But we could not, on account of his sin, become obnoxious to punishment." By punishment I mean evil, suffered on account of sin. And are we not obnoxious to any evil on account of Adam's sin? To prove the rest of the proposition, they cite first, Rom. iii. 10-20. On which you remark, "The Apostle is here speaking of Jews and Gentiles, not in a personal, but in a national, capacity. "The mouth, says he, of all sorts of peo ple is 'stopped, and both Jews and Gentiles are brought in guilty; for I have proved that there are transgressors among the Jews, as well as among the Gentiles." Not at all. If he proved no more than this, not one person would "become guilty before God." Not one "mouth" of Jew or Gentile would "be stopped," by showing, "there were Jewish as well as Heathen transgressors." I proceed to your observations: (1) "In this whole section there is not one word of Adam." There is enough in the next chapter but one. The Apostle first describes the effect, and afterwards point out the cause. (2.) "He is here speaking, not of all men, but of the Jews; of those alone who were "under the law,' (verse 19,) and proving from their own writings that there were great cor ruptions among them as well as other people." He is speaking of them chiefly; but not of them only, as appears from the ninth verse: "We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin: As it is written, There is none righteous," (neither among the Jews nor Gen tiles,) "no, not one." Does this respect them in their na tional only, not personal, capacity?

(2.) "He is here speaking, not of all men, but of the Jews; of those alone who were "under the law,' (verse 19,) and proving from their own writings that there were great cor ruptions among them as well as other people." He is speaking of them chiefly; but not of them only, as appears from the ninth verse: "We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin: As it is written, There is none righteous," (neither among the Jews nor Gen tiles,) "no, not one." Does this respect them in their na tional only, not personal, capacity? Does it prove no more than, that there were great corruptions among the Jews, as well as other people? (3.) "The section consists of several quotations out of the Old Testament; but, (i.) None of them, taken separately, speaks of any depravity of nature; but of habits of wickedness, which men had themselves contracted." They do speak of habits which men had contracted themselves; but do they speak of these only? The way to know this is, not to "take them separately;" not to consider the precise meaning, wherein they were occasionally spoken by David, Solomon, or Isaiah; but to take them conjointly, as they are here put toge ther by the Holy Ghost, to form the character of all mankind. On one of them, "separately taken," you say, "How could God look down from heaven, to see if there were any that did seek God, if he knew all mankind were naturally disabled from seeking him?" Why not, if, whatever they were by nature, the grace of God was more or less given to all? Though they were wholly inclined to all evil by nature, yet by grace they might recover all goodness. You affirm, (ii.) "In none of these places does God speak strictly of every individual Jew under David or Solomon. Very many were bad; but some were good." They were; though by grace, not nature. But among all those of whom God speaks by St. Paul, "there" was "none" good or "righteous, no, not one;" every individual, whether Jew or Heathen, was guilty before God.

Paul, "there" was "none" good or "righteous, no, not one;" every individual, whether Jew or Heathen, was guilty before God. "I conclude, therefore, (i.) That none of those texts refer to any corruption common to all mankind." Perhaps they do not, as spoken by David; but they do as spoken by St. Paul. "I conclude, (ii.) Such a general cor rūption as admits of no exception was not necessary to the Apostle's argument." Absolutely necessary; had it not included every individual person, no person's "mouth" would have been "stopped." These texts, therefore, do "directly and certainly prove" that, at the time when the Apostle wrote, every individual Jew and Gentile (excepting only those who were "saved by grace") "were all under sin; " "that there was none" of them "righteous, no, not one; none that understood or that sought after'" God. This was the fact: And who can find out a more rational way of accounting for this universal wickedness, than by a universal corruption of our nature, derived from our first parent? 6. The next proof is, Eph. ii. 1-3 : "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein, in time past, ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom, also, we all had our conversation in times past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." (1) "Nothing is here intimated of any ill effects of Adam's sin upon us." No ! Not if we are "children of wrath by nature?" (2.) "The Ephesians were Gentiles converted to the faith." Yea, and Jews also. In this very passage the Apostle speaks of both ; first, the Gentile, then the Jewish, converts. (3.) "In these verses he is describing their wretched state, while they were in Gentile darkness," and while they were in Jewish darkness; the Jews having been just as wicked be fore their conversion as the Heathens.

(3.) "In these verses he is describing their wretched state, while they were in Gentile darkness," and while they were in Jewish darkness; the Jews having been just as wicked be fore their conversion as the Heathens. Both the one and the other had "walked," till then, "in the vanity of their mind; having their understanding darkened," being equally "dead in trespasses and sins," equally "alienated from the iife of God, through the blindness of their heart:" A very lively description, not so much of a wicked life, as of an evil nature. (4.) "When he saith, they were 'dead in trespasses and sins, he speaks of their personal iniquities." True, both of heart and life. I must make some variation in the rest of your paraphrase. "Wherein," saith he, "in times past, ye," Heathens particularly, "walked;" inwardly and outwardly, "according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now" (still) "worketh in the children of dis obedience; among whom we Jews also had our conversation;" being as "dead in trespasses and sins" as you. "Therefore, (5.) When he adds, "And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, he cannot mean, they were liable to wrath, by that nature which they brought into the world." Why not? This does not follow from anything you have said yet. Let us see how you prove it now : "This nature is now no other than God's own work. The nature of every man comes out of the hands of God." The same may be said of those who are still "dead in tres passes and sins." Their original nature came from God, and was no other than God's own work; yet the present corrup tion of their nature came not from God, and is not his work. "Consequently, the nature of every person, when brought into being, is just what God sees fit it should be." This is true of the original nature of mankind, when it was first "brought into being;" but it is not true of our present corrupt nature. This is not "what God sees fit it should be." "It is his power alone that forms it." Yes, that forms us men; but not that forms us sinful men.

This is not "what God sees fit it should be." "It is his power alone that forms it." Yes, that forms us men; but not that forms us sinful men. "To say, The nature he gives is the object of his wrath, is little less than blasphemy." As he gave it, it is not the object of his wrath; but it is, as it is defiled with sin. "Far was it from the Apostle to depreciate our nature." True, our original nature; but never did man more deeply depreciate our present corrupt nature. "His intent is to show the Ephesians they were children of wrath, through the sins in which they walked." Yea, and through "the desires of the flesh and the mind," mentioned immediately before; "through the vanity of their mind;" through "the blindness of their hearts, past feeling, alienated from the life of God." Is he "not here speaking of their nature, but of the vicious course of life they had led?" "He well understood the worth of the human nature;" he did, both in its original and in its present state; "and elsewhere shows it was endowed, even in the Heathens, with light and power sufficient to know God, and obey his will." In what Heathens, in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, is nature now endowed with this light and power? I have never found it in any Heathen yet; and I have con versed with many, of various nations. On the contrary, I have found one and all deeply ignorant of the very end of their existence. All of them have confirmed what a heathen Meeko (or Chief) told me many years ago: "He that sitteth in heaven knoweth why he made man; but we know nothing." "But St. Paul says, "When the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, they are a law to themselves. This supposes, they might have done them "by nature, or their natural powers." But how does it appear, that, "by nature," here means, By their mere "natural powers?" It is certain they had not the written law; but had they no supernatural assistance?

This supposes, they might have done them "by nature, or their natural powers." But how does it appear, that, "by nature," here means, By their mere "natural powers?" It is certain they had not the written law; but had they no supernatural assistance? Is it not one God "who works in " us and in them, "both to will and to do?" They who, by this help, do the things contained in the law, we grant, "are not the objects of God's wrath." "Again: He affirms, the Gentiles had light sufficient to have seen God's eternal power and Godhead." (Rom. i. 19 -21.) They had; but how does it appear that this was the merely natural light of their own unassisted reason? If they had assistance from God, and did not use it, they were equally without excuse. "Nay, if their nature was corrupt, and therefore they did not glorify God, they had a fair excuse." True, if God had not offered them grace to balance the corruption of nature: But if he did, they are still without excuse; because they might have con quered that corruption, and would not. Therefore we are not obliged to seek any other sense of the phrase, "By nature," than, "By the nature we bring into the world." However, you think you have found another: "By nature, may signify really and truly. Thus St. Paul calls Timothy, 'yvmatov tekvov, "his own, genuine son in the faith; not to signify he was the child of the Apostle, but that he was a real imitator of his faith. In like manner he calls the Ephesians, voet Tekva, 'genuine children of wrath; not to signify they were related to wrath by their natural birth, but by their sin and disobedience." This is simply begging the question, without so much as a shadow of proof; for the Greek word in one text is not the same, nor anyway related to that in the other.

In like manner he calls the Ephesians, voet Tekva, 'genuine children of wrath; not to signify they were related to wrath by their natural birth, but by their sin and disobedience." This is simply begging the question, without so much as a shadow of proof; for the Greek word in one text is not the same, nor anyway related to that in the other. Nor is there the least resemblance between the Apostle's calling Timothy his "own son in the faith," and his affirming that even those who are now "saved by grace," were "by nature children of wrath." To add, therefore, "Not as they came under condemnation by the offence of Adam," is only begging the question once more; though, it is true, they had afterwards inflamed their account by "their own trespasses and sins." You conclude: "'By nature, therefore, may be a meta phorical expression, and consequently is not intended" (may be in the premises, is not in the conclusion 1 A way of arguing you frequently use) "to signify nature in the proper sense of the word; but to mean, they were really and truly children of wrath." But where is the proof? Till this is produced, I must still believe, with the Christian Church in all ages, that all men are "children of wrath by nature," in the plain, proper sense of the word. 7. The next proof is Rom. v. 6: "While we were yet with out strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." You answer, (1.) "The Apostle is here speaking, not of mankind in general, but of the Gentiles only; as appears by the whole thread of his discourse, from the beginning of the Epistle." From the beginning of the Epistle to the 6th verse of the 5th chapter is the Apostle speaking of the Gentiles only ? Otherwise it cannot appear, "by the whole thread of his discourse from the beginning of the Epistle." "But it appears especially from chap. iii.9: 'What then? Are we, Jews, 'better than they, Gentiles?" (Page 116, c.) Nay, from that very verse he speaks chiefly of the Jews.

Are we, Jews, 'better than they, Gentiles?" (Page 116, c.) Nay, from that very verse he speaks chiefly of the Jews. And you yourself, a few pages ago, roundly affirmed that "he there spoke of the Jews only." And will you affirm that, in the 4th chapter likewise, "he is speaking of the Gentiles only ?" Is it not manifest, that he does not speak of them at all in a considerable part of that chapter? How then does it appear, by "the whole thread of his discourse from the beginning of the Epistle, that he is here speaking, not of mankind in general, but of the Gentiles only?" However, you boldly go on : "Having established the point, that the Gentiles have as good a title to God's favour as the Jews." How P Is this the only, or the chief point, which St. Paul establishes in the 4th chapter? Is not his main point throughout that chapter to prove, that both Jews and Gentiles were "justified by faith?" or, is he "speaking this, not of mankind in general, but of the Gentiles only P" "He proceeds: (Chap. v. 1:) 'Therefore, being justified by faith, we, Gentiles, 'have peace with God.'" In the same manner you thrust in the word Gentiles into each of the fol lowing verses. Had then the Gentiles only "peace with God?" You might with more colour have inserted Jews in every verse; for of them chiefly the Apostle had been speak ing. To say that "he principally speaks of and to the Gen tiles, to the end of the 6th chapter," (page 117,) is another assertion which cannot be proved. It is therefore by no means true, that "he is in this verse speaking of the Gentiles in contradistinction to the Jews." You affirm, (2.) "By the same argument, he here considers the Gentiles only in a body, as distinguished from the body of the Jews; for so he does all along in the four first chap ters." No, not in one of them.

It is therefore by no means true, that "he is in this verse speaking of the Gentiles in contradistinction to the Jews." You affirm, (2.) "By the same argument, he here considers the Gentiles only in a body, as distinguished from the body of the Jews; for so he does all along in the four first chap ters." No, not in one of them. If he had, the "mouth." of no one individual person had been "stopped." On the contrary, he speaks both here, and all along, of every indi vidual, that every one might believe in Him "who died for" every one of "the ungodly." You affirm, (3) "In this verse he describes the condition of the converted Gentiles when in their heathen state, in which they were "without strength, unable to recover themselves; they were "ungodly, yea, 'sinners, and "enemies to God.'" And were not the unconverted Jews also "sinners," and "enemies to God, ungodly," and "without strength" to recover themselves? These four characters, therefore, are no proof at all, "that the Gentiles only are here spoken of." "Their sin, and enmity, and ungodliness, consisted in their wicked works." Primarily, in their wicked tempers. But how came all men, Jews and Gentiles, to have those wicked tempers, and to walk in those wicked works? How came they all, till converted, to be "dead in sin," and "without strength" to recover from it, unless "in Adam all died," in a deeper sense than you are willing to allow 7 You sum up your argument thus: "The Apostle is not speaking here of all mankind's being corrupted in Adam, but of the Gentiles being corrupted by the idolatry and wicked ness into which they had plunged themselves, and out of which they were unable to recover themselves, without the extraordinary interposal of divine grace." If this was the case of the Heathens only, then the Jews were not "without strength," but were able to recover them selves from their wickedness, without any such interposal But with regard to the Heathens, I ask, (1.) Was this the state of all the heathen nations, or of some only? (2.) If of some only, which were they that were not corrupted? (3.) If it was the state of all heathen nations, how came it to be so?

(3.) If it was the state of all heathen nations, how came it to be so? How was it, that there was not one uncorrupted nation on earth? (4.) How could any heathen nation be in this state; "without strength; unable to recover themselves" from sin, without the extraordinary interposal of the divine grace? since you are clear in this, "that all the Gentiles are endowed with light and power sufficient to know God, and perform obedience to his will, by their natural powers of reason and understanding." If you say, "They were once endowed with these powers, but now they had cast them away;" I am not satisfied still. What, did all nations cast away their natural powers of reason and understanding? Surely not. But if not, how came they all to plunge themselves into this dreadful corruption? 8. Another proof is, "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom viii. 7, 8.) On this you observe, (1.) "Here is not one word of Adam, or any consequence of his sin upon us." The whole passage speaks of that corruption of our nature which is the consequence of Adam's sin. The plain and obvious sense of it is this: "What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh," (too weak to contend with our corrupt nature,) God hath done: "Sending his own Son," he hath "condemned" that "sin" which was "in our flesh;" (verse 3;) hath given sentence that it should be destroyed: "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit;" (verse 4;) who are guided in all our thoughts, words, and actions, not by corrupt nature, but by the Spirit of God. "They that are after the flesh" who are still guided by corrupt nature "mind the things of the flesh;" have their thoughts and affections fixed on such things as gratify cor rupt nature; "but they that are after the Spirit" who are under his guidance "mind the things of the Spirit;" (verse 5;) think of, relish, love the things which the Spirit hath re vealed; which he moves us to, and promises to give us.

"They that are after the flesh" who are still guided by corrupt nature "mind the things of the flesh;" have their thoughts and affections fixed on such things as gratify cor rupt nature; "but they that are after the Spirit" who are under his guidance "mind the things of the Spirit;" (verse 5;) think of, relish, love the things which the Spirit hath re vealed; which he moves us to, and promises to give us. "For to be carnally minded" to mind the things of the flesh, of our corrupt nature "is death;" the sure mark of spiritual death, and the way to death everlasting: "But to be spirituall minded" to mind the things of the Spirit "is life; " (vers 6;) the sure mark of spiritual life, and the way to life even lasting; and attended with the "peace" of God, and peac with God, which otherwise can have no place. "Because th carnal mind" the mind, taste, inclination, the whole bias our evil nature "is enmity against God; for it is not sub ject to the law of God, neither indeed can be ; " (verse 7 being as opposite thereto as hell to heaven. "So then the that are in the flesh" still unrenewed by the Spirit, sti following the bent of corrupt nature "cannot please God. (Verse 8.) Every man may see now whether this passag does not strongly illustrate the depravity of our nature. 9. The last proof of this part of the proposition is: "Go saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, an that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was on evil continually." (Gen. vi. 5.) And below: "The earth wi corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. (Verse 11.) "Mankind," you say, "was universally debauched in lust and sensuality, rapine and violence." And how can this universal wickedness, if all mankind were quite uprigl by nature? You answer, "They had corrupted themselves So the text, (verse 12,) 'All flesh had corrupted his wa upon the earth.'" This expression does not necessaril imply any more than that all flesh, all men, were corrupte But taking it literally, I ask, How came all flesh to corrul themselves? O, "by Seth's posterity intermarrying with th Cainites." But how came all the Cainites to corrupt them selves; and all the Sethites to follow, not reform, them?

O, "by Seth's posterity intermarrying with th Cainites." But how came all the Cainites to corrupt them selves; and all the Sethites to follow, not reform, them? the balance was even, if nature leaned neither way, the ought to have been as many good as bad still; and the Seth ites ought to have reformed as many of the children of Cai, as the Cainites corrupted of the children of Seth. How came i then, that "only Noah was a just man?" And does one goo man, amidst a world of the ungodly, prove that the "natu, of mankind in general is not corrupted;" or, rather, strongl prove that it is? It does not prove that Noah himself was no naturally inclined to evil; but it does, that the world was. "But if the corruption of nature was the reason why the ol world was destroyed, it is a reason for the destruction of th world at any time." This alone was never sup posed to be the reason; but their actual wickedness added thereto. You add: "It may be urged, that God said, 'I will not again curse the ground for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. (Gen. viii. 21.) But the Hebrew particles: sometimes signifies although." That does not prove that it signifies so here. But what, if it does? What, if the text be rendered, Though "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth ?" Even thus rendered, it implies as strongly as it did before, that "man's heart" is naturally inclined to evil. The Hebrew word, translated youth, is always applied to childhood or tender age; (Isaiah vii. 16;) ny: signi fies a little child: And none of the texts you have cited prove the contrary. Heman, the author of the eighty-eighth Psalm, was doubtless "afflicted from his youth," or childhood. The Babylonians (mentioned Isaiah xlvii. 12) may well be supposed to have been trained up in the way of their fathers, from their earliest childhood: And the plain meaning of Jeremiah, (iii. 24, 25,) "Shame hath devoured the labour of our fathers from our youth: We lie down in our shame; for we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers from our youth," is, Ever since we began to think or act, we have gone astray from God. 10.

10. The preceding texts were brought to prove (and they do abundantly prove it) that our nature is deeply corrupted, inclined to evil, and disinclined to all that is spiritually good; so that, without supernatural grace, we can neither will nor do what is pleasing to God. And this easily accounts for the wickedness and misery of mankind in all ages and nations; whereby experience and reason do so strongly confirm this scriptural doctrine of original sin. Yet it will not "follow, that men are no moral agents." If you ask, "Why, how are they capable of per forming duty?" I answer, By grace; though not by nature. And a measure of this is given to all men. Nor does it follow, "that we can by no means help or hinder that sin which is natural to us." Yes, we can. Anger, for instance, is natural to me; yea, irregular, unreasonable anger. I am naturally inclined to this, as I experience every day. Yet I can help it, by the grace of God; and do so, as long as I watch and pray. Dr. Jennings answers this assertion more at large: "'If sin be natural, then it is necessary." If by sin is meant the corrupt bias of our wills, that indeed is natural to us, as our nature is corrupted by the fall; but not as it came originally out of the hand of God. Therefore it is improperly com pared to the appetites of hunger and thirst, which might be in our original nature. Now, this bias of the will is certainly evil and sinful, and hateful to God; whether we have con tracted it ourselves, or whether we derive it from Adam, makes no difference. A proud or passionate temper is evil, whether a man has contracted it himself, or derived it from his parents. Therefore the inference, "if natural and' (in some sense) 'necessary, then no sin, does by no means hold. "But if by sin be meant sinful actions, to which this cor rupt bias of the will inclines us; it remains to be proved, that a corrupt bias of the will makes the actions necessary, and, consequently, not sinful.

"But if by sin be meant sinful actions, to which this cor rupt bias of the will inclines us; it remains to be proved, that a corrupt bias of the will makes the actions necessary, and, consequently, not sinful. And, indeed, if a corrupt bias makes sin to be necessary, and, consequently, to be no sin, then the more any man is inclined to sin, the less sin he can commit; and as that corrupt bias grows stronger, his actual sinning becomes more necessary: And so the man, instead of growing more wicked, grows more innocent." (Jennings's Windication, p. 68, c.) 11. That this doctrine has been long "held in the Church of Rome," (Taylor's Doctrine, c., p. 126,) is true. But so it has in the Greek Church also; and, so far as we can learn, in every Church under heaven; at least from the time that God spake by Moses. From this infection of our nature (call it original sin, or what you please) spring many, if not all, actual sins. And this St. James (i. 14) plainly intimates, even according to your para phrase on his words: "'Every man is tempted, is overcome by temptation, "when he is drawn away by his own lust," his own irregular desire; where the Apostle charges the wickedness of men on its proper cause, their 'own lust." Very true. And irregular desire is (not so much a fruit as a) part of original sin. For to say, "Eve had irregular desires before she sinned," is a contradiction; since all irregular desire is sin. 12. Another proof that actual sins spring from original, is, "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." (Matt. xv. 19.) "But what has this text to do with Adam's sin?" It has much to do with the point it is brought to prove; namely, that actual sin proceeds from original; evil works, from an evil heart. Do not, therefore, triumph over these venerable men, (as you have done again and again,) because a text cited in proof of one clause of a proposition does not prove the whole. But "neither of those texts proves that all our wickedness proceeds from our being corrupted by Adam's sin." But they both prove what they were brought to prove, that all outward wickedness proceeds from inward wickedness.

But "neither of those texts proves that all our wickedness proceeds from our being corrupted by Adam's sin." But they both prove what they were brought to prove, that all outward wickedness proceeds from inward wickedness. Those pious men, therefore, did not mix "the forgery of their own imagination with the truth of God." But "if all actual transgressions proceed from Adam's sin, then he is the only guilty person that ever lived. For if his sin is the cause of all ours, he alone is chargeable with them." True; if all our transgressions so proceed from his sin, that we cannot possibly avoid them. But this is not the case; by the grace of God we may cast away all our trans gressions: Therefore, if we do not, they are chargeable on ourselves. We may live; but we will die. Well, but "on these principles all actual sins proceed from Adam's sin; either by necessary consequence, or through our own choice; or partly by one, and partly by the other." Yes; partly by one, and partly by the other. We are inclined to evil, antecedently to our own choice. By grace we may conquer this inclination; or we may choose to follow it, and so commit actual sin. 13. Their Fifth proposition is, "Original sin is conveyed from our first parents to their posterity by natural genera tion, so as all that proceed from them in that way are con ceived and born in sin." In proof of this they urge: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sindid my mother conceive me. (Psalmli.5.)" On this you observe: "The word which we translate "shapen, signifies to bring forth, or bear. So here it means, 'Behold, I was brought forth, or born, in iniquity.'" Suppose it does, (which is not plain; for you cannot infer from its meaning so sometimes, that it means so here,) what have you gained? If David was born in iniquity, it is little different from being "shapen" therein. That the Hebrew word does not always mean "to be born," but rather to be "shapen, formed, or made," evidently appears from Psalm x.c. 2; where it is applied to the formation of the earth: And in this very text, the Seventy render it by eTAaorém. -a word of the very same import.

-a word of the very same import. It is therefore here very properly rendered "shapen; " nor can it be more exactly translated. But "the word "nor" properly signifies, warmed me." You should say, literally signifies. But it signifies conceived me, nevertheless. And so it is taken, Gen. xxx. 38,39,41, c.; xxxi. 10. "Nay, it signifies there the act of copulation. So several translators render it." (Page 132, 133.) And several render it otherwise: So this does not determine the point either way. It must therefore be determined by the sense. Now, for what end did Jacob put the "pilled rods before the cattle P" That the lambs might be marked as the rods were. And when is it that females of any kind mark their young? Not in that act; but some time after, when the foetus is either forming or actually formed. Throw a plum or a pear at a woman before conception, and it will not mark the foetus at all; but it will, if thrown while she is conceiving, or after she has conceived; as we see in a thousand instances. This observation justifies our translators in rendering the word by conceiving in all those places. And indeed you own, "David could not apply that word to his mother, in the sense wherein you would apply it to the cattle." Youtherefore affirm, "It means here, to nurse." You may as well say it means to roast. You have as much authority from the Bible for one interpretation as for the other. Produce, if you can, one single text, in which tri signifies to nurse, or anything like it. You stride on : (1) "The verse means, "In sin did my mother nurse me: ' (2.) That is, ' I am a sinner from the womb: (3.) That is, 'I am a great sinner: (4.) That is, 'I have contracted strong habits of sin.'" By this art you make the most expressive texts mean just anything or nothing. So Psalm lviii. 3: "'The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, telling lies.' That is, My unjust persecutors in Saul's court are exceedingly wicked." If this was all David meant, what need of "1, "are alienated?" and that from the "bowels" of their mother? Nay, but he means as he speaks.

Nay, but he means as he speaks. They "are alienated from the life of God," from the time of their coming into the world. From the time of their birth, they "knew not the way of truth; " neither can, unless they are "born of God." You cite as a parallel text, "'Thou wast called a transgressor from the womb; that is, set to iniquity by prevailing habits and customs." Nay, the plain meaning is, The Israelites in general had never kept God's law since they came into the world. Perhaps the phrase, "from the womb," is once used figura tively, namely, Job xxxi. 18. But it is manifest, that it is to be literally taken, Isaiah xlix. 1 : "The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name." For, (1.) This whole passage relates to Christ; these expressions in particular. (2.) This was lite rally fulfilled, when the angel was sent while he was yet in the womb, to order that his "name should be "called Jesus." This is not therefore barely "an hyperbolical form of aggravating sin; " but a humble confession of a deep and weighty truth, whereof we cannot be too sensible. "But you have no manner of ground to conclude, that it relates to Adam's sin." Whether it relates to Adam's personal sin or no, it relates to a corrupt nature. This is the present question; and your pulling in Adam's sin only tends to puzzle the reader. But how do you prove (since you will drag this in) that it does not relate to Adam's sin? Thus: "(1.) In the whole Psalm there is not one word about Adam, or the effects of his sin upon us." Here, as usual, you blend the two questions together; the ready way to confound an unwary reader. But first, to the first: "In the whole Psalm there is not one word about Adam; therefore it relateth not to him." Just as well you may argue, "In the whole Psalm there is not oneword about Uriah; therefore it relatethnot to him." The second assertion, "There is not one word of the effects of his sin," is a fair begging the question. "(2.) The Psalmist is here charging himself with his own sin." He is; and tracing it up to the fountain.

"(2.) The Psalmist is here charging himself with his own sin." He is; and tracing it up to the fountain. "(3.) But according to our version, he does not charge himself with his sin, but some other person. He throws the whole load of his sin from off himself, on God who shaped him, and his mother who conceived him." What you say might have had weight, if he had offered this in excuse of his sin, or even in extenuation of it. But doe he do this? Does he, in fact, "throw the whole blame, or an part of it, from off himself?" Just the reverse. He acknow ledges and bewails his own total iniquity; not to excus but to abase himself the more before God, for his inward a well as outward wickedness. And yet he might, in perfect consistency with this, whe God had caused "the bones which had been broken to re joice," cry out, "I will praise thee, O God; for I am fearfull. and wonderfully made; " yea, and repeat all that follows i the same Psalm; which proves so much, and no more, tha every foetus in the womb is formed by the power and wisdon of God. Yet does it not follow, that the sin transmitte from the parent "must be attributed to God." "But how could he with pleasure reflect upon his forma tion, or praise God for it?" As I can at this day; thoug I know I was "conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity. But, "where sin abounds, grace does much more abound. I lose less by Adam, than I gain by Christ. This also perfectly consists with the following verse: "Behold thou desirest truth," or, It is thy will that we should have truth "in the inward parts;" (page 138;) thou art willing to remov all that "iniquity" wherein "I was shapen;" to "give me clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me;" and in th hidden part thou hast made me to know wisdom; thou has "shown me what was good." So that I am everyway with out excuse; I knew thy will, and did it not. "But if, after all, you will adhere to the literal sense of thi text, why do you not adhere to the literal sense of that text 'This is my body, and believe transubstantiation ?" (Ibid.

"But if, after all, you will adhere to the literal sense of thi text, why do you not adhere to the literal sense of that text 'This is my body, and believe transubstantiation ?" (Ibid. For those very reasons which you suggest: (1.) Because it i grossly absurd, to suppose that Christ speaks of what he the held in his hands, as his real, natural body. But it is nowa, absurd, to suppose the Psalmist was "conceived in sin." (2. The sense of, "This is my body," may be clearly explained b. other scriptures, where the like forms of speech are used; bu there are no other scriptures where the like forms with thi of David are used in any other sense. (3.) Transubstantia tion is attended with consequences hurtful to piety; but th doctrine of original sin, and faith grounded thereon, is th only foundation of true piety. 14. The next proof is, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one." (Job xiv. 4.) On this you observe: "Job is here speaking of the weak ness of our nature; not with regard to sin, but to the short ness and afflictions of life." Certainly, with regard both to the one and the other. For though, in the first and second verses, he mentions the shortness and troubles of life, yet even these are mentioned with a manifest regard to sin. This appears from the very next verse: (Page 140:) "And dost thou open thy eyes upon such a one;" to punish one already so wretched? "And bringest me into judgment with thee;" by chastising me still more? It then immediately follows, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one." It does therefore by no means appear, that "Job is here speaking only with regard to the shortness and troubles of life." Part of the following verses too run thus: "Now thou numberest my steps: Dost thou not watch over my sin?

Not one." It does therefore by no means appear, that "Job is here speaking only with regard to the shortness and troubles of life." Part of the following verses too run thus: "Now thou numberest my steps: Dost thou not watch over my sin? My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sowest up mine iniquity." (Verses 16, 17.) Let any one judge then, whether Job in this chapter does not speak of "the sinful ness, as well as the mortality, of human nature." Not that he "urges his natural pravity as a reason why he should not be 'brought into judgment;'" (page 141;) no more than David urges his being "shapen in wickedness," as an excuse for that wickedness. Rather, Job (as well as David) humbly acknowledges his total sinfulness; confessing that he deserved the judgment, which he yet prays God not to inflict. 15. Another proof is, "What is man, that he should be clean? and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?" (Job xv.1 ...) On this you observe: "'Born of a woman, signifies no more than a man." Often it does not; but here it is em phatical. "The phrase indeed includes frailty and imperfec tion." How can that be? Was Adam made frail and imperfect? And have you forgot that every man is now born in as good a state as Adam was made at first? "But it is not to be understood as the reason why man is unclean and unrighteous." From the placing of the words, one would really judge it was; and how do you prove it is not? Why, "Job and his friends use this manner of speech in other places of this book: "Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?" (iv. 17.)" Nay, this is not the manner of speech which is in question; so you are here quite wide of the mark. "How ever that is, 'How can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?' (xxv. 4.)" And does not this point at original sin?

And does not this point at original sin? You say, No: For "if Job and his friends had known that the reason of our uncleanness and imperfection was our receiving a corrupted nature from Adam, they ought to have given this reason of it." And do they not in the very words before us? You say, "No; they turn our thoughts to a quite different reason; namely, the uncleanness of the best of creatures in his sight." This is not a different reason, but falls in with the other; and the natural meaning of these texts is, "How can he be clean that is born of a woman;" and so conceived and born in sin? "Behold, even to the moon, and it shineth not,' compared with God; "yea, the stars are not pure in his sight !" How "much less man that is a worm !" (xxv. 6.) In how much higher and stricter a sense is man impure, that carries about with him his mortality, the testimony of that unclean nature which he brought with him into the world? "'Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?" (Job iv. 17, c.)" Shall man dare to arraign the justice of God; to say God punishes him more than he deserves? "Behold, he puts no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly." Many of these left their first estates; even their wisdom was not to be depended on: "How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay;" whose bodies, liable to pain, sickness, death, are standing monuments of the folly and wickedness which are deep rooted in their souls "What is man, that he should be clean; and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous Behold, he putteth no trust in his holy ones;" yea, the heavens "are not pure in his sight." His holy angels have fallen, and the highest creatures are not pure in comparison of him. "How much more abominable and filthy," in the strictest sense, "is man;" every man born into the world: "Who drinketh iniquity like water;" (Job xv.

"How much more abominable and filthy," in the strictest sense, "is man;" every man born into the world: "Who drinketh iniquity like water;" (Job xv. 16, c.;) iniquity of every kind; so readily, so naturally, as being so thoroughly agree able to the "desires of his "flesh and of his "mind I'' You conclude the head thus: "Man, in his present weak and fleshly state, cannot be clean before God." Certainly as clean as the moon and stars at least; if he be as he was first created. He was "made but a little lower than the angels;" consequently, he was then far higher and more pure than these, or the sun itself, or any other part of the material creation. You go on: "Why cannot a man be clean before God? because he is conceived and born in sin? No such thing. But because, if the purest creatures are not pure in compari son of God, much less a being subject to so many infirmities as a mortal man." Infirmities 1 What then, do innocent in firmities make a man unclean before God? Do labour, pain, bodily weakness, or mortality, make us"filthy and abominable?" Surely not. Neither could they make a man pure from sin, less pure than the moon and stars. Nor can we conceive Adam, as he came out of the hands of God, to have been, in any sense, less clean than these. All these texts, therefore, must refer to that sinful impurity which every man brings into the world. You add : "Which is a demonstration to me that Job and his friends were wholly strangers to this doctrine." A demon stration of a peculiar kind I think neither mathematical nor logical. 16. The last proof is, "'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John iii.6.)" "Here, by 'flesh, Dr. Taylor understands nothing else but the mere parts and powers of a man; and by "being born of the flesh, the being 'born of a woman,' with the constitution and natural powers of a man." (Jennings's Vindication, p.

Taylor understands nothing else but the mere parts and powers of a man; and by "being born of the flesh, the being 'born of a woman,' with the constitution and natural powers of a man." (Jennings's Vindication, p. 78, c.) Now, let us suppose that human nature is not at all corrupted; and let us try what sense we can make of other scriptures where the word flesh is used in opposition to Spirit, as it is here: "There is no condemnation to them who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit;" (Rom. viii. 1;) that is, not after the pure, uncorrupted constitution and powers of man. Again : "They that are in the flesh cannot please God," (verse;) that is, they that have the parts and powers of a man. Again: "If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die;" that is, if ye live suitably to the constitution and powers of your nature. Once more: How shall we understand, "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh;" (Gal. v.17;) if flesh means nothing but the pure and uncorrupted powers of human nature? "But this text (John iii. 3) is," according to Dr. Taylor, "so far from implying any corruption of our nature, that, 'on the contrary, it supposes we have a nature susceptible of the best habits, and capable of being born of the Spirit.'" And who ever denied it? Who ever supposed that such a corruption of nature, as for the present disables us for spiritual good, renders us incapable of being "born of the Spirit?" "But if natural generation is the means of conveying a sinful nature from our first parents to their posterity, then must itself be a sinful and unlawful thing." I deny the consequence. You may transmit to your children a nature tainted with sin, and yet commit no sin in so doing. "Again: We produce one another only as the oak pro duces the acorn. The proper production of a child is from God. But if God produces a foetus which has sinful dispo sitions, he produces those dispositions." Your argument proves too much. It would prove God to be the author of all actual as well as original sin.

It would prove God to be the author of all actual as well as original sin. For "it is the power of God, under certain laws and established rules," which produces not only the foetus, but all the motion in the universe. It is his power which so violently expands the air, on the discharge of a pistol or cannon. It is the same which produces muscular motion, and the circulation of all the juices in man. But does he therefore produce adultery or murder? Is he the cause of those sinful motions? He is the cause of the motion; (as he is of the foetus;) of the sin, he is not. Do not say, "This is too fine a distinction." Fine as it is, you must necessarily allow it: Otherwise, you make God the direct author of all the sin under heaven. To apply this more directly to the point: God does produce the foetus of man, as he does of trees; empowering the one and the other to propagate each after its kind; and a sinful man propagates, after his kind, another sinful man. Yet God pro duces, in the sense above mentioned, the man, but not the sin. 17. Their Sixth proposition is, "The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God, his displeasure and curse; (Gen. iii. 8, 10, 24;) so as 'we are by nature children of wrath,' (Eph. ii. 2, 3) bond-slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments, (2 Tim. ii. 26) in this world, and that which is to come. (Gen. ii. 17; Rom. vi. 23.)" In proof of the first clause of this proposition, they cite Gen. iii. 8, 10, 24. On this you observe: "Adam and Eve by their sin did forfeit communion with God. But God did not take the forfeiture." Surely he did, when "they were afraid, and hid themselves from his presence." "But after ward they had frequent communion with him." This does not prove they did not lose it before. "But their posterity did not. Abel had communion with him, and so had the Patriarchs and Prophets; and so have we at this day.

Abel had communion with him, and so had the Patriarchs and Prophets; and so have we at this day. So that, as we could not justly have lost this communion by Adam's sin, it is true, in fact, that we have not lost it: We still have 'fellowship with the Father and the Son.'" Could we not justly, by Adam's sin, have lost our very exist ence? And if we had not existed, could we have had commu nion with God? "But we have not lost it, in fact. We still have 'fellowship with the Father and with the Son.'" Who have? all men born into the world? all Jews, and Turks, and Heathens? Have all that are called Christians? Have the generality of Protestants "fellowship with the Father and with the Son?" What fellowship? Just as much as light has with darkness; as much as Christ has with Belial. The bulk of mankind, Christians as well as Heathens, Protestants as well as Papists, are at this day, and have been ever since they were born, "without God,"-A6eou, Atheists, "in the world." We need not therefore say, "Their fellowship with God is owing to his mercy, through a Redeemer." They have none at all: No fellowship with "the only true God, and" with "Jesus Christ whom he hath sent." Indeed they have no great need of Jesus Christ, according to your account; seeing, "all that God's grace doeth for us in Christ, to repair what we lost in Adam, is, raising us up at the last day !" You add, "And therefore communion with God is either the same grace which was vouchsafed to Adam, continued to us;" (to every man born into the world, as naturally as seeing or hearing !) "or, if there be anything extraordinary in it," (which you judge can hardly be allowed!) "it belongs to the redundancy of grace, which has no relation to anything we lost by Adam." That that whole passage has relation to what we lost in Adam, has been shown already. But what conception you have of commu nion with God is easily seen by this wonderful account of it. "However, this text gives no intimation that Adam's posterity lost communion with God for his sin." It shows that Adam did so; and all his posterity has done the same.

"However, this text gives no intimation that Adam's posterity lost communion with God for his sin." It shows that Adam did so; and all his posterity has done the same. Whence is this, unless from his sin P "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden, Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Gen. iii. 24.) Although God is equally present in every place, yet this was a clear token that man had not now that near communion with him which he had enjoyed before his sin. 18. Proposition. "The fall brought upon mankind God's displeasure and curse, so as we are "by nature the children of wrath." "The text on which this is grounded, (Eph. ii. 2, 3,) we have considered before." And those considera tions have been answered at large. You add: "How mankind could be justly brought under God's displeasure for Adam's sin, we cannot understand: On the contrary, we do understand, it is unjust. And therefore, unless our understanding or perception of truth be false, it must be unjust. But understanding must be the same in all beings, as far as they do understand. Therefore, if we understand that it is unjust, God understands it to be so too." Plausible enough. But let us take the argument in pieces: "How mankind could be justly brought under God's displea sure for Adam's sin, we cannot understand." I allow it. Icannot understand, that is, clearly or fully comprehend, the deep of the divine judgment therein; no more than I can, how "the whole" brute "creation," through his sin, should have been "made subject to vanity," and should "groan together," in weakness, in various pain, in death, "until this day." "On the con trary, we do understand, it is unjust." I do not understand it is. It is quite beyond my understanding. It is a depth which I cannot fathom. "Therefore, unless our understanding or perception of truth be false, it must be unjust." Here lies the deceit. You shift the terms, and place as equivalent those which are not equivalent. Our perception of truth cannot be false; our understanding or apprehension of things may.

Our perception of truth cannot be false; our understanding or apprehension of things may. "But understanding must be the same in all beings." Yes, in the former sense of the word, but not the latter. "There fore, if we understand (apprehend) it is unjust, God under stands it so too." Nay, verily: "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are his thoughts higher than our thoughts." "What a God must he be, who can curse his innocent creatures before they have a being ! Is this thy God, O Christian?" Bold enough ! So Lord B , "Is Moses's God your God?" He is mine, although he said, "Cursed be Canaan," including his posterity before they had a being; and although he now permits millions to come into a world which everywhere bears the marks of his displeasure. And he permits human souls to exist in bodies which are (how we know not, but the fact we know) "conceived and born in sin; " by reason whereof, all men coming into the world are "children of wrath." But he has provided a Saviour for them all; and this fully acquits both his justice and mercy. 19. "So as we are by nature bond-slaves to Satan: "And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive at his will. (2 Tim. ii. 26.)" But you say, "The Apostle speaks this of the unconverted Gentiles, who were slaves to Satan, not through Adam, but through their own fault." Both one and the other. But how does it appear, that he speaks this of the Gentiles only? Without offering at any proof of this, you go on : "The clause, 'Taken captive by him, is spoken, not of the devil, but of 'the servant of the Lord; for thus the place should be rendered: 'That they may awake out of the snare of the devil, being revived by him," that is, the servant of the Lord, 'to his, that is, God's, "will.'" Well, the proof. "The word £oypeo signifies, to revive; and so here, to restore men to life and salvation." As a proof of this sense of the word, you cite Luke v. 10. But this rather proves the contrary; for there it has nothing to do with reviving.

But this rather proves the contrary; for there it has nothing to do with reviving. We read, in the verse before, of the "fishes which they had taken; " alluding to which, Jesus " said unto Simon, From henceforth thou shalt catch men; " take them captive in the gospel net. Although, therefore, it were allowed, (which cannot be done,) that his related, not to the word im mediately preceding, but to another which stands three verses off, yet even this would avail nothing; since the sense which you impose upon £oypeo is what it will by no means bear. You say, indeed, "It always means, to take alive, or save alive." It does mean, to take alive. But you bring not one authority to prove that it ever means, to save alive. It therefore "suits the devil and his snare" admirably well; for he does not take therein those who are free amo the dead; but those who are alive in a natural, though de in a spiritual, sense. "But, however this be, they were not led captive throu! Adam's sin, but their own wickedness." Th were "bond-slaves to Satan," (which was the point to proved,) through Adam's sin, and their own wickedness. "Yea, but what an inconsistency must that be in the divi dispensations and in the Scriptures, if it can be made appe from them, that God hath, for no fault of ours, but only f Adam's one sin, put us all into the hands of the devil; whi he hath been, in all ages, providing means to preserve rescue mankind from him?" What can be ma appear from the Scriptures is this: "That from "Adam s passed upon all men;" that hereby all men, being by natu "dead in sin," cannot of themselves resist the devil; an that, consequently, all who will not accept of help from Go are "taken captive by Satan at his will." And there is no il consistency between this and any of the Divine dispensation Proposition. "And justly liable to all punishments in th world, and that which is to come." That all men are liable to these for Adam's sin alone, I d not assert; but they are so, for their own outward and in ward sins, which, through their own fault, spring from th infection of their nature.

"And justly liable to all punishments in th world, and that which is to come." That all men are liable to these for Adam's sin alone, I d not assert; but they are so, for their own outward and in ward sins, which, through their own fault, spring from th infection of their nature. And this, I think, may fairly t inferred from Rom. vi. 23: "The wages of sin is death; (pages 157, 158;) its due reward; death, temporal, spiritua and eternal. God grant that we may never feel it so ! 20. You conclude this Part : "I cannot see that we hal advanced one step further than where we were at the conclu sion of the First Part; namely, That the consequences Adam's first sin upon us are labour, sorrow, and mortalit, and no other." The contrary to this having been so largely proved, instea of repeating those proofs over again, I shall close this Pa with that beautiful description of the present state of ma which Mr. Hervey gives us from Mr. Howe's "Living Temple, "Only," says he, "let me hint, that it considers the huma soul as originally a habitation of God through the Spirit: " "That he hath withdrawn himself, and left this his temp desolate, we have many sad and plain proofs before us. Th stately ruins are visible to every eye, and bear in their front (yet extant) this doleful inscription: 'Here God once dwelt." Enough appears of the admirable structure of the soul of man to show the divine presence did sometime reside in it; more than enough of vicious deformity to proclaim, He is now retired and gone. The lamps are extinct; the altar overturned; the light and love are now vanished, which did the one shine with so heavenly brightness, the other burn with so pious fervour. The golden candlestick is displaced, to make room for the throne of the prince of darkness. The sacred incense, which sent up its rich perfumes, is exchanged for a poisonous hellish vapour. The comely order of this house is all turned into confusion; the beauties of holiness into noisome impurities; the house of prayer into a den of thieves: Thieves of the worst kind; for every lust is a thief, and every theft is sacri lege.

The comely order of this house is all turned into confusion; the beauties of holiness into noisome impurities; the house of prayer into a den of thieves: Thieves of the worst kind; for every lust is a thief, and every theft is sacri lege. The noble powers which were designed and dedicated to divine contemplation and delight in God, are alienated to the service of the most despicable idols, and employed in the vilest embraces: To behold and admire lying vanities; to indulge and cherish lust and wickedness. "There is not now a system, an entire table, of coherent truths to be found, or a frame of holiness: but some shivered parcels. And if any with great toil and labour apply them selves to draw out here one piece, and there another, and set them together; they serve rather to show, how exquisite the divine workmanship was in the original composition, than to the excellent purposes for which the whole was at first designed. Some pieces agree, and own one another; but how soon are our inquiries nonplussed and superseded! How many attempts have been made, since that fearful fall and ruin of this fabric, to compose again the truths of so many several kinds into their distinct orders, and make up frames of science or useful know ledge And after so many ages, nothing is finished in any kind. Sometimes truths are misplaced; and what belongs to one kind is transferred to another, where it will not fitly match; some times falsehood inserted, which shatters or disturbs the whole frame. And what with much fruitless pains is done by one hand, is dashed in pieces by another; and it is the work of a following age, to sweep away the fine-spun cobwebs of a for mer. And those truths which are of greatest use, though not most out of sight, are least regarded; their tendency and design are overlooked, or they are so loosened and torn off, that they cannot be wrought in, so as to take hold of the soul, but hover as faint, ineffectual motions that signify nothing. "Its very fundamental powers are shaken and disjointed, and their order toward one another confounded and broken; so that what is judged considerable, is not considered; what is recom mended as lovely and eligible, is not loved and chosen.

"Its very fundamental powers are shaken and disjointed, and their order toward one another confounded and broken; so that what is judged considerable, is not considered; what is recom mended as lovely and eligible, is not loved and chosen. Yea, 'the truth which is after godliness' is not so much disbelieved, as hated, or "held in unrighteousness;' and shines with too feeble a light in that malignant darkness which 'comprehends. it not.' You come, amidst all this confusion, into the ruined palace of some great Prince, in which you see, here the frag ments of a noble pillar, there the shattered pieces of some curious imagery, and all lying neglected and useless, among heaps of dirt. He that invites you to take a view of the soul of man gives you but such another prospect, and doth but say to you, 'Behold the desolation l' All things rude and waste. So that, should there be any pretence to the Divine presence, it might be said, 'If God be here, why is it thus?' The faded glory, the darkness, the disorder, the impurity, the decayed state in all respects of this temple, too plainly show, 'the Great Inhabitant is gone !'" NEWINGTON, Jan. 21. In your Third Part you propose, First, to answer some objections and queries; and then to consider the connexion of the doctrine of original sin with other parts of religion. "Objection 1. Are we not in worse moral circumstances than Adam was before he fell? I answer: "(1.) If by moral circumstances you mean, the state of religion and virtue, it is certain the greatest part of mankind ever were and still are very corrupt. But this is not the fault of their nature, but occasioned by the abuse of it, in prostitut ing reason to appetite, whereby, in process of time, they have sunk themselves into the most lamentable degree of ignorance, superstition, idolatry, injustice, debauchery." But how came this? How came all nations thus to "abuse their nature," thus to "prostitute reason to appetite?" How came they all to sink into this "lamentable ignorance, super stition, idolatry, injustice, debauchery?" How came it, that half of them, at least, if their nature was uncorrupt, did not use it well? submit appetite to reason, and rise while the other sunk?

submit appetite to reason, and rise while the other sunk? "Process of time" does not help us out at all; for if it made the one half of mankind more and more vicious, it ought, by the same degrees, to have made the other half more and more virtuous. If men were no more inclined to one side than the other, this must absolutely have been the event. Turn and wind as you please, you will never be able to get over this. You will never account for this fact, that the bulk of mankind have, in all ages, "prostituted their reason to appetite," even till they sunk into "lamentable ignorance, superstition, idolatry, injustice, and debauchery," but by allowing their very nature to be in fault, to be more inclined to vice than virtue. "But if we have all a corrupt nature, which as we cannot, so God will not, wholly remove in this life, then why do we try to reform the world?" Why? Because, whether the corrupt nature be wholly removed or no, men may be so far reformed as to "cease from evil," to be "renewed in the spirit of their mind, and by patient continuance in well-doing," to "seek" and find, "glory, and honour, and immortality." "I answer: (2.) If by moral circumstances you mean, provision and means for spiritual improvement, those given us through Christ are far greater than Adam had before he sinned." To those who believe in Christ they are. But above four-fifths of the world are Mahometans or Pagans still. And have these (immensely the greater part of mankind, to say nothing of Popish nations) greater pro vision and means for spiritual improvement than Adam before he sinned P "But if, (3.) by moral circumstances you mean moral" (rather natural) "abilities, or mental powers;" (a considera tion quite foreign to the question;) "I answer, The Scriptures nowhere compare our faculties with Adam's. Nor know I how we can judge, but by comparing the actions of Adam in innocence with what men have performed since." Yes, we can judge thus: There could be no defect in Adam's understanding, when he came first out of the hands of his Creator; but there are essential defects in mine and yours, and every man's whom we know. Our apprehension is indis tinct, our judgment false, our reasoning wrong in a thousand instances.

Our apprehension is indis tinct, our judgment false, our reasoning wrong in a thousand instances. So it always was; and so it is still, after all the care we can possibly take: Therefore, "our faculties are not a sound and fit for right action as Adam's were before he sinned.' "But any man of common understanding might havedressed and kept the garden as well as he." I can neither affirm no deny this; for we know not how he dressed and kept it. "Nor doth it appear, that in giving names to all the crea. tures, he showed any extraordinary penetration into thei natures; for that the names he gave truly expressed the several qualities of them is a mere fiction, without any foun. dation in Scripture history, or the names of animals in the original Hebrew." This is really strange that any man of learning should be so hardy as to affirm this, after the numberless instances which have been produced of Hebrew names expressing the most essential property of each animal. And is this supposition likewise "without any foundation in Scripture history?" What is that? "And the Lord God brought every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, unto Adam, to see what he would call them;" to make proof of his understanding. "And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Gen. ii. 19.) Now, whether those names were Hebrew or no, (which you affect to doubt,) can it be supposed that God would have permitted them to stand, if they had not suited the nature of each creature? It is bold therefore to affirm, that "many of his posterity could have given names to them as well as he ; and that therefore this is not a proof that he had any capacity superior to us." You proceed: "Surely his eating the forbidden fruit is no evidence of superior abilities." And it is no evidence of the contrary; "seeing," as you yourself observe, "what his special temptation was, we do not know." There fore, neither do we know whether any of his posterity could have overcome it; much less, that "many of his posterity have over.

It is bold therefore to affirm, that "many of his posterity could have given names to them as well as he ; and that therefore this is not a proof that he had any capacity superior to us." You proceed: "Surely his eating the forbidden fruit is no evidence of superior abilities." And it is no evidence of the contrary; "seeing," as you yourself observe, "what his special temptation was, we do not know." There fore, neither do we know whether any of his posterity could have overcome it; much less, that "many of his posterity have over. come temptations more violent than his." All this is talking in the dark, "not knowing what we say, neither whereof weaffirm." "And now let any man see whether there be any ground in revelation for exalting Adam's nature as Divines have done, who have affirmed that all his faculties were eminently per. fact, and entirely set to the love and obedience of his Creator." "And yet these same suppose him to have been guilty of the vilest act that ever was committed." They suppose Adam to have been created holy and wise, like his Creator; and yet capable of falling from it. They suppose farther, that through temptations, of which we cannot possibly judge, he did fall from that state; and that hereby he brought pain, labour, and sorrow on himself and all his pos terity; together with death, not only temporal, but spiritual, and (without the grace of God) eternal. And it must be com fessed, that not only a few Divines, but the whole body of Christians in all ages, did suppose this, till after seventeen hundred years a sweet-tongued orator arose, not only more enlightened than silly Adam, but than any of his wise posterity, and declared that the whole supposition was folly, nonsense, inconsistency, and blasphemy "Objection 2. But do not the Scriptures say, Adam was created after God's own image? And do his posterity bear that image now? "The Scriptures do say, 'God created man in his own image." (Gen. i. 27.) But whatever that phrase means here, it doubtless means the same in Gen. ix.

ix. 6: 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man.'" Certainly it has the same meaning in both places; for the latter plainly refers to the former. And thus much we may fairly infer from hence, that "the image of God," wherein "man was" at first "created," whereinsoever it consisted, was not utterly effaced in the time of Noah. Yea, so much of it will always remain in all men, as will justify the punishing murderers with death. But we can in nowise infer from hence, that that entire image of God, in which Adam was at first created, now remains in all his posterity. The words of Gen. v. 3, rendered literally, are, "He begat in his likeness, according to his image." "Adam," says Mr. Hervey, "was created 'in the image of God. After his fall, the sacred historian varies his style, and, with a remarkable peculiarity, as well as propriety, says, "Adam begat a son in his own likeness;'-so it must be translated, according to all the rules of grammar, Adam being the nearest antecedent. That every reader may advert to this melancholy but import ant truth, it is enforced by a very emphatical repetition: "After his own image,' as contradistinguished from that "image of God," mentioned in the preceding verse; which expressions are evidently intended to denote the difference between the state in which Adam was created and Seth bgeotten." "The two following texts are brought by the Assembly, to show what the image of God was in which Adam was made: "'And have put on the new man, which is renewed in know ledge, after the image of Him that created him. (Col. iii. 10.) "'Put on the new man, which after the image of God is created in righteousness and true holiness." (Ephesians iv. 24.)" "I answer, These texts are parallel. 'The old man' means a wicked life; 'the new man, a good life; to which they were formed and 'created' by the gospel dispensation. And this 'new man," this new life, is "after the image,' that is, agreeable to the nature, 'of God.'" As you advance no proof of this perfectly new interpreta tion, I leave it to shift for itself.

And this 'new man," this new life, is "after the image,' that is, agreeable to the nature, 'of God.'" As you advance no proof of this perfectly new interpreta tion, I leave it to shift for itself. To disprove the common interpretation, you add, "Adam could not be originally created in righteousness and true holi ness; because habits of holiness cannot be created without our knowledge, concurrence, or consent. For holiness in its nature implies the choice and consent of a moral agent, without which it cannot be holiness." What is holiness? Is it not essentially love? the love of God, and of all mankind? love producing "bowels of mercies, humbleness of mind, meekness, gentleness, long-suffering?" And cannot God shed abroad this love in any soul without his concurrence, antecedent to his knowledge or consent? And supposing this to be done, will love change its nature? Will it be no longer holiness? This argument can never be sus tained, unless you would play upon the word habits. Love is holiness wherever it exists. And God could create either men or angels, endued from the very first moment of their existence with whatsoever degree of love he pleased. You "think, on the contrary, it is demonstration that we cannot be righteous or holy, we cannot observe what is right, without our own free and explicit choice." I suppose you mean, practise what is right. But a man may be righteous before he does what is right; holy in heart before he is holy in life. The confounding these two, all along, seems to be the ground of your strange imagination, that Adam "must choose to be righteous, must exercise thought and reflection, ibefore he could be righteous." Why so? "Because righteous mess is the right use and application of our powers." Here is your capital mistake. No, it is not; it is the right state of our powers. It is the right disposition of our soul, the right temper of our mind. Take this with you, and you will no more dream that "God could not create man in righteous mess and true holiness;" or that "to talk of wanting that righteousness in which Adam was created, is to talk of nothing we want." On Romans ii.

Take this with you, and you will no more dream that "God could not create man in righteous mess and true holiness;" or that "to talk of wanting that righteousness in which Adam was created, is to talk of nothing we want." On Romans ii. 14, you observe: "This text clearly proves that natural reason and understanding is a rule of action to all mankind, and that all men ought to follow it. This, therefore, overthrows the whole doctrine of original sin." How do you prove the consequence? May not men have some reason left, which in some measure discerns good from evil, and yet be deeply fallen, even as to their understanding as well as their will and affections? On Eccles. vii. 29, "God hath made man upright; but they have found out many inventions," you say, - "'Man" here means all mankind; "upright,' endued with powers to know and perform their duty." (Pages 184, 185.) You offer no proof for either of these assertions; and with out it I cannot receive them. Again: "'They,'" you say, "means mankind in general." I rather believe it means our first parents, who are by Moses likewise comprehended under the common name of man, or rather ETN "Adam." So Gen. v. 2: "God called their name Adam in the day when they were created." And in the day that they fell, whoever reads Genesis iii., will see, "they found out," not one, but "many inventions." This text, therefore, in its obvious meaning, teaches both the ori ginal uprightness and subsequent fall of man. From all these texts it manifestly appears, (1.) That man was created in the image of God. (2.) That this image con sisted, not only in his rational and immortal nature, and his dominion over the creatures, but also in knowledge, actual knowledge, both of God and of his works; in the right state of his intellectual powers, and in love, which is true holiness. "Objection 3. But do we not derive from Adam a moral taint and infection, whereby we have a natural propensity to sin? "I answer: We have many natural appetites and passions, which, if they grow irregular, become sinful. But this does not amount to a natural propensity to sin." But is not pride sin Is not idolatry sin?

But this does not amount to a natural propensity to sin." But is not pride sin Is not idolatry sin? And is it not idolatry, to "love the creature more than the Creator?" Is not revenge sin? Is it not sin to "look upon a woman," so as "to lust after her?" And have not all men a natural pro pensity to these things? They have all, then, a natural propensity to sin. Nevertheless, this propensity is not necessary, if by necessary you mean irresistible. We can resist and conquer it too, by the grace which is ever at hand. This propensity to pride, to revenge, to idolatry, (call it taint, or anything,) cannot be pleasing to God, who yet in fact does permit that it should descend from Adam to his latest posterity. And "we can neither help nor hinder" its descending to us. Indeed we can heap up plausible argu ments to prove the impossibility of it: But I feel it, and the argument drops. Bring ever so many proofs that there can be no such thing as motion: I move, and they vanish away. "But nature cannot be morally corrupted, but by the choice of a moral agent." You may play upon words as long as you please; but still I hold this fast: I (and you too, whether you will own it or no) am inclined, and was ever since I can remember, antecedently to any choice of my own, to pride, revenge, idolatry. If you will not call these moral corruptions, call them just what you will; but the fact I am as well assured of, as that I have any memory or under standing. "But some have attempted to explain this intricate affair." I do not commend their wisdom. I do not attempt to explain even how I, at this moment, stretch out my hand, or move my finger. One more of your assertions I must not pass over "It is absurd to say, infection is derived from Adam, independent of the will of God; and to say, it is by his will, is to make him the author of the pollution." We answer: It is not derived from Adam, independent of the will of God; that is, his permissive will. But our allow ing this, does not make him the author of the pollution.

But our allow ing this, does not make him the author of the pollution. "Objection 4. But do not the vices of parents often infect their children?" (Pages 190, 191.) I think we cannot deny it. "Objection 5. How can we account for children's beginning so soon to sin, but by supposing they have a natural pro pensity to it? "I answer: Who can tell how soon they begin?" Then they begin, when they first show wrong tempers; such as plain, undeniable frowardness, revenge, self-will; which is as soon as they have any exercise of reason. So that the use of reason, and the abuse, generally commence and grow up together. As soon as their faculties appear at all, they appear to be disordered; the wrong state of their powers being easily inferred from their continual wrong application of them. "But if parents were wise and virtuous themselves, and then endeavoured to bring up their children virtuously, there would be less wickedness in the world." There would: But this does not reach the point; nor, that "undisciplined children contract bad habits." I have known wise and virtuous parents who did earnestly labour to bring up their children virtuously; and disciplined them with all possible care, from the very first dawn of reason; yet these very children showed bad tempers before it was possible they should "contract bad habits." They daily evidenced the wrong state of all their faculties, both of their understanding, will, and affections; just contrary both to the examples and instructions of all that were round about them. Here, then, these wrong tempers were not owing to "the fault of careless or ungodly parents; " nor could be rationally accounted for, but by supposing those children to have a matural propensity to evil. It is indeed a general rule, "Train up a child in the way he should go: And when he isold, he will not depart fromit:" (Prov. xxii. 6:) And there is much truth in that observation, "Fool ishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him:" (Verse 15:) That is, prudent cor rection is the most probable means which you can use to remove that foolishness. Yet this no way contradicts, what is matter of daily experience, that we have a natural propensity to evil.

Yet this no way contradicts, what is matter of daily experience, that we have a natural propensity to evil. Nay, the latter of these texts strongly confirms it; for if there be no such propensity, how comes "foolishness" (that is, wickedness, in the language of Solomon) to be "bound in the heart of a child?" of every child, of children in general, as the phrase manifestly imports? It is not from education here: It is sup posed to be antecedent to education, whether good or bad. "O, foolishness means only strong appetite." Yes, strong appetite to evil; otherwise it would not call for "the rod of correction," or need to be "driven far from him." "Objection 6. Might not Adam's posterity be said to sin in him, as Levi is said to 'pay tithes in Abraham?' (Heb. vii. 9.)" If the querist means, not to prove a doctrine already proved, but only to illustrate one expression by another, your answer, that "it is a bold figure," does not at all affect him. It is so; but still it may be pertinently cited to illustrate a similar expression. "Objection 7. "But there is a law in our members which wars against the law of our minds, and brings us into captivity to the law of sin and death.' (Rom. vii. 23.) And does not this prove, that we come into the world with sinful propensities?" You answer, (1) "If we come into the world with them, they are natural; but if natural, necessary; and if necessary, then no sin." If the consequence were good, with regard to what is so natural and necessary as to be irresistible, yet certainly it is not good with regard to those propensities which we may both resist and conquer. You answer, (2.) "The Apostle does not in this chapter speak of any man as he comes into the world, but as he is afterward depraved and corrupted by his own wicked choice." Where is the proof? How does it appear that he does not speak of men corrupted both by choice and by nature?

How does it appear that he does not speak of men corrupted both by choice and by nature? You answer, (3.) "He does not speak of himself, or any regenerate man, but of a Jew under the power of sin." (Ibid.) Nay, your argument proves, he does not speak of any Jew; for in order to prove, "the Apostle does not speak of himself," you say, "The persons of whom he speaks were, 'before the commandment came, that is, before they came under the law, "once without the law. But the Apostle never was 'without the law.'" No, nor any Jew. "For he was born and continued 'under the law till he was a Christian." So did all the Jews as well as he, " and therefore it cannot be true, that he," or any Jew whatever, "was 'without the law" before he came under it." So you have clearly proved, that the Apostle does not in this passage speak of any Jew at all. But why do you think he does speak of Jews? may, of them only? It "appears," you say, "from verse 1, 'I speak to them that know the law. For the Gentiles never were "under the law." Yes, they were: All the Gentiles who were "convinced of sin" were "under the law" in the sense here spoken of, under the condemning power of the law "written in their hearts;" for transgressing which they were under the wrath of God. And this whole chapter, from verses 7 to 24, describes the state of all those, Jews or Gentiles, who saw and felt the wickedness both of their hearts and lives, and groaned to be delivered from it. Many passages in your paraphrase on the former part of this chapter are liable to much exception; but as they do not immediately touch the point in question, Ipass on tothe latter part: "Verse 14: I am ' carnal, sold under sin." He means a willing slavery." Quite the contrary; as appears from the very next words: "For that which I do, I allow not: For what I would, I do not; but what I hate, that I do." "What I hate;" not barely, "what my reason disapproves;" but what I really detest and abhor, yet cannot help.

Many passages in your paraphrase on the former part of this chapter are liable to much exception; but as they do not immediately touch the point in question, Ipass on tothe latter part: "Verse 14: I am ' carnal, sold under sin." He means a willing slavery." Quite the contrary; as appears from the very next words: "For that which I do, I allow not: For what I would, I do not; but what I hate, that I do." "What I hate;" not barely, "what my reason disapproves;" but what I really detest and abhor, yet cannot help. "Verse 17: 'Now then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.' It is my sinful propensities, my in dulged appetites and passions." True; but those propensities were antecedent to that indulgence. "But the Apostle cannot mean, that there is something in man which makes him sin whether he will or no; for then it would not be sin at all." Experience explains his meaning. I have felt in me, a thousand times, something which made me transgress God's law, whether I would or no. Yet I dare not say, that "transgression of the law" was "no sin at all." Verse 18: "For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh," (not my "fleshly appetites" only, but my whole nature while unrenewed,) "dwelleth no good thing. For to will" indeed "is present with me;" not barely "that natural faculty, the will," but an actual will to do good; as evidently appears from the following words: "But how to perform that which is good I find not :" I have the desire, but not the power. Verse 19: "For the good that I would," that I desire and choose, -"I do not; but the evil which I would not," which I hate, "that I do." Verse 20: "Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I, but sin that dwelleth in me," but "the prevalency of sensual affections," (page 218,) yea, sinful tempers of every kind, "settled and ruling in my heart," both by nature and habit. Verse 21: "I find then that when I would do good," when I choose and earnestly desire it, I cannot; "evil is present with me;" as it were, gets in between.

Verse 21: "I find then that when I would do good," when I choose and earnestly desire it, I cannot; "evil is present with me;" as it were, gets in between. "Verse 22: "For I delight in the law of God, after the inward man: My mind, my conscience approves it. "Verse 23: "But I see another law in my members, which warreth against the law in my mind: Another principle of action, which fights against my reason and conscience, 'and bringeth me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members: Which captivates and enslaves me to the principle of wickedness." (Strange language for you to use !) "Seated in the lusts of the flesh:" Seated indeed in all my tempers, passions, and appetites, which are the several members of "the old man." "'O wretched man that I am I who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Verse 24.) He is under the power of such passions as his own reason disapproves, but is too weak to conquer; and, N. B., being a Jew, he stands condemned to eternal death by the law. How shall such a wretched Jew be delivered from sinful lusts, and the curse of the law P" Did, then, none but a Jew ever cry out, under the burden of sin, "Wretched man that I am?" Are none but Jews "under the power of such passions as their own reason disapproves, but is too weak to conquer?" And does the law of God condemn to eternal death no sinners beside Jews? Do not Christians also (in the wide sense of the word) groan to be delivered "from the body of this death?" With what truth, with what sense, can you restrain this passage to a Jew any more than to a Turk? I cannot but observe, upon the whole, the question is, Does not Rom. vii. 23, show that we come into the world with sinful propensities?

23, show that we come into the world with sinful propensities? (This is all that is pertinent in the objection awkwardly proposed, page 199.) But instead of keeping to this, you spend above twenty pages in proving that this chapter does not describe a regenerate person It may, or it may not; but this does not touch the question : Do not men come into the world with sinful propensities P We have, undoubtedly, an additional proof that they do, in the words of Jeremiah: "'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?' (xvii. 9.)" On this you descant: (One instance of a thousand of your artful manner of declaiming, in order to forestal the reader's judgment, and "deceive the hearts of the simple:") "Christians, too generally neglecting the study of the Scrip ture, content themselves with a few scraps, which, though wrong understood, they make the test of truth, in contradic tion to the whole tenor of Revelation. Thus this text has been misapplied to prove that every man's heart is so despe rately wicked, that no man can know how wicked his heart is." O what Tru6avoMoyla, "persuasiveness of speech !" After read ing this, I was much inclined to believe, without going a step further, that this text had been "generally misunder stood." I thought, Probably it has been misapplied, and does not assert that every man's "heart is desperately wicked." But no sooner did I read over the very verses you cite, than the clear light appeared again. "'Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and whose heart departeth from the Lord." (Verse 5.)" That man, whom we are not to trust in, means man in general, cannot be denied. After repeating the intermediate verses, you yourself add, "He subjoins a reason, which demonstrates the error of trust ing in man: 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?' (Verse 9.) This text, therefore, does not mean, Who can know his own heart, but another's?" Whether it means one or both, it positively asserts, that "the heart" of man, of men in general, of every man, is "desperately wicked." Therefore, as to the main point contained therein, "Christians do not understand it wrong; " (page 224;) neither misapply it at all.

After repeating the intermediate verses, you yourself add, "He subjoins a reason, which demonstrates the error of trust ing in man: 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?' (Verse 9.) This text, therefore, does not mean, Who can know his own heart, but another's?" Whether it means one or both, it positively asserts, that "the heart" of man, of men in general, of every man, is "desperately wicked." Therefore, as to the main point contained therein, "Christians do not understand it wrong; " (page 224;) neither misapply it at all. When I say, "I feel I have a 'wicked heart,'" (another thing which you do not understand,) "I mean this: I feel much pride remaining in my heart, much self-will, much un belief." Now, I really believe pride, and self will, and unbelief to be essentially wicked tempers. There fore, in whatever heart they remain, (and they remain in yours as well as mine,) that is a "wicked heart." After a long. pause, you return to the seventh of the Romans, and affirm: "We cannot, from anything in that chapter, infer, that we came into the world with sinful dispo sitions derived from Adam; for the Apostle says nothing about Adam." He had said enough in the fifth chapter of the cause: Here he only describes the effect; the state of those who are now "brought to the birth; " but "there is not " yet "strength to bring forth." "Nor can we infer from hence, that any man sins through a principle which it was never in his power to command; for then it would be no sin." Upon this I would only ask, Are you assured that no man transgresses God's law (whether you will call it sin or not) through a principle which it was never in his power to command; at least, not for any time to gether? Every passionate man can confute you in this. He has sad experience of the contrary. To those objections which you have, in some sort, answered, you subjoin the following questions: "1. Is not the doctrine of original sin necessary to account for the being of so much wickedness in the world?" You answer, "Adam's nature, it is allowed, was not sinful; and yet he sinned.

Is not the doctrine of original sin necessary to account for the being of so much wickedness in the world?" You answer, "Adam's nature, it is allowed, was not sinful; and yet he sinned. Therefore this doctrine is no more neces sary to account for the wickedness of the world than to ac count for Adam's sin." Yes, it is. I can account for one man's sinning, or a hundred, or even half mankind, suppose they were evenly poised between vice and virtue, from their own choice, which might turn one way or the other: But I cannot possibly, on this supposition, account for the general wickedness of mankind in all ages and nations. Again: "If men were never drawn into sin any other way than as Adam was, namely, by temptations offered from with out, there might be something in this answer; but there are numberless instances of men sinning, though no temptation is offered from without. It is necessary, therefore, some other account should be given of their sinning, than of Adam's. And how to account for the universal spread of sin over the whole world without one exception, if there were no corruption in their common head, would be an insur mountable difficulty." (Jennings's Vindication, p. 110.) "2. How, then, are we born into the world?" You answer, "As void of actual knowledge as the brutes." (Taylor's Doctrine, c., p. 232.) And can you really imagine that text, "Wain man would be wise," (evidently spoken of man in general,) "though a man be born like a wild ass's colt," (Job xi. 12,) implies no more than, "Men are born void of actual knowledge?" Do we need inspiration to make this discovery, that a new-born child has po actual knowledge? Is man compared to a "wild ass," of all animals the most stupid, to teach us no more than this? "yea, a wild ass's colt?" Does not this intimate anything of untractableness, sullenness, stubbornness, perverseness? "How keenly is the comparison pointed ! Like the "ass;" an animal stupid even to a proverb: Like the 'ass's colt; " which must be still more egregiously stupid than its dam: Like the 'wild ass's colt;' which is not only blockish, but stubborn and refractory; neither has valuable qualities by nature, nor will easily receive them by discipline. The image in the original is yet more strongly touched.

The image in the original is yet more strongly touched. The particle 'like" is not in the Hebrew, 'Born a wild ass's colt; or, as we should say in English, a mere 'wild ass's colt.'" (Theron and Aspasio, Dial. 13.) Yes, "we are born with many sensual appetites and pas sions; but every one of these are in themselves good." I grant all the appetites and passions originally implanted in our nature were good in themselves: But are all that now exist in us good? "If not, they become evil only by excess or abuse." First, this may be doubted. I do not know that love of praise, of power, of money, become evil only by abuse. I am afraid these and other passions, which we have had from our infancy, are evil "in themselves." But be that as it may, in how few do we find even the more innocent passions and appetites clear of excess or abuse ! "But all that is wrong in them is from habit." This cannot be allowed as universally true. The little children of wise and pious parents have not yet contracted ill habits; yet before they can go alone, they show such passions as are palpably excessive, if not evil in themselves. But whatever they are in themselves, here is the "grand difficulty, of which you give us no manner of solution: Whence comes it to pass, that those appetites and passions which, no doubt, were at first kindly implanted in our nature by a holy God, are now become so excessive or irregular, that no one man, from the beginning of the world, has so resisted them as to keep himself pure and innocent?" "But without these appetites and passions, our nature would be defective, sluggish, or unarmed. Noris there any one of them which we can at present spare." We could very well spare the excess and irregularity of them all; and, possibly, some of the passions themselves, as love of praise, and love of revenge: The love of God would more than supply the place of both. Neither does it suffer us to be sluggish or inactive; nor does calm Christian fortitude leave us unarmed against any danger which can occur.

Neither does it suffer us to be sluggish or inactive; nor does calm Christian fortitude leave us unarmed against any danger which can occur. "But our reason would have nothing to struggle with." O yes; not only all our reason, but all the grace we have received, has enough to struggle with, even when we do not "wrestle with flesh and blood." We are still abundantly "exercised " by "principalities, and powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places." "On the other hand, we are born with rational powers which grow gradually capable of the most useful knowledge. And we under the gospel have clear ideas of the divine perfec tions; we see our duty, and the most cogent reasons to per form it." This sounds well. But will knowledge balance passion? Or are rational powers a counterpoise to sensual appetites? Will clear ideas deliver men from lust or vanity? or seeing the duty to love our enemies, enable us to practise it? What are cogent reasons opposed to covetousness or ambition? A thread of tow that has touched the fire. "But the Spirit of God is promised for our assistance." Nay, but what need of Him, upon your scheme? Man is sufficient for himself. "He that glorieth," on this hypothesis, must "glory" in himself, not "in the Lord." 3. "How far is our present state the same with that of Adam in paradise?" I suppose "our mental capacities are the same as Adam's; only that some are above, some below, his standard. Pro bably there are many in the world much below Adam in rational endowments: But possibly the force and acuteness of understanding was much greater in our Sir Isaac Newton than in Adam." I do not apprehend this requires any answer. He that can believe it, let him believe it. "We are next to inquire upon what true grounds those parts of religion stand, which the Schoolmen have founded upon the doctrine of original sin, particularly the two grand articles of Redemption and Regeneration." In what century did the Schoolmen write? how long before St. Augustine, to go no higher?

Augustine, to go no higher? A sad specimen this of "the honesty and impartiality with which you deliver your sentiments l" "Our fall, corruption, and apostasy in Adam, has been made the reason why the Son of God came into the world, and 'gave himself a ransom' for us." And undoubtedly it is the reason. Accordingly, the very first promise of the Redeemer was given presently after the fall; and given with a manifest reference to those evils which came on all men through Adam's transgression. Nor does it appear from any scripture, that he would have come into the world at all, had not "all men died in Adam." You yourself allow, "the Apostle affirms, (Rom. v. 18, 19) that by "the righteousness and obedience of Christ,' all men are delivered from the condemnation and sentence they came under through Adam's disobedience; and that thus far the redemption by Christ stands in connexion with Adam's trans gression." "But the redemption by Christ extends far beyond the consequences of Adam's transgression." It does. Men receive far greater blessings by Christ, than those they lost by Adam. But this does not prove, that our fall in Adam is not the ground of our redemption by Christ. Let us once more consider the text itself: "But not as the offence, so is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace," (the blessing which flows from the mere mercy of God,) "which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." (Rom. v. 15.) "For not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one offence to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification." (Verse 16.) In this respect, First, the free gift by Christ "hath abounded much more" than the loss by Adam. And in this, Secondly, "If by one man's offence, death" spiritual and temporal, leading to death eternal, "reigned by one" over his whole posterity; "much more they who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness," the free gift of justification and sanctifica tion, "shall reign in life" everlasting, "by one, Jesus Christ." (Verse 17.) Let any one who calmly and impartially reads this passage, judge if this be not the plain, natural meaning of it.

And in this, Secondly, "If by one man's offence, death" spiritual and temporal, leading to death eternal, "reigned by one" over his whole posterity; "much more they who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness," the free gift of justification and sanctifica tion, "shall reign in life" everlasting, "by one, Jesus Christ." (Verse 17.) Let any one who calmly and impartially reads this passage, judge if this be not the plain, natural meaning of it. But let us now observe your comment upon it: "Here the Apostle asserts a grace of God, which already 'hath abounded, beyond the effects of Adam's sin upon us." It has, upon them that are justified and sanctified; but not upon all mankind. "And which has respect, not to his one offence,'" (not to that only,) "but also to the "many offences' which men have personally committed: Not to the 'death' which "reigned' by him." Yes, verily; but over and above the removal of this, it hath also respect "to the 'life' in which "they who receive' the "abounding grace' shall "reign" with him for ever." Thus far you have proved just nothing. But you go on: "The death consequent on Adam's sin is reversed by the redemption in Christ. But this is not the whole end of it by far. The grand reason and end of redemption is, 'the grace of God, and the gift by grace.'" Infallibly it is; but this is not a different thing, but precisely the same with the "free gift." Consequently, your whole structure raised on the supposition of that difference is a mere castle in the air. But if "the gift by grace," and "the free gift," are the very same thing, and if "the gift by grace" is "the grand reason and end of redemption," then our fall in Adam, to which you allow "the free gift" directly refers, is "the reason of Christ's coming into the world." "But the Scriptures of the New Testament (excepting Rom. v. 12-19, and 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22) always assign the actual wickedness of mankind as the reason of Christ's coming into the world." They generally do assign this, their outward and inward wickedness. But this does not exclude the wickedness of their nature, springing from their fall in Adam.

But this does not exclude the wickedness of their nature, springing from their fall in Adam. Rather this, which is expressed in those two places at least, is pre-supposed in all places; particularly in the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans, where he describes the enormous wickedness both of the Jews and Gentiles. It is true "he begins his discourse with an account of the actual transgressions of the idolatrous Gentiles." (Page 166, c.) Afterwards, (chap. iii.,) he treats of the depravity and corrup tion of all mankind; and then proceeds (chap. v.) to show, that we are all "made sinners by Adam," and that "by his offence judgment is come upon all men to condemnation." The Apostle's method is clear and natural. He begins with that which is most obvious, even actual sin; and then pro ceeds to speak of original sin, as the joint cause of the neces sity of redemption for all men. But which way can we infer, that because he begins with the mention of actual sins, in order to demonstrate the necessity of redemption, therefore he excludes original out of the account P Neither can we infer, that because "it is not expressly mentioned in other texts, therefore it is not implied." "'But the Redeemer himself saith not one word of redeem ing us from the corruption of nature derived from Adam. And seeing he spake exactly according to the commission which the Father gave him, we may safely conclude, it was no part of his commission to preach the doctrine of original sin." Just as safely may we conclude, that it was no part of his commission to teach and make known to men the 'many things' which he 'had to say to" his Apostles before his death, which they "could not then 'bear;" (John xvi. 12;) but which, according to his promise, he afterward taught them by his Spirit, and by them to the world. It makes no difference as to the ground of our faith, whether a doctrine was delivered by Christ himself, or by his Apostles; and whether it be written in any of the four Gospels, or of the divine Epistles.

It makes no difference as to the ground of our faith, whether a doctrine was delivered by Christ himself, or by his Apostles; and whether it be written in any of the four Gospels, or of the divine Epistles. There is only this difference: The Epistles were wrote after the resurrection and ascension of Christ; therefore, after the full commencement of the gospel dispensation; whereas the discourses of Christ recorded in the Gospels were delivered before the gospel dispensation was properly begun; therefore we are to look for the peculiar doctrines of Christ rather in the Epistles than in the Gospels. However, Christ did speak of this, and referred to it more than once, during his personal ministry, particularly in his discourse with Nicodemus, and Matt. xxiii. But it is not surprising that he did not speak so largely of redeeming us from sin, original or actual, by the price of his blood, before that price was actually paid, as the Apostles did afterward. He considered the littleness of their knowledge, with the violence of their prejudices; therefore we have no cause to be surprised that no more is said on this head in those discourses which Christ delivered before his death. But to us he has told it plainly, and we do find the doctrines of original sin, and redemption from it by Jesus Christ, distinguished emphatically in almost every page of the inspired Epistles." (Jennings's Vindication, page 116, c.) To sum up this: 1. Christ speaks very sparingly of many things, whereof his Apostles have spoken largely. 2. Yet he does speak of the corruption of our nature, (which St. Paul expressly tells us is derived from Adam,) particularly in the 23d of St. Matthew, and the 3d of St. John. 3. Wherever he speaks of "saving that which was lost," he in effect speaks of this; espe cially Matt. xviii. 11, where he mentions "little children" as lost; which could not be by actual sin. 4. There was the less need of our Lord's speaking much on this head, because it was so fully declared in the Old Testament, and was not questioned by any of those false teachers against whom he was chiefly concerned to warn his disciples.

There was the less need of our Lord's speaking much on this head, because it was so fully declared in the Old Testament, and was not questioned by any of those false teachers against whom he was chiefly concerned to warn his disciples. You add: "It has been delivered as a fundamental truth, that no man will come to Christ, the Second Adam, who is not first throughly convinced of the several things he lost in the first Adam." (Taylor's Doctrine, c., p. 243.) This is a fundamental truth; none will come to Christ as a Redeemer until he is throughly convinced he wants a Redeemer. No man will ever come to him as a Saviour, till he knows and feels himself a lost sinner. None will come to the "Physician" but "they that are sick," and are throughly sensible of it; that are deeply convinced of their sinful tempers, as well as sinful words and actions. And these tempers, they well know, were antecedent to their choice, and came into the world with them. So far "every man who comes to Christ is first convinced of the several things he lost by Adam;" though he may not clearly know the source of that corruption whch he sees and feels in his own heart and life. "But why does our Lord never mention Adam, or the corrup tion of our nature through him?" He does mention this corruption, and he presupposes it in all his public discourses. He does not mention it largely and explicitly, for the reasons above recited. "But the Apostles are wholly silent on this head, in their sermons recorded in the Acts, and in their Epistles too." (Pages 243, 244.) Are they wholly silent in their Epistles? This is a violent mistake. And as to their sermons, it may be observed, 1. That we have not one whole sermon of any one Apostle recorded in the Acts; nor, it may be, the twentieth part of one. 2. That it was not needful for them to prove what none of their hearers denied: No, not even the Heathens; even these allowed the corruption of human nature.

That it was not needful for them to prove what none of their hearers denied: No, not even the Heathens; even these allowed the corruption of human nature. Even these received it as an undeniable fact, Vitiis nemo sine nascitur: "No man is born without vices." These acknowledged, (as Seneca expresses,) Omnia in omni bus vitia sunt : "All vices are in all men." These saw there were hardly any good men to be found upon the face of the earth; and openly testified it. Rari quippe boni; numero vir sunt totidem quot Thebarum porte, vel divitis ostia Nili : "The good lie scatter'd in this barren soil, Few as the gates of Thebes, or mouths of Nile." They had also among them some faint account of the cause of that overflowing corruption. So Horace, immediately after he had asserted the fact, Audar omnia perpeti Gens humana ruit per vetitum nefas, "Lawless and unrestrain'd, the human race Rushes through all the paths of daring wickedness," glances at the cause of it, in their fabulous manner: Audar Japeti genus Ignem fraude mal4 gentibus intulit; Post ignem athered domo Subductum, macies, et nova febrium Terris incubuit cohors: Semotique prius tarda necessitas Lethi corripwit gradum. "Prometheus first provok'd the heavenly Sire, Purloining Jupiter's authentic fire : Evil, from hence derived, and brooding pain, And strange disease, with all the ghastly train, Pour'd in upon the wretched sons of men: While hasty Fate quicken'd the lingering pace Of distant death, unveil'd the monster's face, And gave into his hands our whole devoted race." I observe, 3. It was neither needful nor proper for an Apostle, in his first sermon to a congregation wholly unawak ened, to descant upon original sin. No man of common sense would do it now. Were I to preach to a certain congrega tion at Norwich, I should not say one word of Adam, but endeavour to show them that their lives, and therefore their hearts, were corrupt and abominable before God. You conclude this head: "Guilt imputed is imaginary guilt, and so no object of redemption." I dare not say so as to my own particular.

You conclude this head: "Guilt imputed is imaginary guilt, and so no object of redemption." I dare not say so as to my own particular. I pray God, of his tender mercy, to free me from this and all other guilt, "through the redemp tion which is in Jesus Christ!" "Why must we be 'born again?'" You subjoin the common, but, as you suppose, absurd, answer: "Because we are 'born in sin; nature is averse to all good, and inclined to all evil: Therefore we must be born again, before we can please God." In order to confute this, you assert, "Then it cannot be our duty to be born again; nor, consequently, our fault if we are not; because it is not in our power." It is, by grace; though not by nature: By this we may all be born again. Therefore it is our duty; and if we fall short herein, it is our own fault. "But being born again does really signify, the gaining those habits of virtue which make us children of God." Then St. Paul ought to have said, not, "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; " but, "Ye are all the children of God" by gaining habits of virtue ! Nay, but, according to the whole tenor of Scripture, the being born again does really signify the being inwardly changed by the almighty operation of the Spirit of God; changed from sin to holiness; renewed in the image of Him that created us. And why must we be so changed? Because "without holiness no man shall see the Lord; " and because, without this change, all our endeavours after holiness are ineffectual. God hath indeed "endowed us with understand ing, and given us abundant means: " But our understanding is as insufficient for that end, as are the outward means, if not attended with inward power. You proceed to explain yourself at large: "Christ informs us, that 'except a man be born again, he cannot see the king dom of God;'" (page 246;) "and thereby teaches us, "1. That God hath erected a kingdom, united in and under him, for his glory, and men's mutual happiness."

That God hath erected a kingdom, united in and under him, for his glory, and men's mutual happiness." "2. He will finally admit none into it who are not disposed to relish and promote the happiness of it." (Both these propositions I willingly allow.) "3. All wickedness is quite contrary to the nature and end of this kingdom; therefore no wicked men can be fit members of it, unless there be a full persuasion, that reverence, love, and obedience are due to God: " (I add, and unless it be actually paid him; otherwise that persuasion but increases our condemn ation:) "Unless his favour is preferred before all other enjoy ments whatsoever; unless there be a delight in the worship of God, and in converse with him; unless every appetite be brought into subjection to reason; " (add, and reason to the word of God;) "how can any man be fit to dwell with God, or to do him service in his kingdom?" "4. It is one thing to be born into God's creation, another to be born into his peculiar kingdom. In order to an admit tance into his peculiar kingdom, it is not enough for an intelli gent being to exist." (Pages 250, 251.) I do not know that. Perhaps it is not possible for God to create an intelligent being, without creating it duly subject to himself, that is, a subject of his peculiar kingdom. It is highly probable, the holy angels were subjects of his peculiar kingdom from the first moment of theirexistence. Therefore, the following peremptory assertion, and all of the like kind, are wholly groundless: "It is absolutely necessary, before any creature can be a subject of this, that it learn to employ and exercise its powers suitably to the nature of them." It is not necessary at all. In this sense, surely God "may do what He will with his own." He may bestow his own blessings as he pleases. "Is thine eye evil, because he is good?" The premises them being gone, what becomes of the con clusion: "So that the being 'born into God's peculiar kingdom depends upon a right use and application of our life and being, and is the privilege only of those wise men whose spirits attain to a habit of true holiness?" This stands without any proof at all.

"Is thine eye evil, because he is good?" The premises them being gone, what becomes of the con clusion: "So that the being 'born into God's peculiar kingdom depends upon a right use and application of our life and being, and is the privilege only of those wise men whose spirits attain to a habit of true holiness?" This stands without any proof at all. At best, therefore, it is extremely doubtful. But it must appear extremely absurd to those who believe, God can create spirits both wise and holy; that he can stamp any creature with what measure of holiness he sees good, at the first moment of its existence. The occasion of your running into this absurdity seems to be, that you stumbled at the very threshold. In the text under consideration, our Lord mentions two things, the "new birth," and the "kingdom of God." These two your imagina tion blended into one; in consequence of which you run on with "born into his kingdom," (a phrase never used by our Lord, nor any of his Apostles,) and a heap of other crude expressions of the same kind, all betraying that confusedness of thought which alone could prevent your usual clearness of language. Just in the same manner you go on: "Our first parents in Paradise were to form their minds to an habitual subjection to the law of God, without which they could not be received into his spiritual kingdom." (Pages 252,253.) This runs upon the same mistaken supposition, that God could not create them boly. Certainly he could and did; and from the very moment that they were created, their minds were in subjection to the law of God, and they were members of his spiritual kingdom. "But if Adam was originally perfect in holiness," (say, per fectly holy, made in the moral image of God,) "what occasion was there for any farther trial?" That there might be room for farther holiness and happiness. Entire holiness does not exclude growth; nor did the right state of all his faculties entitle him to that full reward which would have followed the right use of them. "Upon the whole, regeneration, or gaining habits of holiness, takes in no part of the doctrine of original sin." But regeneration is not "gaining habits of holiness;" it is quite a different thing.

"Upon the whole, regeneration, or gaining habits of holiness, takes in no part of the doctrine of original sin." But regeneration is not "gaining habits of holiness;" it is quite a different thing. It is not a natural, but a supernatural, change; and is just as different from the gradual "gaining habits," as a child's being born into the world is from his grow ing up into a man. The new birth is not, as you suppose, the progress, or the whole, of sanctification, but the beginning of it; as the natural birth is not the whole of life, but only the entrance upon it. He that "is born of a woman," then begins to live a natural life; he that is "born of God," then begins to live a spiritual. And if every man "born of a woman" had spiritual life already, he would not need to be "born of God." "However, I allow the Spirit of God assists our endeavours; but this does not suppose any naturalpravity of our minds." Does not his "quickening," then, suppose we were dead; his "opening our eyes" suppose we were blind; and his "creating us anew" imply something more than the assisting our endeavours? How very slender a part in sancti fication will you allow to the Spirit of God! You seem very fearful of doing him too much honour, of taking from man the glory due to his name! Accordingly, you say, "His aids are so far from supposing the previous inaptitude of our minds" (to the being born again), "thatour previous desire of the Spirit's assistance is the condi tion of our receiving it." But who gave us that desire? Is it not God "that worketh in us to will," to desire, as well as "to do?" His grace does accompany and follow our desires: But does it not also prevent, go before, them? After this we may ask and seek farther assistance; and, if we do, not otherwise, it is given. I cannot but add a few words from Dr. Jennings: "Dr. Taylor believes, 'the influence of the Spirit of God, to assist our sincere endeavours, is spoken of in the gospel, but never as supposing any natural pravity of our minds.

Taylor believes, 'the influence of the Spirit of God, to assist our sincere endeavours, is spoken of in the gospel, but never as supposing any natural pravity of our minds. But certain it is, that Christ opposeth our being 'born of the Spirit, to our being 'born of the flesh : 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John iii.6.) Therefore, the influence of the Spirit in regeneration supposeth something that we are 'born with; which makes such an influence necessary to our being 'born again." And if this be not some natural pravity, let our author tell us what it is. It is plain it is not any ill habit afterward acquired; for it is something that we are born with. And if to be 'born of the flesh, means only 'to have the parts and powers of a man;' and if these parts and powers are all 'pure and uncorrupted, we have no need of any such influ ence of the Spirit to be superadded to our natural powers. Without this, our own sincere endeavours will suffice for attain ing all habits of virtue." (Jennings's Vindication, p. 125.) I proceed to your conclusion: "Is it not highly injurious to the God of our nature, whose hands have formed and fashioned us, to believe our nature is originally corrupted?" (Taylor's Doctrine, c., p. 256.) It is; but the charge falls not on us, but you. We do not believe "our nature is ori ginally corrupted." It is you who believe this; who believe our nature to be in the same state, moral and intellectual, as it originally was ! Highly injurious indeed is this supposition to the God of our nature. Did he originally give us such a nature as this? so like that of a wild ass's colt; so stupid, so stubborn, so intractable; so prone to evil, averse to good? Did his hands form and fashion us thus? no wiser or better than men at present are? If I believed this, that men were originally what they are now,-if you could once convince me of this, I could not go so far as to be a Deist; I must either be a Manichee or an Atheist. I must either believe there was an evil God, or that there was no God at all.

I must either believe there was an evil God, or that there was no God at all. "But to disparage our nature is to disparage the work and gifts of God." True; but to describe the cor ruption of our nature as it is, is not disparaging the work of God. For that corruption is not his work. On the other hand, to say it is; to say God created us as corrupt as we are now, with as weak an understanding and as perverse a will; this is dis paraging the work of God, and God himself, to some purpose! "But doth not this doctrine teach you to transfer your wickedness and sin to a wrong cause? Whereas you ought to blame yourself alone, you lay the whole blame upon Adam." I do not : I know God is willing to save me from all sin, both original and actual. Therefore, if I am not saved, I must lay the whole blame upon myself. "But what good end does this doctrine promote?" The doctrine, that we are by nature "dead in sin," and therefore "children of wrath," promotes repentance, a true knowledge of ourselves; and thereby leads to faith in Christ, to a true knowledge of Christ crucified. And faith worketh love; and, by love, all holiness both of heart and life. Consequently, this doctrine promotes (nay, and is absolutely, indispensably necessary to promote) the whole of that religion which the Son of God lived and died to establish. "We are told, indeed, that it promotes humility; but nei ther our Lord nor his Apostles, when inculcating humility, say a word about natural corruption." Supposing (not grant ing) that they did not, yet it cannot be, in the very nature of the thing, that any whose nature is corrupt should be hum ble, should know himself, without knowing that corruption. "But what can be more destructive to virtue, than to repre sent sin as altogether unavoidable?" This does not follow from the doctrine. Corrupt as we are, through almighty grace we may avoid all sin. But it is destructive of virtue. For 'if we believe we are by nature worse than the brutes, what wonder if we act worse than brutes?" Yea, if we are so, what wonder if we act so?

For 'if we believe we are by nature worse than the brutes, what wonder if we act worse than brutes?" Yea, if we are so, what wonder if we act so? And this it is absolutely certain men do, whether they believe one way or the other; for they who do not believe this, live no better than those that do. Therefore, if "the generality of Christians have been the most wicked, lewd, bloody, and trea cherous of all mankind," it is not owing to this belief. But, in truth, they have not been so; neither are they at this day. The generality of Christians, so called, are perhaps but little better, yet surely they are no worse, either in tempers or actions, than the rest of mankind. The generality of Jews, yea, of Turks and Pagans, are full as "lewd, bloody, and treacherous" as they. You go on: "It is surprising that Christians" (you mean those of them who believe original sin) "have lost even a sense of the beneficence of God, in giving them a rational nature." Nay, surely, Christians have lost that rational nature itself, or they retain it to very little purpose, if "the generality of them are the most wicked, lewd, bloody, and treacherous of all mankind l'' They ought "to be humbled" for yielding to those evil propensities, which, through the grace of God, they may conquer. And they who do conquer, ought to be continually "thanking God" for this and all his benefits. With great decency you proceed: "Who can believe that to be a revelation from God, which teacheth so absurd a doc trime? I make no doubt, this, with other like principles, have filled our land with infidels." However, the gentlemen who disclaim these absurd principles, of original sin, redemption, and regeneration, may very easily convert those infidels; since there is scarce any room for contention left between them. "Is not this doctrine hurtful to the power of godliness, as it diverts men from the heavenly and substantial truths of religion?" Just the reverse. There is no pos sibility of the power of godliness without it. The power of godliness consists in the love of God and man; this is heavenly and substantial religion.

The power of godliness consists in the love of God and man; this is heavenly and substantial religion. But no man can possibly "love his neighbour as himself," till he loves God; and no man can possibly love God, till he truly believes in Christ; and no man truly believes in Christ, till he is deeply con vinced of his own sinfulness, guiltiness, and helplessness. But this no man ever was, neither can be, who does not know he has a corrupt nature. This doctrine, therefore, is the "most proper" of all others "to be instilled into a child:" That it is by nature a "child of wrath," under the guilt and under the power of sin; that it can be saved from wrath only by the merits, and sufferings, and love of the son of God; that it can be delivered from the power of sin only by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit; but that by his grace it may be renewed in the image of God, perfected in love, and made meet for glory. But "must it not lessen the due love of parents to children, to believe they are the vilest creatures in the world?" (Pages 262,263.) Far from it; if they know how God loves both them and theirs, vile and sinful as they are. And it is a certain fact, that no persons love their children more tenderly, than those who firmly believe this doctrine; and that none are more careful to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." But "how can young people "remember' their "Creator' without horror, if he has given them life under such de plorable circumstances?" They can remember him with pleasure, with earnest thankfulness, when they reflect "out of " what a "pit" he hath "brought them up;" and that if "sin abounded," both by nature and habit, "grace" did "much more abound." You conclude: "Why should we subject our consciences to tales and fables, invented by Priests and Monks?" This fable, as you term it, of original sin, could not be invented by Romish Priests or Monks, because it is by many ages older than either; yea, than Christianity itself. I have now weighed, as my leisure would permit, all the arguments advanced in your Three Parts.

I have now weighed, as my leisure would permit, all the arguments advanced in your Three Parts. And this I have done with continual prayer, that I might know "the truth as it is in Jesus." But still I see no ground to alter my senti ments touching the general corruption of human nature. Nor can I find any better or any other way of accounting for that general wickedness which has prevailed in all nations, and through all ages, nearly from the beginning of the world to this day. January 25, 1757. AN ANswer. To DR. TAYLOR's suPPLEMENT. YoU subjoin to your book a very large Supplement, in answer to Dr. Jennings and Dr. Watts. All that they have advanced, I am not engaged to defend; but such parts only as affect the merits of the cause. You divide this part of your work into eight sections. The first treats And here you roundly affirm, "No action is said in Scrip ture to be imputed to any person for righteousness or con demnation, but the proper act and deed of that person." (Supplement, page 7.) Were, then, the iniquities and sins which were put upon the scape-goat, his own "proper act and deed?" You answer, "Here was no imputation of sin to the goat. It was only a figurative way of signifying the removal of guilt from the penitent Israelites, by the goat's going into the wilderness." But how could it be a figure of any such thing, if no guilt was imputed to him? "Aaron is commanded to put the iniquities of Israel upon the scape-goat; (Lev. xvi. 21;) and this goat is said to bear the iniquities of the people. (Verse 22.) This was plainly an impu tation. Yet it could not possibly be an imputation of anything done by the animal itself. The effects also which took place upon the execution of the ordinance indicate a translation of guilt; for the congregation was cleansed, but the goat was pol luted: The congregation so cleansed, that their iniquities were borne away, and to be found no more; the goat so polluted that it communicated defilement to the person who conducted it into a land not inhabited." (Theron and Aspasio.) In truth, the scape-goat was a figure of Him "on whom the Lord laid the iniquities of us all." (Isai.

The effects also which took place upon the execution of the ordinance indicate a translation of guilt; for the congregation was cleansed, but the goat was pol luted: The congregation so cleansed, that their iniquities were borne away, and to be found no more; the goat so polluted that it communicated defilement to the person who conducted it into a land not inhabited." (Theron and Aspasio.) In truth, the scape-goat was a figure of Him "on whom the Lord laid the iniquities of us all." (Isai. liii.6.) "He bore our iniquity." (Verse 11.) "He bare the sin of many." (Verse 12.) The Prophet uses three different words in the original; of which the first does properly signify the meeting together ; the last, the lifting up a weight or burden. This burden it was which made him "sweat as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground." "But iniquity and sin sometimes signify suffer ngs." (Supplement, pp. 8, 9.) Yes, suffering for sin; the effect being put for the cause. Accordingly, what we mean by, "Our sins "were imputed to him, is, He was punished for them: 'He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities.' He, 'who knew no sin," but what was thus imputed, 'was made sin," a sin-offering, 'for us.'" "It pleased the Lord" (your own words) "to bruise him, in order to the expiation of our sins." (Pages 10, 11.) "But with regard to parents and their posterity, God assures us, children 'shall not die for the iniquity of their fathers.'" No, not eternally. I believe none ever did, or ever will, die eternally, merely for the sin of our first father. "But the Scripture never speaks of imputing any sin to any person, but what is the act of that person." (Pages 13, 14.) It was but now you yourself observed, that, by, "Our sins were imputed to Christ," we mean, "He suffered for them." Our sins, then, were imputed to Christ; and yet these sins were not the act of the person that suffered. He did not commit the sin which was thus imputed to him.

He did not commit the sin which was thus imputed to him. But "no just constitution can punish the innocent." This is undoubtedly true; therefore God does not look upon infants as innocent, but as involved in the guilt of Adam's sin; otherwise death, the punishment denounced against that sin, could not be inflicted upon them. "It is allowed, the posterity of Ham and Gehazi, and the children of Dathan and Abiram, suffered for the sins of their parents." It is enough. You need allow no more. All the world will see, if they suffered for them, then they were punished for them. Yet we do not "confound punishment with suffer ing, as if to suffer, and to be punished, were the same thing." Punishment is not barely suffering, but suffering for sin: To suffer, and to be punished, are not the same thing; but to suffer for sin, and to be punished, are precisely the same. If therefore, the children of Dathan and Abiram suffered for the sins of their parents, which no man can deny, then they were punished for them. Consequently, it is not true that, "in the instances alleged, the parents only were punished by the sufferings of the children." (Pages 17, 18.) If the children suffered for those sins, then they were punished for them. Indeed, sometimes the parents too were punished, by the sufferings of their children; which is all that your heap of quotations proves; and sometimes they were not. But, however this were, if the children suffered for their sins, they were punished for them. It is not therefore "evident, that, in all these cases, children are considered, not as criminals involved in guilt, but as the enjoyments of their parents, who alone are punished by their sufferings." On the contrary, it is very evident that the children of Canaan were punished for the sin of Ham; and that the children of Dathan and Abiram were punished with death, as "involved in the guilt of their parents." "On the other hand, the virtues of an ancestor may convey great advantages to his posterity. But no man's posterity can be rewarded for their ancestor's virtue." The point here in dispute between Dr. Watts and you is, whether the thing, concerning which you are agreed, should be expressed by one term or another.

Watts and you is, whether the thing, concerning which you are agreed, should be expressed by one term or another. You both agree, (and no man in his senses can deny,) that, in all ages, God has, on account of pious ancestors, given many blessings to "heir offspring. But he thinks these blessings should be termed rewards; (and so do all the world;) you say they should not. The fact is plain either way: God does continually, and did in all ages, give number less blessings to the children, on account of the piety of their fathers; and, it is certain, blessings given on account of virtue have been hitherto termed rewards, both by God and man. You conclude this section: "Thus, it appears, the distinc tion between personal sin and imputed guilt is without any ground in Scripture." Just the contrary appears, namely, that guilt was imputed to the scape-goat, to the child ren of wicked parents, and to our blessed Lord himself, with out any personal sin. The distinction, therefore, is sound and scriptural. THAT God designs to bring good out of these is certain. But does this prove, they have not the nature of punishments? Did Adam himself suffer any affliction, any toil or pain? Doubt less he did, long before he returned to dust. And can we doubt but he received spiritual good from that pain? Yet it was a punishment still; as really such, as if it had consigned him over to everlasting punishment. This argument, therefore, is of no weight: "God draws good out of punishments; therefore they are no punishments at all." However, then, the sufferings wherein Adam's sin has involved his own posterity may "try and purify us, in order to future and everlasting happiness," (page 23,) this circumstance does not alter their nature; they are punishments still. Let "afflictions, calamities, and death itself, be means of improving in virtue," (page 24,) of healing or preventing sin, this is no manner of proof that they are not punishments. Was not God able to heal or prevent sin, without either pain or death? Could not the Almighty have done this as easily, as speedily, and as effectually, without these, as with them? Why, then, did he not? Why did Adam's sin bring these on his whole posterity? Why should one man suffer for another man's fault?

Why should one man suffer for another man's fault? If you say, "To cure his own;" I ask, 1. What necessity was there of any suffering at all for this? If God intended only to cure his sin, he could have done that with out any suffering. I ask, 2. Why do infants suffer? What sin have they to be cured thereby? If you say, "It is to heal the sin of their parents, who sympathize and suffer with them; " in a thousand instances this has no place; the parents are not the better, nor anyway likely to be the better, for all the sufferings of their children. Their sufferings, therefore, yea, and those of all mankind, which are entailed upon them by the sin of Adam, are not the result of mere mercy, but of justice also. In other words, they have in them the nature of punishments, even on us and on our child ren. Therefore, children themselves are not innocent before God. They suffer; therefore, they deserve to suffer. And here another question arises, What benefit accrues to the brute creation from the sufferings wherein their whole race is involved through the sin of the first man? The fact cannot be denied; daily experience attests what we read in the oracles of God, that "the whole creation groaneth together, and tra vaileth in pain to this day;" a considerable past of it groans to God, under the wantonness or cruelty of man. Their sufferings are caused, or at least greatly increased, by our luxury or inhu manity; nay, and by our diversions ! We draw entertainment from the pain, the death, of other creatures; not to mention several entire species, which at present have such natural quali ties, that we are obliged to inflict pain, nay, perhaps death, upon them, purely in our own defence. And even those species which are out of the reach of men, are not out of the reach of suffer ing. "The lions do lack and suffer hunger," though they are, as it were, sovereigns of the plain. Do they not acknowledge this when, "roaring for their prey," they "seek their meat from God?" And what shall we say of their helpless prey? Is not their lot more miserable still? Now, what benefits, I say, have these from their sufferings?

Now, what benefits, I say, have these from their sufferings? Are they also "tried and purified thereby?" Do sufferings "correct their inordinate passions, and dispose their minds to sober reflections?" Do they "give them opportunity of exercising kindness and compassion in relieving each other's distresses?" That I know not; but I know by this and a thousand proofs, that when man, the lord of the visible creation, rebelled against God, every part of the creation began to suffer on account of his sin. And to suffering on account of sin, I can give no properer name than that of punishment. "It was to reclaim offenders that an extraordinary power was exercised, either immediately by our Lord himself, or by his Apostles, of inflicting bodily distempers, and, in some cases, death itself." I do not remember any more than one single case, wherein one of the Apostles "inflicted death." I remember no instance recorded in Scripture, of their "inflicting bodily distempers; " (the blindness inflicted on Elymas cannot be so termed, without great impropriety;) and certain I am, that our Lord himself inflicted neither one nor the other. The citations in the next page prove no more than that we may reap benefit from the punishments of others. But though either we or they reap benefit from them, yet they are punishments still. "We do not here consider death and suffering as they stand in the threatening of the law." You are sensible, if we did, all mankind must acknowledge them to be punishments. And this is the very light wherein we do and must consider them in the present question. We consider death and suffering as they stand in that threatening, "Thou shalt surely die." That this was denounced to all mankind, we know, because it is executed on all. Therefore, considering suffering and death as so threatened and executed, we cannot deny that they are punishments, punishments not on Adam only, but on all that in fact do either die or suffer.

Therefore, considering suffering and death as so threatened and executed, we cannot deny that they are punishments, punishments not on Adam only, but on all that in fact do either die or suffer. To sum up this point: Although the wisdom and mercy of God do "bring good out of evil; " although God designs to extract blessings from punishments, and does it in numberless instances; yet this does not alter the nature of things, but punishments are punishments still: Still this name properly belongs to all sufferings which are inflicted on account of sin; and, consequently, it is an evident truth, that the whole animate creation is punished for Adam's sin. "THE subject of our present inquiry is threefold: 1. Whether mankind be under God's displeasure, antecedently to their actual sins. 2. Whether our nature be corrupt from the beginning of life. And, 3. Whether these propositions can be proved from the calamities and sinfulness of mankind." (Pages 30, 31.) Whether they can or no, they have been fully proved from Scripture. Let us now inquire if they may not be proved from the state of the world. But you think Dr. Watts "has here laid too great stress on supposition and imagination." In proof of which you cite from him the following words: "Can we suppose that the blessed God would place his innocent creatures in such a dangerous habitation? Can we suppose, that, among the roots, and the herbs, and the trees, which are good for food, the great God would have suffered deadly poison to spring up here and there? Would there have been any such creatures in our world as bears and tigers? Can we ever imagine the great and good God would have appointed men to be propagated in such a way as would necessarily give such exquisite pain and anguish to the mothers that produce them, if they had been all accounted in his eyes a race of holy and sinless beings?" I answer, It is not true, "that too great stress," or any stress at all, is "here laid on mere supposition and imagina tion." Your catching at those two words, suppose and imagine, will by no means prove it; for the meaning of them is plain.

Can we ever imagine the great and good God would have appointed men to be propagated in such a way as would necessarily give such exquisite pain and anguish to the mothers that produce them, if they had been all accounted in his eyes a race of holy and sinless beings?" I answer, It is not true, "that too great stress," or any stress at all, is "here laid on mere supposition and imagina tion." Your catching at those two words, suppose and imagine, will by no means prove it; for the meaning of them is plain. "Can we suppose the blessed God would do this?" is manifestly the same with, "How can we reconcile it with his essential attributes?" In like manner, "Can we ever imagine?" is plainly equivalent with, "Can we possibly conceive?" So that the occasional use of these words does not infer his laying any stress on supposition and imagination. When, therefore, you add, "Our suppositions and imagi nations are not a just standard by which to measure the divine dispensations," (page 32,) what you say is absolutely true, but absolutely foreign to the point. Some of the questions which you yourself ask, to expose his it is not so easy to answer: "Would innocent creatures have been thrust into the world in so contemptible circumstances, and have been doomed to grow up so slowly to maturity and the use of reason? Would they, when grown up, have been constrained to spend so much time in low and servile labour? Would millions have been obliged to spend all their days, from early morn until evening, in hewing stone, sawing wood, heaving, rubbing, or beating the limb of an oak, or a bar of iron?" I really think they would not. I believe all this toil, as well as the pain and anguish of women in child-birth, is an evidence of the fall of man, of the sin of our first parents, and part of the punishment denounced and executed, first on them, and then on all their posterity. You add: "He doth not consider this world as a state of trial, but as if it ought to have been a seat of happiness." (Pages 34, 35.) There is no contrariety between these: It might be a state of trial and of happiness too.

You add: "He doth not consider this world as a state of trial, but as if it ought to have been a seat of happiness." (Pages 34, 35.) There is no contrariety between these: It might be a state of trial and of happiness too. And such it certainly was to Adam in Paradise; whether he was holy or no, he was undoubtedly happy. A state of trial, therefore, does not necessarily imply any kind or degree of natural evil; and, accordingly, the Creator himself assures us, there was none originally in his creation. For so I read at the conclu sion of it: "And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." (Gen. i. 31.) "But natural evil may be mixed with a state of trial; consequently this world could not be built for a seat of hap piness." Admirable drawing of consequences ! It may be; therefore, it could not be otherwise. Whatever may be, God himself here tells us what was. And from his own declara tion, it is infallibly certain, there was no natural evil in the world, until it entered as the punishment of sin. "Neither doth he take a future state into his representa tion." No, nor is there any need he should, when he is representing the present state of the world as a punish ment of Adam's sin." "Nor doth he take into his argument the goodness of God." Not into this argument; that is of after consideration. So the texts you have heaped to gether on this head also are very good; but what do they prove? "He supposes our sufferings to be mere punishments." I suppose they are punishments mixed with mercy. But still they are punishments; they are evils inflicted on account of sin. "We find, in fact, that the best of men may be made very unhappy, by calamities and oppressions." It can not be. The best of men cannot be made unhappy by any calamities or oppressions whatsoever; for they "have learned in every" possible "state, therewith to be content." In spite of all calamities, they "rejoice evermore, and in everything give thanks." "From punishments inflicted on particular persons, he infers that all men are under the wrath of God.

The best of men cannot be made unhappy by any calamities or oppressions whatsoever; for they "have learned in every" possible "state, therewith to be content." In spite of all calamities, they "rejoice evermore, and in everything give thanks." "From punishments inflicted on particular persons, he infers that all men are under the wrath of God. But to infer the state of the whole from the case of some is not a fair way of arguing." No. The punishments inflicted on particular per sons prove nothing, but with regard to those on whom they are inflicted. If, therefore, some men only suffer and die, this proves nothing with regard to the rest. But if the whole of mankind suffer and die, then the conclusion reaches all men. "He is not quite just, in pronouncing the present form of the earth "irregular, abrupt, and horrid;' and asking, "Doth it not bear strongly on our sight, the ideas of ruin and con fusion, in vast broken mountains, dreadful cliffs and precipices, immense extents of waste and barren ground?" If this be the case, how can 'the invisible things of God' be "clearly seen from such a ruined 'creation?'" Perfectly well. "His eternal power and Godhead," the existence of a power ful and eternal Being, may still be inferred from these his works, grand and magnificent, though in ruin. Consequently, these leave the Atheist without excuse. And whatever objec tions he might form (as Lucretius actually does) from these palpable blemishes and irregularities of the terraqueous globe, the scriptural account of natural, flowing from moral, evil, will easily and perfectly solve them; all which is well con sistent with the words of the Psalmist: "O Lord, how mani fold are thy works ! In wisdom hast thou made them all ; the earth is full of thy riches!" So undoubtedly it is, though it bears so visible signs of ruin and devastation.

In wisdom hast thou made them all ; the earth is full of thy riches!" So undoubtedly it is, though it bears so visible signs of ruin and devastation. "We have no authority from Scripture to say, that the earth, in its present constitution, is at all different from what it was at its first creation." Certainly we have, if the Scrip ture affirms that God " said," after Adam sinned, "Cursed is the ground for thy sake; thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;" and, that "the earth was of old, standing out of the water, and in the water," till God destroyed it for the sin of its inhabitants. You go on : "I cannot agree, 'that disease, anguish, and death have entered into the bowels and veins of multitudes, by an innocent and fatal mistake of pernicious plants and fruits for proper food.'" Why not? Doubtless, multitudes also have perished hereby, if we take in the account of all ages and nations; multitudes, also, have been the living prey of bears and tigers, wolves and lions; and multitudes have had their flesh and bones crushed and churned between the jaws of panthers and leopards, sharks and crocodiles. And would these things have come upon mankind, were it not on account of Adam's sin? Yet you think, we have "now a more extensive dominion over all creatures, than Adam had even in his innocence, because we have the liberty of eating them, which Adam never had." This will not prove the point. That I have liberty to eat a lamb, does not prove that I have dominion over a lion. Certainly I have not dominion over any creature which I can neither govern nor resist; yea, and if the dread of me is on every beast and fowl, this does not prove that I have any dominion over them. I know, on the contrary, that not only a tiger or a bear, but even a dove, will not stoop to my dominion. "However, we have no authority to say, man himself was cursed, though the ground was." (Pages 45, 46.) Yes, we have, the authority of God himself: "Cursed is every man that continueth not in all things" which God hath com manded. The moment, therefore, that he sinned, Adam fell under this curse.

The moment, therefore, that he sinned, Adam fell under this curse. And whether the toil and death to which he and his posterity were sentenced, and the pain of child-birth, be termed curses or no, sure it is, they are punishments, and heavy ones too; though mercy is often mixed with judgment. (Pages 47-50.) The main argument follows, taken from the state of man kind in general, with regard to religion. But you say, "It is impossible we should make a just estimate of the wickedness of mankind." Yes, an exactly just estimate of the precise degree of wickedness in the whole world; but it is very possible, nay, very easy, to make an estimate in the gross, with such a degree of justness as suffices for the present question. Indeed you "think we carry our censures of the Heathens too far." I dare not carry them so far as to say, no Heathen shall be saved. But this I say; I never knew an Heathen yet (and I have personally known many out of various nations) who was not a slave to some gross vice or other. Bad, therefore, as nominal Christians are, I cannot yet place them on a level with the Heathens; not even with the mild, courteous, conversa ble Heathens who border on Georgia and Carolina. Much less would I say, "Possibly the Heathens may be less vicious than the Christian world in general." If I believed this, I should bid adieu to Christianity, and commence Heathen without delay. "But if we allow mankind to be ever so wicked, suppose there is not one upon earth who is truly righteous, it will not follow that men are naturally corrupt; for a sinful action does not infer a sinful nature. If it does, then Adam brought a sinful nature with him into the world.

If it does, then Adam brought a sinful nature with him into the world. But if we cannot infer from Adam's sin, that his nature was originally corrupt, neither can we infer from the wickedness of all mankind, be it ever so great, that they have a sinful nature." (Pages 52, 53.) The consequence is not good: "If one man's committing a sin does not prove that he was naturally inclined to evil, then the wickedness of all mankind for six thousand years will not prove that they are naturally inclined to evil." For we may easily account for one man's committing sin, though he was not naturally inclined to evil; but not so easily, for "all flesh corrupting themselves," for the wickedness of all mankind in all ages. It is not possible rationally to account for this, for the general wickedness of mankind; for such a majority of men, through all generations, being so corrupt; but on the supposition of their having a corrupt nature. Sin in one or a few cases, does not prove a sinful nature; but sin over spreading the earth, does. Nor is your argument drawn from the sin of the angels, (pp. 54, 55,) of any more force than that drawn from the sin of Adam, unless you can prove that as great a majority of angels as of men have rebelled against their Creator. "Again: If our first parents felt fear and shame, and yet their nature was not originally corrupt, then it will not follow that ours is so, notwithstanding our uneasy and unruly pas sions." Empty sound ! Had any one said to Adam, "Your nature was originally corrupt, for you feel uneasy and unruly passions;" would he not readily have answered, "But these began at such an hour; till then my nature was without either pain or corruption." Apply this to any child of Adam; and if he can answer in like manner, "Till such an hour no uneasy or unruly passion had any place in my breast; " we will then grant, these passions no more prove a corrupt nature in the sons than in their first father. But no man can answer thus. You, and I, and every man, must acknowledge, that uneasy and unruly passions are coeval with our understanding and memory at least, if not with our very being.

You, and I, and every man, must acknowledge, that uneasy and unruly passions are coeval with our understanding and memory at least, if not with our very being. "Again: Adam by his sin brought sufferings on himself and his posterity. Yet it does not follow, that his nature was corrupt. Therefore, though others by their sins bring suffer ings on themselves and their posterity, it will not follow that their nature is corrupt, or under the displeasure of God." Two very different things are here blended together. The corruption of their nature is one thing, the displeasure of God another. None affirms that those sufferings which men by their sins bring on themselves or posterity prove that their nature is corrupt. But do not the various sufferings of all mankind prove that they are under the displeasure of God? It is certain no suffering came upon Adam till he was under the displeasure of God. Again: "If our first parents, by their sin, brought suffer ing both on themselves and others, and yet their nature was not originally corrupt, nor under the displeasure of God, it clearly follows that the nature of those who suffer purely in consequence of their sin is not originally corrupt, nor are they under God's displeasure." This argument is bad every way. For, 1. At the time when Adam. brought the sentence of suffering both on himself and others, his nature was corrupt, and he was under the actual displeasure of God. But, 2. Suppose it were otherwise, all you could possibly infer, with regard to his posterity, is, that their suffering does not prove their corruption, or their being under the displeasure of God. How could you think their suffering would prove them not corrupt, not under God's displeasure? Therefore, neither this nor the preceding argument (seeing both are utterly inconclusive) "take off anything that Dr. Watts has said," touching the present state of the world, as a proof of God's displeasure, and the natural corruption of man. So far, therefore, is "his argument from the sinfulness and misery of mankind from being altogether insufficient in every part," that it is strong and conclusive, anything you have advanced to the contrary notwithstanding.

So far, therefore, is "his argument from the sinfulness and misery of mankind from being altogether insufficient in every part," that it is strong and conclusive, anything you have advanced to the contrary notwithstanding. You add: "Suffering may happen where there is no sin; as in the case of brutes and infants; or where there is the most perfect innocence; as in the case of our blessed Lord." Absolutely true; that is, where there is no personal sin, but only sin imputed. There was no personal sin in our blessed Lord; there can be none either in brutes or infants. He suffered, therefore, for the sins of others, which were thus imputed to him; as is the sin of Adam to infants, who suffer death through him; and, in some sense, to the whole creation; which was "made subject to vanity, not willingly," but on account of his transgression. But where there is no sin, either personal or imputed, there can be no suffering. "I may add, from the present state of things, a directly opposite argument may be taken: From the enjoyments and comforts, the good things and blessings, which abound in the world, I might ask, Are these creatures, so well provided for, under God's displeasure? Are they not the care of his good ness? Does he not love them, and delight to do them good?" (Pages 58-61.) I answer, God does still give us many good things, many enjoyments, comforts, and blessings. But all these are given through the "Seed of the woman;" they are all the purchase of his blood. Through Him we are still the care of the divine goodness, and God does delight to do us good: But this does not at all prove, either that we have not a sinful nature, or that we are not, while sinful, under his displeasure. "BY this doctrine some have been led to maintain, 1. That men have not a sufficient power to perform their duty. But if so, it ceases to be their duty." (Pages 63-69.) I maintain, that men have not this power by nature: But they have or may have it by grace; therefore it does not cease to be their duty. And if they perform it not, they are without excuse. "Hence some maintain, 2.

"Hence some maintain, 2. That we have no reason to thank our Creator for our being." (Pages 70-73.) He that will maintain it, may. But it does by no means follow from this doctrine; since, whatever we are by nature, we may by grace be children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven. "But unthankfulness is a natural consequence of this doctrine, which greatly diminishes, if not totally excludes, the goodness and mercy of God." St. Paul thought otherwise. He imagined the total ungodliness and impotence of our nature to be the very thing which most of all illustrated the goodness and mercy of God: "For a good man," says he, "peradventure one would even dare to die. But God commendeth," unspeak ably, inconceivably, beyond all human precedent, "his love to us; in that while we were yet without strength, Christ died for the ungodly." Here is the ground, the real and the only ground, for true Christian thankfulness: "Christ died for the ungodly that were without strength;" such as is every man by nature. And till a man has been deeply sensible of it, he can never truly thank God for his redemption; nor, consequently, for his creation; which is, in the event, a blessing to those only who are "created anew in Christ Jesus." "Hence, 3. Some have poured great contempt upon human nature: Whereas God himself does not despise mankind, but thinks them worthy of his highest regards." To describe human nature as deeply fallen, as far removed both from virtue and wisdom, does not argue that we despise it. We know by Scripture, as well as by sad experience, that men are now unspeakably foolish and wicked. And such the Son of God knew them to be, when he laid down his life for them. But this did not hinder him from loving them, no more than it does any of the children of God. You next consider what Dr. Watts observes with regard to infants. "Mankind," says he, "in its younger years, before it is capable of proper moral action, discovers the principles of iniquity and the seeds of sin.

"Mankind," says he, "in its younger years, before it is capable of proper moral action, discovers the principles of iniquity and the seeds of sin. What young ferments of spite and envy, what native malice and rage, are found in the little hearts of infants, and sufficiently discovered by their little hands and eyes, and their wrathful countenances, even before they can speak!" You answer, "Our Lord gave us different ideas of them, when he taught his Apostles to become "as little child ren.'" (Pages 77-82.) Not at all. They may be imitable in some respects, and yet have all the tempers above described. And it is certain they have; as any impartial observer will be convinced by his own eyes Nor is this any way contradicted by St. Paul's words: "In wickedness," caciq, "be ye children," (1 Cor. xiv. 20,) untaught, unexperienced; or by those of David, "My soul is even as a weaned child." (Psalm crxxi. 2.) "But we discover in them also the noble principles of reason and understanding, with several tempers which are capable of improvement, whereby they may be trained up in a good way; and numbers in all ages of the world have risen to very con siderable degrees of excellence." All this is true; but it is not at all inconsistent with the account of them given above; by which it clearly appears, that they are strongly inclined to evil, long before any ill habits can be contracted. "THERE are three passages from which Divines infer the excellency of Adam's state and nature above ours: 1. "And God blessed them, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multi ply, and replenish the earth. (Gen. i. 28.)" With this I have nothing to do; for I infer nothing from it, with regard to the present question. "2. 'Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 3. 'God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him." (Verse 27.) From these three particulars they deduce the superiority of Adam's nature above ours. But the very same marks of excellence are more expressly pronounced by God upon the human nature, when the race of mankind was to be propagated anew from Noah and his sons."

But the very same marks of excellence are more expressly pronounced by God upon the human nature, when the race of mankind was to be propagated anew from Noah and his sons." 1. "And God blessed Noah and his sons." (Gen. ix. 1.) With regard to this whole passage, I must observe, that God did not pronounce any blessing at all, either on him or them, till Noah had "built an altar unto the Lord, and" had "offered burnt-offerings on the altar." Then it was that "the Lord smelled a sweet savour;" accepted the sacrifice which implied faith in the promised Seed; and for His sake restored, in some measure, the blessing which he had given to Adam at his creation; "and said, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." On this, I need only observe, had Adam stood, or had not his fall affected his posterity, there would have been no need of this; for they would have "multiplied and replenished the earth," in virtue of the original blessing. 2. Verses 2,8. "The fear of you, and the dread of you, shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth; into your hands they are delivered: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." On this likewise I would observe, What need was there of any such power over the creatures to be given to man, if he had not forfeited his former power? Had man remained subject to God, the creatures would have remained subject to him, by virtue of God's original constitution. And why was it, but because man had lost this power, that God here in some degree restores it? But hence you "infer that all that power is restored, yea, more than all ; that we have a more extensive dominion granted to us over the brutal world, than was originally given to Adam." It has been commonly thought, that Adam had full dominion over the creatures, subject to him by a kind of instinct; whereas we have only so far power over them, that by labour and vigilance we may use or subdue them.

But hence you "infer that all that power is restored, yea, more than all ; that we have a more extensive dominion granted to us over the brutal world, than was originally given to Adam." It has been commonly thought, that Adam had full dominion over the creatures, subject to him by a kind of instinct; whereas we have only so far power over them, that by labour and vigilance we may use or subdue them. But how do you prove that we have a fuller dominion than he had By those words: "The fear and the dread of you shall be upon all: Into your hands they are delivered; even as the green herb have I given you all things." Nay, "the fear and the dread of you shall be upon them," does not imply any dominion at all. A wolf may fear me, who yet does not obey me. I dread a viper; but I do not obey it. And those words, "Into your hands they are delivered," are plainly equivalent with, "I have given you all things, even as the green herb;" namely, "for food;" you may feed on any of them. So far therefore is the text from expressly pronouncing "a more extensive dominion given to Noah over the brutal world than was originally given to Adam," that it does not express any proper dominion at all. 3. Verse 6. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God made he man;" namely, at the creation. And some remains of the natural image of God, as we are spiritual and immortal beings, a even now to be found in every man, sufficient to justify t putting a murderer to death. St. James alludes to the san scripture, when he says, "Therewith bless we God, and cur men, who were made" (rovs 'yeyovoras, not are made)"after ti similitude of God." (iii. 9.) But what does all this prove?

9.) But what does all this prove? th the being "created in the image of God," "is more express pronounced upon Noah and his sons, than it was originally ( Adam?" I think no man of sense will say this in cool bloo Of "the three particulars," then, which you brought prove the superiority of Noah over Adam in innocence, t First proves no more than that God gave to both the blessi, of fruitfulness; the Second, far from proving that Noah had more extensive dominion over the brute creation than Adar hardly proves that he had any dominion over them at al and the Third proves only this, that the image of Go wherein man was made at first, is not totally lost now. Yet you say, "These three particulars contain all the pi vileges conferred on Adam at first." And every one of the is "expressly repeated, and more emphatically and exte: sively pronounced upon man, after the judgment passed a Adam had come upon his posterity." Expressl more emphatically, more extensively / Where? I am sul not in the Bible. However, you pompously add, (sicut tuus est mos,") "Th is to me a clear and undoubted demonstration, "l. That 'the judgment which came upon all men to co demnation, did noways alter the primary relation in whi God stood to man, and man to God." Certainly it w altered thus far, God was a condemner, and man was co demned. And though "God is still the God and Father mankind," yet it cannot be said that he is so to unregeners men, men who are as yet "dead in sin, and children wrath," " as much," or in the same sense, "as he was Adam in innocence." Adam then was surely "the son God" as no other man is, till "born of the Spirit." T power to become the sons of God is now given to none they "believe on his name." "2. That the love, regards, and providence of God tow: mankind in general are still the very same as to man at first formation." Ater your usual manner. EDIT. His providence is still over all his works: But he cannot regard or delight in sinful man, in the very same manner wherein he delighted in him when innocent. "3.

"3. That our nature, as derived from Noah, has just the same endowments, natural and moral, with which Adam was created." This does not follow from anything that has yet been said. If it stands of itself, it may. "4. That whatever came upon us from 'the judgment to condemnation,' came no farther than was consistent with that blessing, pronounced upon Noah as well as Adam, "Be fruitful and multiply.'" This is undoubtedly true; otherwise, the human species could not have been continued. "So that 'the condemnation which came upon all men, cannot infer the 'wrath' of God upon mankind; " (it may, notwithstand ing that they "increase and multiply;" it must, if they are "by nature children of wrath;") "but only as subjecting us to such evils as were perfectly consistent with his blessing, declared to Adam as soon as he came out of his Maker's hands;" (page 89;) (namely, with the blessing, "Increase and multiply;) "and, consequently, tosuch evils as God might justly have subjected mankind to, before Adam sinned." Whether God could justly have done this, or not, what a consequence is this! "If God gave that blessing, "Increase and multiply," to men in general, as well as he did to Adam, then men in general are not 'children of wrath' now, any more than Adam was at his creation l'" "5. It is no less evident, that when St. Paul says, "By the disobedience of one many, or all, 'were made sinners, he cannot mean they "were made sinners' in any sense incon sistent with the blessing pronounced on man in innocence." True; not in any sense inconsistent with that blessing, "Increase and multiply." But this blessing is no way incon sistent with their being "by nature children of wrath." "From all which I conclude, that our state with regard to the blessing of God, and the dignity and faculties of our nature, unless debased by our own sins, is not inferior to that in which Adam was created." (Pages 90-93.) Be this so or not, it cannot be concluded from anything that has gone before. But we may still believe, that men in general are "fallen short of the glory of God; " are deprived of that glorious image of God wherein man was originally created.

But we may still believe, that men in general are "fallen short of the glory of God; " are deprived of that glorious image of God wherein man was originally created. THE NOTION OF ADAM's BEING A FEDERAL HEAD or REPRE sENTATIVE OF MANKIND CONsIDERED." MY reason for believing he was so, in some sense, is this: Christ was the representative of mankind, when God "laid on him the iniquities of us all, and he was wounded for our transgressions." But Adam was a type or figure of Christ; therefore, he was also, in some sense, our representative; in consequence of which, "all died" in him, as "in Christ all shall be made alive." But as neither representative, nor federal head, are scripture words, it is not worth while to contend for them. The thing I mean is this: The state of all mankind did so far depend on Adam, that, by his fall, they all fell into sorrow, and pain, and death, spiritual and temporal. And all this is noways inconsistent with either the justice or goodness of God, provided all may recover through the Second Adam, whatever they lost through the first; nay, and recover it with unspeakable gain; since every additional temptation they feel, by that corruption of their nature which is antece dent to their choice, will, if conquered by grace, be a means of adding to that "exceeding and eternal weight of glory." This single consideration totally removes all reflections on the divine justice or mercy, in making the state of all man kind so dependent on the behaviour of their common parent; for not one child of man finally loses thereby, unless by his own choice; and every one who "receives the grace of God in Christ," will be an unspeakable gainer. Who then has any reason to complain, even of having a nature inclined to evil? seeing the more opportunities he has of fighting, the more of conquering; and seeing, the greater is the difficulty of obtaining the victory, the brighter is the crown of glory. But if Adam and Christ did not stand or fall, obey and suffer, for mankind, how can the death of others be the consequence of Adam's offence; the life of others, the consequence of Christ's obedience? How could all men be, in any sense, constituted sinners by the one, or constituted righteous by the other?

How could all men be, in any sense, constituted sinners by the one, or constituted righteous by the other? Page 94. To explain this a little further in Mr. Hervey's words: "By Jederal head, or representative, I mean, what the Apostle teaches, when he calls Christ, "the Second Man, and "the last Adam." (1 Cor. xv. 47.) The last ! How? Not in a numerical sense; not in order of time: But in this respect, that, as Adam was a public person, and acted in the stead of all mankind, so Christ, likewise, was a public person, and acted in behalf of all his people; that as Adam was the first general representative of mankind, Christ was the second and the last; (there never was, and never will be, any other;) that what they severally did in this capacity, was not intended to terminate in themselves, but to affect as many as they seve rally represented. "This does not rest on a single text, but is established again and again in the same chapter. The divinely-wise Apostle, foreseeing the prejudices which men would entertain against this doctrine, as lying quite out of the road of reason's researches, has inculcated and re-inculcated this momentous point: 'Through the offence of one, many are dead; the judgment was by one to condemnation;-by one man's offence death reigned by one; by the offence of one, judg ment came upon all men to condemnation;' and that there may remain no possibility of mistaking his meaning, or eluding his argument, he adds, "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners. All these expressions demonstrate, that Adam (as well as Christ) was a representative of all mankind; and that what he did in this capacity did not ter minate in himself, but affected all whom he represented." After vehemently cavilling at the terms, you yourself allow the thing. You say, "If what was lost by "the disobedience of one' person might afterward be recovered by "the obedi ence' of another, then matters would have stood upon an equal footing." And this is, indeed, the truth.

You say, "If what was lost by "the disobedience of one' person might afterward be recovered by "the obedi ence' of another, then matters would have stood upon an equal footing." And this is, indeed, the truth. For "all that was lost to us by Adam's 'disobedience' is fully recovered by Christ's "obedience; however we denominate the relation in which the one and the other stands to us." In this we agree; but not in what follows: "By law, in the fifth of the Romans, as in several other places, the Apostle does not mean, barely a rule of duty; but such a rule, with the penalty of death threatened to every transgression of it. Such was the law given by Moses;" that is, "a rule, to every transgression of which the penalty of death was threatened." (Pages 114, 115.) Not so; there were a thousand transgres sions of it, to which death was not threatened. Observe: By death, we now mean temporal death, according to the whole tenor of your argument. "But is it not said, 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the law to do them?'" It is. But whatever this curse implied, it did not imply temporal death. For a man might neglect to do many "things written in the law," and yet not be punish able with death. Neither can I agree with your interpretation of Rom. vii. 9: "'I was alive without the law once;' namely, before the giv ing of the law at Mount Sinai. The Jew was then alive; that is, because he was not then under the law, he was not slain by his sin. His sin was not so imputed to him as to subject him to death. "But when the commandment came,' with the penalty of death annexed, "sin revived,' acquired full life and vigour," (How so? One would have expected just the contrary !) "' and I died;' that is, was a dead man in law, upon the first transgression I committed." Beside many other objections to this strange interpretation, an obvious one is this: It supposes every transgression punish able with death. But this is a palpable mistake: Therefore, all that is built on this foundation falls to the ground at once. Upon the whole: Whatever objections may lie against Dr.

Upon the whole: Whatever objections may lie against Dr. Watts's method of explaining it, it appears, from clear Scrip ture, and from your own words, that Adam was the repre sentative of mankind. BEFoRE I say anything on this head, I must premise, that there are a thousand circumstances relating to it, concerning which I can form no conception at all, but am utterly in the dark. I know not how my body was fashioned there; or when or how my soul was united to it: And it is far easier, in speak Page 129. ing on so abstruse a subject to pull down, than to build up. I can easily object to any hypothesis which is advanced; but I cannot easily defend any. And if you ask me, how, in what determinate manner, sin is propagated; how it is transmitted from father to son: I answer plainly, I cannot tell; no more than I can tell how man is propagated, how a body is transmitted from father to son. I know both the one and the other fact; but I can account for neither. Thus much, however, is plain: That "God is the maker of every man who comes into the world." For it is God alone who gives man power to propagate his species. Or rather, it is God himself who does the work by man as an instrument; man (as you observed before) having no other part in producing man, than the oak has in producing an acorn. God is really the producer of every man, every ani mal, every vegetable in the world; as he is the true primum mobile, the spring of all motion throughout the universe. So far we agree. But when you subsume, "If it is the power of God whereby a sinful species is propagated, whereby a sin ful father begets a sinful son, then God is the author of sin; that sinfulness is chargeable upon him :" Here we divide; I cannot allow the consequence, because the same argument would make God chargeable with all the sinful actions of men. For it is the power of God whereby the murderer lifts up his arm, whereby the adulterer perpetrates his wickedness; full as much as it is his power whereby an acorn produces an oak, or a father a son.

For it is the power of God whereby the murderer lifts up his arm, whereby the adulterer perpetrates his wickedness; full as much as it is his power whereby an acorn produces an oak, or a father a son. But does it follow, that God is chargeable with the sin? You know it does not follow. The power of God, vulgarly termed nature, acts from age to age, under its fixed rules. Yet he who this moment supplies the power by which a sinful action is committed is not chargeable with the sinfulness of that action. In like manner, it is the power of God which, from age to age, continues the human species; yet He who this moment supplies the power whereby a sinful nature is propagated (according to the fixed rules established in the lower world) is not chargeable with the sinfulness of that nature. This distinction you must allow, as was observed before, or charge God with all the sin committed under heaven. And this general answer may suffice any sincere and modest inquirer, without entangling himself in those minute particu lars which are beyond the reach of human understanding. "But does not God create the nature of every man that comes into the world?" He does not, in the proper sense of the word create. The Scripture plainly affirms the contrary: "On the seventh day he rested from all his work which God created and made." (Gen. ii. 2, 3.) "The works" which God created "were finished from the foundation of the world." And as soon as they were finished, "God ceased from his work;" (Heb. iv. 3, 10;) namely, from his work of creating. He therefore now (not creates, but) produces the body of every man, in the same manner as he produces the oak; only by supplying the power whereby one creature begets another, according to what we term the laws of nature. In a higher sense he is the Creator of all souls. But how or when he does or did create them, I cannot tell. Neither can I give any account how or when he unites them to the body. Like wise how we are conceived in sin, I know not; but know that we are so conceived.

Like wise how we are conceived in sin, I know not; but know that we are so conceived. God hath said it; and I know he will be "justified in his saying, and clear when he is judged." It is certain, that God is the Maker of every man. But it is neither certain nor true, that he "makes every man in the womb, both soul and body, as immediately as he made Adam;" and that, therefore, "every man comes out of the hands of God as properly as Adam did." To inter pret any scriptures as affirming this is to make them flatly contradict other scriptures. God made Adam by immediate creation: He does not so make every man, or any man beside him. Adam came directly out of the hands of God, without the intervention of any creature. Does every man thus come out of the hands of God? Do no creatures now intervene? "But if God produces the nature of every man in the womb, he must produce it with all the qualities which belong to that nature, as it is then and so produced." So, if God produces the action of every man in the world, he must produce it with all the qualities which belong to that action, as it is then and so produced. "For it is impossible God should produce our nature, and not produce the qualities it has when produced." For it is impossible God should produce an action, and yet not produce the qualities it has when produced. "No substance can be made without some qualities. And it must necessarily, as soon as it is made, have those qualities which the Maker gives it, and no other." No action can be produced without some qualities. And it must necessarily, as soon as it is pro duced, have those qualities which the producer gives it, and no other. You see what this argument would prove, if it proved any thing at all. We will trace it a little farther: "If God produces the nature of every man in the womb, with all its qualities, them, whatever those qualities are, they are the will and the work of God." So, if God produces the action of every man in the world, with all its qualities, then, whatever those qualities are, they are the will and the work of God. Surely, no.

Surely, no. God does (in the sense above explained) produce the action which is sinful; and yet (whether I can account for it or no) the sinfulness of it is not his will or work. He does also produce the nature which is sinful; (he supplies the power by which it is produced;) and yet (whether I can account for this or no) the sinfulness of it is not his will or work. I am as sure of this, as I am that there is a God; and yet, impenetrable dark mess rests on the subject. Yet I am conscious my understand ing can no more fathom this deep, than reconcile man's free will with the foreknowledge of God. "Consequently, those qualities cannot be sinful." This consequence cannot hold in one case, unless it holds in both; but, if it does, there can be no sin in the universe. However, you go on: "It is highly dishonourable to God, to suppose he is displeased at us for what he himself has infused into our nature." It is not allowed that he has "infused sin into our nature;" no more than that he infuses sin into our actions; though it is his power which produces both our actions and nature. I am aware of the distinction, that man's free will is con cerned in the one case, but not the other; and that on this account, God cannot be charged with the sinfulness of human actions: But this does by no means remove the difficulty. For, 1. Does not God know what the murderer or adulterer is about to do? what use he will make of that power to act, which he cannot have but from God? 2. Does he not at the instant supply him with that power whereby the sinful action is done? God, therefore, produces the action which is sinful. It is his work, and his will, (for he works nothing but what he wills,) and yet the sinfulness of the action is neither his work nor will.

It is his work, and his will, (for he works nothing but what he wills,) and yet the sinfulness of the action is neither his work nor will. "But can those passions or propensities be sinful, which are neither caused nor consented to by me?" I answer, Spite, envy, and those other passions and tempers which are mani festly discernible even in little children, are certainly not virtuous, not morally good, whether you term them sinful or not; and it is as certain, these exist before they are consented to, much less caused by, those that feel them. "But sin, if it is unavoidable, is no sin." Whether you term it sin or not, it is contrary to the nature of God, and a trans gression of his holy and good law. "But a natural moral evil is a contradiction; for if it be natural, it cannot be moral." That tempers contrary to the nature and the law of God are natural, is a point of daily experience; but if you do not choose to call these morally evil, call them what you please. All I aver is, that such tempers do exist in us antecedent to our choice. "But if the actual sins of men proceed from a corrupt nature, they are unavoidable, and consequently no sins at all." Actual sins may proceed from a corrupt nature, and yet not be unavoidable; but if actions contrary to the nature of God were unavoidable, it would not follow that they were innocent. To the question, "How comes it to pass, that our passions and appetites are now so irregular and strong, that not one person has resisted them so far as to keep himself pure and innocent?" you answer by another question, "How came Adam not to keep himself pure and innocent?" There is no parity between the one case and the other. I can account for any one man's committing sin, supposing him to be natu rally upright, as easily as for Adam's committing it. Any one person, as well as Adam, though naturally inclined to neither, might choose either good or evil; and, on this supposition, he would be as likely to choose one as the other. But the case is extremely different, if you place Adam on one side, and all mankind on the other.

But the case is extremely different, if you place Adam on one side, and all mankind on the other. It is true, "the nature of sin is not altered by its being general." But the case is very widely altered. On this or that man it may "come, just as it came upon Adam, by his own choice and compliance with tempta tion." But how comes it, that all men under the sun should choose evil rather than good? How came all the children of Adam, from the beginning of the world till now, to comply with temptation? How is it, that, in all ages, the scale has turned the wrong way, with regard to every man born into the world? Can you see no difficulty in this? And can you find any way to solve that difficulty, but to say with the Psalmist, We were "shapen in iniquity, and in sin did our mothers conceive" us? "ORIGINAL righteousness is said to be, 'that moral recti tude in which Adam was created. His reason was clear; and sense, appetite, and, passion were subject to it. His judgment was uncorrupted, and his will had a constant propensity to holi mess. He had a supreme love to his Creator, a fear of offend ing him, and a readiness to do his will." When Adam sinned, he lost this moral rectitude, this image of God in which he was created; in consequence of which all his posterity come into the world destitute of that image." (Pages 147-149.) In order to remove this mistake, you re-consider some of the texts on which it is grounded: "Lie not one to another, seeing ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him." (Col. iii. 9, 10.) "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." (Ephesians iv. 22-24.) On this, you affirm: "'The old' and 'new man, here do not signify a course of life; but the 'old man' signifies the heathen, the 'new man, the Christian, profession." (Pages 150, 151.) This you prove, 1. From Eph. ii.

ii. 15: "Christ abolished the enmity, to make" (or create) "in himself of twain one new man." Does this only mean one new profession? It evidently means one Church, both of Jews and Gentiles. You prove it, 2. From Col. iii. 8-12; where "the Apostle tells the Colossian Christians, that 'now' they were obliged to "put off anger, and "to put on bowels of mercies;' to admit the Christian spirit into their hearts, and to practise Christian duties; for this reason, because they "had put off the old man, and 'had put on the new. This shows 'the new man' was something they might have "put on, and yet be defective in personal, internal holiness." True; defective so far, as still to want more; more "bowels of mercies, meekness, long-suf fering." But this does not show, that the "new man" does not mean the principle both of internal and external holiness. The consciousness of having received this is a strong motive both to depart from evil, and to labour after a continual increase of every holy and heavenly temper; therefore, here likewise, "the putting off the old and the putting on the new man" does not mean an outward profession, but a real, inward change; a renewal of soul "in righteousness and true holiness." You prove it, 3. From Eph. iv. 22, 24: "Here," you say, "he considers 'the putting off the old and 'putting on the new man' as a duty. They had done it by profession, and therefore were obliged to do it effectually." They had done it effectually. So the whole tenor of the Apostle's words implies: "Ye have not so learned Christ; if so be," rather, seeing that, "ye have been taught by him; that ye put off the old man; 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." (Eph. iv. 20-24.) The Apostle here manifestly speaks, not of a lesson they had not learned, but of one which God had taught them already; and thence exhorts them to walk worthy of the blessing they had received, to be "holy in all manner of conversation." But, 4. "'The putting on the new man' is one thing, and the creating him is another.

"'The putting on the new man' is one thing, and the creating him is another. He must first be created, and then put on." No.; he is created and put on at the same time; the former word more directly referring to God, who creates, the latter to man, who is created. "But God," you say, "'created the new man, when he erected the gospel dispensation, as appears from Eph. ii. 15, 19-22." I answer: (1.) If those latter verses are explanatory of that expression, "one new man," in the 15th, then it does not mean one out ward profession, but the one Church of living believers in Christ. (2.) The expression in the 15th verse is not the same with what we are now considering. Neither is the meaning of that and this expression the same: "One new man means one Church, and nothing else;" "the new man" means quite another thing,-the work of God in every individual believer. You say, 5. "'The old man and the new, and 'the new 'man's being renewed and created, and the 'renewing of the Ephesians, all refer, not to any corruption of nature, but to their late wicked life." What? Does their being "renewed in the spirit of their mind" refer only to their wicked life? If you had not affirmed this, I should really wonder at your affirming quickly after, "In all other places of Scripture, except 2 Cor. iv. 16, 'renewing' relates only to a vicious course of life;" (Page 154;) seeing you immediately confute yourself by both the following citations: "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewal of your mind:" (Rom.xii. 2:) Unless the mind be only another expression for "a vicious course of life." "We ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures; living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another." (Titus iii. 3-5.) Do these words imply nothing but "a vicious course of life?" no inward corruption at all? "'But after that the lovingkindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, He saved us by the renewing of the Holy Ghost.'" From what? from a vicious course of life only? Nay, but from "foolishness" of heart also; from error, from malice, hatred, envy, evil desire; all which are inward corruptions.

Nay, but from "foolishness" of heart also; from error, from malice, hatred, envy, evil desire; all which are inward corruptions. You add: "From all this we may gather, that "God's creating the new man after his own image in righteousness and true holiness, means his erecting the Christian Church with a view to promote righteousness and holiness among men. For 'we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.'" Surely you do not cite this verse also to prove, that the "renewing of our mind" implies no inward change It must be something more than an outward profession, or the reforming a vicious course of life, by reason of which we are said to be "God's workman ship, created anew in Christ Jesus." These texts, therefore, do manifestly refer to personal, inter mal holiness; and clearly prove, that this is the chief part of that "image of God" in which man was originally created. The other text which you re-consider, is Eccles. vii. 29: "God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." (Pages 156-160.) But this, you say, does not mean, that God made man righteous; but that he made him right, as having those powers, means, and encourage ments, by a due use of which he may become righteous. In order to prove that this is the true meaning of the words, you affirm, 1. "That man here is not to be understood of Adam, but of all mankind." This cannot be granted without full proof. You affirm, 2. "This appears from the latter part of the sentence: 'They sought out many inventions.'" Adam and Eve did so, in and after their fall. This, therefore, proves nothing. You affirm, 8. "The word jashar" (which we translate upright) "does not always imply uprightness or righteousness." But this is its proper meaning, as will appear to any who seriously considers the following texts: 1. "When thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord." (Deut. xii. 25.) It is taken in the very same sense, verse 28; xiii. 18, and xxi. 9. In all these texts, it undeniably implies, morally good, or righteous. 2. "A God of truth and without iniquity; just and right is he." (Deut. xxxii. 4.) "Good and upright is the Lord." (Psalm xxv. 8.) 3. "The word of the Lord is right." (Psalm xxxiii.

"The word of the Lord is right." (Psalm xxxiii. 4.) "The ways of the Lord are right." (Hosea xiv. 9.) 4. "Be glad and rejcice, ye righteous." (Psalm xxxii. 11.) "Rejoice in the Lord, O ye righteous." (Psalm xxxiii. 1.) In the very same sense it occurs in numberless places. As the word is therefore properly applied to God himself, to his word, his provi dences, and his people, (in all which cases it must necessarily mean righteous,) we cannot lightly depart from this its proper signification. But you think there is a necessity of departing from it here; because "to say, God created Adam righteous, is to affirm a contradiction, or what is inconsistent with the very nature of righteousness. For a righteousness wrought in him without his knowledge or consent, would have been no righteousness at all." You may call it by any name you like better. But we must use the old name still; as being persuaded that the love of God, governing the senses, appetites, and passions, however or whenever it is wrought in the soul, is true, essential righteousness. Nay, "righteousness is right action." Indeed it is not. Here (as we said before) is your fundamental mistake. It is a right state of mind; which differs from right action, as the cause does from the effect. Righteousness is, properly and directly, a right temper or disposition of mind, or a complex of all right tempers. For want of observing this, you say, "Adam could not act before he was created. Therefore he must exist, and use his intellectual powers, before he could be righteous." "But, according to this reasoning," as Dr. Jennings observes, "Christ could not be righteous at his birth." You answer, "He ex isted before he was made flesh." I reply, He did, as God. But the man Christ Jesus did not. Neither, therefore, did he use his intellectual powers. According to your reasoning, then, the man Christ Jesus could not be righteous at his birth. The Doctor adds: "Nay, according to this reasoning, God could not be righteous from eternity? because he must exist be fore he was righteous." (Jennings's Windication.) You answer: "My reasoning would hold even with respect to God, were it true that he ever did begin to exist. But neither the existence nor the holiness of God was prior to each other." (Taylor's Sup plement, p.

But neither the existence nor the holiness of God was prior to each other." (Taylor's Sup plement, p. 162.) Nay, but if his existence was not prior to his holiness, if he did not exist before he was holy, your assertion, that every being must exist before it is righteous, is not true. Besides, (to pursue your reasoning a little farther,) if "God did always exist," yet unless you can prove that he always acted, it will not clear your argument. For let him exist millions of ages, he could not be righteous (according to your maxim) before he acted right. One word more on this article: You say, "My reasoning would hold good, even with respect to God, were it true that he ever did begin to exist." Then I ask concerning the Son of God, Did he ever begin to exist? If he did not, he is the one, eternal God; (for there cannot be two eternals; ) if he did, and your reasoning hold good, when he began to exist he was not righteous. "But St.John saith, "He that doeth righteousness is right eous.'" Yes, it appears he is, by his doing or practising "righteousness." "But where doth the Scripture speak one word of a righteousness infused into us?" Where it speaks of "the love of God" (the essence of righteousness) "shed abroad in our hearts." And cannot God, by his almighty power, infuse any good tempers into us? You answer, "No; no being whatever can do for us that which cannot be at all if it be not our own choice, and the effect of our own industry and exercise. But all good tempers are the effect of our own industry and exer cise; otherwise they cannot be at all." Nay, then, it is certain they cannot be at all. For neither lowliness, meekness, long-suffering, nor any other good tem per, can ever be the effect of my own industry and exercise. But I verily believe they may be the effect of God's Spirit, working in me whatsoever pleaseth him. See Isaiah xxvi. 12. You add: "The thing cannot exist, unless we choose; because our choosing to do what is right, is the very thing which is to exist." No; the thing which is to exist is, a right state of mind.

You add: "The thing cannot exist, unless we choose; because our choosing to do what is right, is the very thing which is to exist." No; the thing which is to exist is, a right state of mind. And it is certain, God can give this to any creature, at the very first moment of its existence. Nay, it may be questioned, whether God can create an intelligent being in any other state. "But a habit is gained by repeated acts. Therefore, habits of righteousness could not be created in man." Mere play ing upon words! He could be, he was, created full of love. Now, whether you call this a habit or no, it is the sum of all righteousness. "But this love is either under the government of my will, or it is not." It is. The love of God which Adam enjoyed was under the government of his will. "But if so, it could be righteous only so far as applied to right action in heart and life." (Pages 164, 165.) Stop here. The love of God is righteousness, the moment it exists in any soul; and it must exist before it can be applied to action. Accordingly, it was righteousness in Adam the moment he was created. And yet he had a power either to follow the dictates of that love, (in which case his righteousness would have endured for ever,) or to act contrary thereto; but love was righteousness still, though it was not irresistible. "I might add, Adam's inclination to sin (for he could not sin without a sinful inclination) must be so strong as to over come his (supposed) inbred propensity to holiness; and so malignant, as to expel that principle at once, and totally. Consequently, the supposed original righteousness was con sistent with a sinful propensity, vastly stronger and more malignant than ever was or can be in any of his posterity; who cannot sin against such resistance, or with such dreadful consequences. Thus, original righteousness in Adam proves far worse than original sin in his posterity." I have set down your argnment at large, that it may appear in its full strength. Now, let us view it more closely: "Adam cculd not sin without a sinful inclination." The sentence is ambiguous.

Now, let us view it more closely: "Adam cculd not sin without a sinful inclination." The sentence is ambiguous. Either it may mean, "Adam could not choose ill, without some sinful temper preceding;" and in this sense it is false; or, "He could not commit outward sin, without first inclining, that is, choosing so to do." 2. "This his sinful in clination (or temper) was so strong as to overcome his inbred propensity to holiness." It was not any sinful inclination (in this sense) which overcame his propensity to holiness; but strong temptation from without: How strong we know not, and the circumstances of it we know not. 3. "This his sinful inclination was so malignant, as to expel that principle at once, and totally." Not by any sinful inclination, but by yielding to temptation, he did lose the love and image of God. But that this was totally and at once, we have no authority to affirm. 4. "Consequently, original righteousness in Adam was consistent with a sinful propensity, vastly stronger, and more malignant, than ever was or can be in any of his posterity." It was consistent with no sinful propensity at all, but barely with a power of yielding to temptation. It declined in the same proportion, and by the same degrees, as he did actually yield to this. And when he had yielded entirely, and eaten the fruit, original righteousness was no more. Therefore, the Fifth proposition, "Thus original righteousness proves to be far worse than original sin," is flourish. What a figure does this fair argument make, now it is turned inside out ! From all this it may appear, that the doctrine of original righteousness (as well as that of original sin) hath a firm foun dation in Scripture, as well as in the attributes of a wise, holy, and gracious God. As you do not offer any new argument in your conclusion, I need not spend any time upon it. You subjoin Remarks on Dr. Watts's Additions to his book. Some of these deserve a serious consideration: 1. Either the new-created man loved God supremely, or not. If he did not, he was not innocent ; since the very law and light of nature require such a love to God. If he did, he stood disposed for every act of obedience. And this is true holiness of heart.

And this is true holiness of heart. You answer, (in many words,) "The new-created man did not love God supremely. For, before he could love God, the powers of his mind must have been quite finished, and actually exercised." And, doubtless, the very moment he was created, they were quite finished, and actually exercised too. For man was not gradually formed by God, as a statue is by a human artificer; but "He spake the word, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created." And as light and heat were not subsequent to the creation of the sun, but began to exist with it, so that the moment it existed it shone; so spiritual light and heat, knowledge and love, were not sub sequent to the creation of man, but they began to exist toge ther with him. The moment he existed, he knew and loved. 2. If the new-made creature had not a propensity to love and obey God, but was in a state of mere indifference to good or evil, then his being put into such an union with flesh and blood, among a thousand temptations, would have been an over-balance on the side of vice. But our reason can never suppose, that God, the wise, just, and good, would have placed a new-made creature in such a situation. This argument cannot be answered, unless it can be showed, either, (1.) That in such a situation, there would not have been an over-balance on the side of vice; or, (2.) That to place a new-made creature in a situation where there was such an over-balance, was consistent with the wisdom, justice, and goodness of God. But, instead of showing, or even attempting to show, this, you feebly say, "I do not think the reason of man by any means sufficient to direct God, in what state to make moral agents." (O that you had always thought so ! How much vain, yea, mischievous, reasoning had then been spared!) "But, however Adam's propensities and temptations were balanced, he had freedom to choose evil as well as good." (Pages 187, 188.) He had. But this is no answer to the argument, which, like the former, remains in its full force. How could a wise, just, and good God place his creature in such a state as that the scale of evil should preponderate?

How could a wise, just, and good God place his creature in such a state as that the scale of evil should preponderate? Although it be allowed, he is, in a measure, free still; the other scale does not "fly up, and kick the beam." 3. Notwithstanding all the cavils which have been raised, yet if those two texts (Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 10) are considered together, their obvious meaning will strike an honest and unbiassed reader, the new man, or the principle of true reli gion in the heart, is created by God after his moral image, in that righteousness and true holiness wherein man was at first created. You answer, "I have endeavoured to prove the contrary; and he does not offer to point out any one mistake in my inter pretations." I have pointed out more than one. 4. If these are the qualifications with which such a new made creature should be endued; and these the circumstances, wherein, from the wisdom, justice, and goodness of God, we should expect him to be situated ; then, by a careful survey of what man is now, compared with what he should be, we may easily determine, whether man is at present such a creature as the great and blessed God made him at first. You answer in abundance of words, the sum of which is this: "Our circumstances are, on the whole, far better than Adam's were; for he was under that severe law, 'Transgress and die.'" He was so; but this does not prove the point still; balancing this single disadvantage (if such it was; for even that may be disputed) with the numerous advantages he was possessed of, with the holiness and happiness which he enjoyed, and might have enjoyed for ever, it does by no means appear that the present circumstances of mankind in general are better than Adam's were. 5. God did not give Noah dominion over the brute creatures in so ample a manner as he did to Adam. Fear indeed fell on the brutes; but this does not sufficiently preserve man from their outrage. In the innocent state, no man would have been poisoned or torn by serpents or lions as now.

In the innocent state, no man would have been poisoned or torn by serpents or lions as now. You answer: "The second grant runs, 'The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the field, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moves on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: Into your hands they are delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you: Even as the green herb I have given you all things. Now, this grant is more extensive than the first." It is, as to food; but not as to dominion. The liberty of eating an animal does not necessarily imply any dominion over it at all. "But the "fear' and "dread of every beast are the effects of dominion in man, and the subjection in brutes." Nay, neither does fear necessarily imply dominion. I may fear what has not dominion over me, and what I am not subject to. And those animals may fear me, over which, nevertheless, I have not dominion, neither are they subject to me. I fear every viper, yea, every poisonous spider; and they fear me: Yet neither has dominion over the other. Fear, therefore, and dread may be in a high degree; and yet no dominion at all. But they are "'all delivered into our hands.'" Yes; "for meat; " as the very next words explain that expression. Whatever therefore it may "import in other scriptures," the meaning of it here is plain and certain. 6. Would God have exposed the pure and innocent works of his hands to such unavoidable perils and miseries as arise from bears, tigers, serpents, precipices, volcanoes, c. You answer: "He did expose innocent Adam to a peril and misery greater than all these put together, even to a tempting devil." (Pages 191,192.) I reply, (1.) This did not imply any unavoidable misery at all. (2.) It implied no more peril than God saw was needful, as a test of his obedience. Therefore this is no parallel case: So this argument also stands unanswered. 7.

7. It has been said, indeed, "If Adam fell into sin though he was innocent, then among a million of creatures every one might sin, though he was as innocent as Adam." (Pages 194, 195.) I answer, There is a possibility of the event; but the improbability of it is a million to one. I prove it thus: If a million of creatures were made in an equal probability to stand or fall; and if all the numbers, from one to one million nclusively, were set in a rank, it is plainly a million to one, that just any single proposed number of this multitude should fall. Now, the total sum is one of these numbers, that ts, the last of them. Consequently, it is a million to one against the supposition, that the whole number of men should fall. And this argument will grow still ten thousand times stronger, if we suppose ten thousand millions to have lived since the creation. Your argument stood thus: "If we cannot infer from Adam's transgression, that his nature was originally corrupt, neither can we infer from the transgressions of all mankind, that their mature is originally corrupt." It is answered, Ifamillion of crea tures were made in an equal probability to stand or fall, it is a million to one they should not all fall. You reply, "This is no answer to my argument." Surely it is; and a direct answer. That one man sinned, does not prove he had a corrupt nature. Why? Because (supposing him free to choose good or evil) it was as probable he should sin, as not, there being no odds on one side or the other; but that all men should sin, does prove they have a corrupt nature; because it is not as pro bable, that all men should sin, as that one man should; the odds against it being as a million, or rather ten thousand millions, to one. Either, therefore, we must allow that mankind are more inclined to evil than to good, or we must maintain a supposition so highly improbable as comes very near a flat impossibility.

Either, therefore, we must allow that mankind are more inclined to evil than to good, or we must maintain a supposition so highly improbable as comes very near a flat impossibility. And thus much you yourself cannot but allow: "The reason ing may hold good, where all circumstances agree to make the probability equal with regard to every individual in this sup posed million." And how can the probability be other than equal, if every individual be as wise and good as Adam? "But be it equal or no," you say, "the case is not to be estimated by the laws of equal probability, but of infection. For when sin is once entered into a body of men, it goes on, not accord ing to the laws of chance," (is this precisely the same with equal probability?) "but the laws, as I may say, of infection." But how came sin to enter into a body of men? That is the very question. Supposing, first a body of sinners, sin "may assume the nature of a contagion." But the difficulty lies against supposing any body of sinners at all. You say, in deed, "One sinner produces another, as the serpent drew in Eve: The first sin and sinner being like a 'little leaven which leavens the whole lump.'" All this I can understand, sup posing our nature is inclined to evil. But if not, why does not one good man produce another, as naturally as one sinner produces another? And why does not righteousness spread as fast and as wide among mankind as wickedness? Why does not this "leaven, leaven the whole lump," as frequently, as readily, and as throughly, as the other? These laws of infection, so called, will therefore stand you in no stead. For, to bring the matter still more to a point, suppose Adam and Eve newly infected by sin; they had then none to infect, having no child. Afterward they repented, and found mercy. Then Cain was born. Now, surely neither Adam nor Eve would infect him, having suffered so severely for their own sin; which, therefore, they must needs guard hin- against ! How, then, came he to be a sinner? "O, by his own choice; as Seth was righteous." Well; afterwards, both wicked Cain and good Seth begat sons and daughters.

"O, by his own choice; as Seth was righteous." Well; afterwards, both wicked Cain and good Seth begat sons and daughters. Now, was it not just as probable, one should infect his children with goodness, as the other with wickedness? How came, then, Cain to transmit vice, any more than Seth to transmit virtue? If you say, "Seth did transmit virtue; his posterity was vir tuous until they mixed with the vicious offspring of Cain," I answer, (1.) How does that appear? How do you prove that all the posterity of Seth were virtuous? But, (2.) If they were, why did not this mixture amend the vicious, rather than corrupt the virtuous? If our nature is equally inclined to virtue and vice, vice is no more contagious than virtue. How, then, came it totally to prevail over virtue, so that "all flesh had corrupted themselves before the Lord?" Con tagion and infection are nothing to the purpose; seeing they might propagate good as well as evil. Let us go one step farther: Eight persons only were saved from the general deluge. We have reason to believe that four, at least, of these were persons truly virtuous. How then came vice to have a majority again among the new inhabitants of the earth ? Had the nature of man been inclined to neither, virtue must certainly have had as many votaries as vice. Nay, suppose man a reasonable creature, and supposing virtue to be agreeable to the highest reason, according to all the rules of probability, the majority of man. kind must in every age have been on the side of virtue. 8. Some have reckoned up a large catalogue of the instances of divine goodness, and would make this as evident a proof that mankind stands in the favour of God, as all the other instances are of a universal degeneracy of man, and the anger of God against them. But it is easy to reply, The goodness of God may incline him to bestow a thousand bounties upon criminals; but his justice and goodness will not suffer him to inflict misery in such a universal manner, where there has been no sin to deserve it either in parents or children. You answer: "There is more than enough sin among man kind, to deserve all the sufferings God inflicts upon them.

You answer: "There is more than enough sin among man kind, to deserve all the sufferings God inflicts upon them. And the Scriptures represent those sufferings as disciplinary, for correction and reformation." What, all the sufferings of all mankind? This can in nowise be allowed. Where do the Scriptures say, that all sufferings, those of infants in particular, are purely disciplinary, and intended only "for correction and reformation?" Neither can this be reconciled to matter of fact. How did the sufferings of Grecian or Roman infants tend to their correction and reformation? Neither do they tend to the correction or reformation of their parents, or of any other persons under heaven. And even as to adults: If universal suffering is a proof of universal sin, and universal sin could not take place unless men were natu rally prone to evil, then the present sufferings of mankind are a clear and strong evidence that their nature is prone to evil. 9. Notwithstanding all God's provision for the good of man, still the Scripture represents men while they are in their fallen state, as destitute of God's favour, and without hope. You answer: "How can men be destitute of God's favour, when he has vouchsafed them a Redeemer?" By destitute of God's favour, we mean, children of wrath, objects of God's displeasure; and because they were so, the Redeemer was given, to reconcile them to God by his own blood; but, notwithstanding this, while we and they were in our fallen state, we were all objects of God's displeasure. "But how can they be without hope, when he 'hath given them the hope of eternal life?'" All men who are not born again, born of God, are without hope at this day. God, indeed, "hath given," but they have not accepted, "the hope of eter nal life." Hence the bulk of mankind are still as void of this hope, as are the beasts that perish. And so (the Scripture declares) are all men by nature, whatever difference grace may make. "By nature" all are "children of wrath, without hope, without God in the world."

"By nature" all are "children of wrath, without hope, without God in the world." 10. Doth that man write the sincere sense of his own mind and conscience, who charges the expression, "Adam was on trial for us all," with this inference, "That we are none of us in a state of trial now, but Adam alone was upon trial for us all ?" We have owned and granted, that men are now in a state of trial; but this is upon the foot of a new covenant. You answer, "What can be more evident, than that, accord ing to this scheme, Adam alone was to be upon trial for us all, and that none of Adam's posterity are upon personal trial?" Do you not see the ambiguity in the word alone? Or do you see and dissemble it? Dr. Watts sup poses, that Adam alone, that is, this single person, was on trial for all men. Does it follow from hence, that Adam alone, that is, no other person, was ever in a state of trial? Again: If no person but Adam was upon trial for all men, will it follow, "No person but Adam was upon trial at all?" It is really hard to think, that you here "speak the sincere sense of your own mind and conscience." You go on: "He supposes all mankind are still under the original covenant with Adam, according to which he alone was upon trial for us all, and none of his posterity are upon per sonal trial." He does not suppose any man to be so under that covenant, as to supersede his being upon personal trial. Yourself add: "I knew he owned we are upon personal trial, and that all mankind are now under the covenant of grace; but how can either of these consist with the scheme?" Both of them consist with it perfectly well. (1) Adam alone, or single, was, in some sense, on trial for all mankind, according to the tenor of the oid covenant, "Do this and live." (2.) Adam fell, and hereby the sentence of death came on him and all his posterity. (3.) The new covenant was given, whereby all mankind were put into a state of personal trial; yet, still, (4.) Death, the penalty of the old covenant, came (more or less) on all mankind.

(3.) The new covenant was given, whereby all mankind were put into a state of personal trial; yet, still, (4.) Death, the penalty of the old covenant, came (more or less) on all mankind. Now, all this is well con sistent with itself, as well as with the tenor of Scripture. 11. Mankind is represented as one collective body in several verses of the 5th chapter to the Romans. You answer: "St. Paul always distinguishes between Adam, and all men, his posterity, and does not consider Adam with all men, as one creature." What then? This does not prove that he does not repre sent mankind (Adam's posterity) as one collective body. 12. All that is contained in the blessing given to Noah is consistent with the curse which came on all men by the first sin. But that curse is not consistent with the original blessing which was given to Adam. You answer: "The blessing given to Noah was the very same which was given to Adam." This is pal pably false. The blessing which was given to Adam included, (1.) Freedom from pain and death. (2.) Dominion over the whole brute creation. But that given to Noah did not include either. Yet you affirm, "It is renewed to Noah, without any manner of alteration, after pain and death were introduced into the world !" And do pain and death then make no manner of alteration? 13. The dominion over the brutes given to Adam was not given to Noah. You answer: "Our killing and feeding upon them is the highest instance of dominion over them." It is no instance of it all. I may shoot a bear, and then eat him; yet I have no dominion, unless it be over his carcase. I HAVE now considered what is material in your "Doc trine of Original Sin," with the "Supplement, and Reply to Dr. Watts." And this I purposely did, before I read the Doctor's book. But how was I surprised on reading it, to observe the manner wherein you have treated it, of which I could not be a judge before ! The frame which he had so beautifully and strongly connected, you have disjointed and broken in pieces, and given us nothing but mangled frag ments of it, from which it is impossible to form any judg ment of the whole.

The frame which he had so beautifully and strongly connected, you have disjointed and broken in pieces, and given us nothing but mangled frag ments of it, from which it is impossible to form any judg ment of the whole. In order, therefore, to do justice to that great and good man, as well as to his argument, I subjoin an extract of so much of that work as directly affects the main question. I the rather subjoin this, and the following extracts, for these two reasons: 1. Because what has gone before, being purely argumentative, is dry, and less profitable to the gene rality of readers: 2. Because they contain one uniform, con nected scheme of the great doctrine which I have been hitherto defending; and which, after the objections have been removed out of the way, may be more clearly understood and firmly embraced. "MAN is a creature made up of an animal body and a rational mind, so united as to act in a mutual correspondence, according to certain laws appointed by his Creator. Now, suppose the blessed God, who is perfect in wisdom and power, in justice and goodness, were to form such a new creature, with what qualifications may we conceive such a creature would be endowed, by a Being of such goodness, justice, and wisdom?" (Ruin and Recovery of Mankind, p. 1.) "1. We cannot but conceive, he must have a perfection of natural powers, both of body and spirit, as, united together, suited to his present circumstances." "Not that we need conceive, man would be made so per fect a being as God could make him: For the wisdom of God plainly designed to display itself in the different ranks and orders of his creation. Nor is it reasonable to suppose, man would be made at first with such sublime perfections, as he himself might afterwards arrive at, by a wise improvement of his powers. But still the creature which was designed to bear the nearest likeness of his Maker in this lower world must have powers perfectly sufficient for his present well being and acting in that station wherein God had placed him.

But still the creature which was designed to bear the nearest likeness of his Maker in this lower world must have powers perfectly sufficient for his present well being and acting in that station wherein God had placed him. All his senses must be clear and strong, his limbs vigorous and active, his body healthy in all the inward and outward parts of it, and every natural power in its proper order." "For God would surely form such a creature in a state of perfect ease, without any original malady of nature, to give him pain or sorrow. Nor could there be any ten dency in his body to pain or disease while he remained with out sin." "And as the powers of his body must be thus perfect, so the faculties of his soul must have their perfection too. "His understanding must have that knowledge both of God and his creatures, which was needful for his happiness. Not that he was formed with all knowledge in arts and sciences, but such as was requisite to his peace and welfare. His reason must be clear, his judgment uncorrupted, and his conscience upright and sensible. "This leads me to speak of his moral perfection. A rational creature thus made must not only be innocent, as a tree, but must be formed holy. His will must have an inward bias to virtue; he must have an inclination to please that God who made him, a supreme love to his Creator, a zeal to serve him, and a tender fear of offending him." "For either the new-created man loved God supremely, or not; if he did not, he was not innocent, since the law of nature requires a supreme love to God; if he did, he stood ready for every act of obedience: And this is true holiness of heart. And, indeed, without this, how could a God of holiness love the work of his own hands? "There must be also in this creature a regular objection of the inferior powers to the superior. Sense, and appetite, and passion, must be subject to reason. The mind must have a power to govern these lower faculties, that he might not offend against the law of his creation.

The mind must have a power to govern these lower faculties, that he might not offend against the law of his creation. "He must also have his heart inlaid with love to the crea tures, especially those of his own species, if he should be placed among them; and with a principle of honesty and truth in dealing with them; and if many of these creatures were made at once, there would be no pride, malice, or envy, no falsehood, no brawls or contentions among them, but all harmony and love." "This universal righteousness, which is the moral image of God, is far the noblest part of that image in which Moses represents man to have been originally created. The same writer assures us, that when God surveyed all his works, he pronounced them 'very good?' agreeably to what Solomon assures us, that God "made man upright.'" "It is true, the natural image of God in which man was created, consisted in his spiritual, intelligent, and immortal mature; and his political image, (if I may so speak,) in his being lord of this lower creation. But the chief, the moral, part of his image, we learn from St. Paul, to have been the rectitude of man's nature; who, in his Epistle to the Ephe. sians, (iv. 24) says, that the image of God in which man is to be renewed, and, consequently, in which he was made, consists "in righteousness and true holiness.' "2. From the justice and goodness of God we may infer, that though man was made free, with a power to choose either evil or good, that he might be put into a state of pro bation, yet he had a full sufficiency of power to preserve him self in love and obedience to his Creator, and to guard him self against every temptation."

From the justice and goodness of God we may infer, that though man was made free, with a power to choose either evil or good, that he might be put into a state of pro bation, yet he had a full sufficiency of power to preserve him self in love and obedience to his Creator, and to guard him self against every temptation." "3. It is highly probable, from the goodness of God, that such a creature would be made immortal: It is true, the great God, as sovereign Lord of his creatures, might take away all that he had given; but it is hard to suppose, that he ever would have destroyed an intelligent creature who had continued to serve and please him." "It is also probable that he was endued with a power to arrive at higher degrees of excellency and happiness than those in which he was formed at first ; and hereby he was greatly encouraged, both to watch against every sin, and to use all zeal and diligence in improving the powers he had received. "4. We may add, that the habitation in which a God of infinite goodness would place such an innocent and holy crea ture, would be furnished with all the necessaries and conveni ences of life, and prepared for his delight as well as safety. And so Moses tells us, that the first created pair were placed in Eden, a garden of pleasure, and were made lords of all therein, of all the creatures, animal and vegetable, that were round about them." "Neither can we conceive that anything destructive or hurtful could be found in this delightful habitation, but what man would have sufficient notice of, with sufficient power to oppose or avoid it. "5. And if this creature had power to propagate its kind, the child must be innocent and holy, and equally capable of persevering in virtue and happiness." "Now, if we may judge from the wisdom, justice, and goodness of God, that these are the qualifications with which such a new-made creature would be endued, these the circum stances in which he would be situated; then, by a careful sur vey of what mankind is now, we may easily judge whether man is now such a creature as the great and blessed God made him at first.

And if this creature had power to propagate its kind, the child must be innocent and holy, and equally capable of persevering in virtue and happiness." "Now, if we may judge from the wisdom, justice, and goodness of God, that these are the qualifications with which such a new-made creature would be endued, these the circum stances in which he would be situated; then, by a careful sur vey of what mankind is now, we may easily judge whether man is now such a creature as the great and blessed God made him at first. And this is the subject of the ensuing inquiry." "Is man, in his present circumstances, such a creature as he came out of the hands of God, his Creator "We may derive a full answer to this inquiry from the fol lowing considerations." "1. This earth, which was designed for the habitation of man, carries evident tokens of ruin and desolation, and does not seem to be ordained, in its present form and circum stances, for the habitation of innocent beings; but is appa rently fit for the dwelling-place of creatures who are degene rate, and fallen from God. "It is granted that the beauty and order of this lower world, even in its present constitution, and the wonderful texture, composition, and harmony of the several parts of it, both in air, earth, and sea, do still illustriously display the power, wisdom, and goodness of their Creator. Yet it must be confessed also, that there are glaring proofs of the terrors of his justice, and the execution of his vengeance." "Is not the present shape of our earth, in its divisions of seas and shores, rude and irregular, abrupt and horrid? Survey a map of the world, and say, does the form of it strike our eyes with any natural beauty and harmony? Rather, does it not strongly bear on our sight the ideas of ruin and confusion? Travel over the countries of this globe, or visit several parts of this island, what various appearances of a ruined world! What vast, broken mountains hang over the heads of tra vellers! What stupendous cliffs and promontories rise, high and hideous to behold !

What stupendous cliffs and promontories rise, high and hideous to behold ! What dreadful precipices, which make us giddy to look down, are ready to betray us into destruction What immense extents are there in many countries of waste and barren ground ! What vast and almost impassable deserts What broad and faithless morasses, which are made at once deaths and graves to unwary travellers ! What huge ruinous caverns, deep and wide, big enough to bury whole cities !" "What resistless deluges of water, in a season of great rains, come rolling down the hills, bear all things before them, and spread spacious desolation What roaring and tremendous waterfalls in several parts of the globe I What burning mountains, in whose caverns are lakes of liquid fire ready to burst upon the lower lands ! or they are a mere shell of earth, covering prodigious cavities of smoke, and furnaces of flame; and seem to wait a divine command, to break inward, and bury towns and provinces in fiery ruin." "What active treasures of wind are pent up in the bowels of the earth, ready to break out into wide and surprising mischief! What huge torrents of water rush and roar through the hollows of the globe we tread What dreadful sounds and threatening appearances from the reign of meteors in the air! What clouds charged with flame, ready to burst on the earth, and discompose and terrify all nature ! "When I survey such scenes as these, I cannot but say within myself, 'Surely this earth, in these rude and broken appearances, this unsettled and dangerous state, was designed as a dwelling for some unhappy inhabitants, who did or would transgress the laws of their Maker, and merit desolation from his hand. And he hath here stored up his magazines of divine artillery against the day of punishment.'" "How often have the terrible occurrences of nature in the air, earth, and sea, and the calamitous incidents in several countries, given a strong confirmation of this sentiment 1 "What destructive storms have we and our father seen even in this temperate island of Great Britain What floods of water and violent explosions of fire do we read of in the his tories of the world !

And he hath here stored up his magazines of divine artillery against the day of punishment.'" "How often have the terrible occurrences of nature in the air, earth, and sea, and the calamitous incidents in several countries, given a strong confirmation of this sentiment 1 "What destructive storms have we and our father seen even in this temperate island of Great Britain What floods of water and violent explosions of fire do we read of in the his tories of the world ! What shocking convulsions of the globe, stretching far and wide under the affrighted nations ! What huge disruptions of the caverns of the earth, with tremendous bellowings, which have filled its inhabitants with terror and astonishment, and made wide devastations ! Would a good and gracious Being have originally so formed the inanimate parts of this lower world, as to produce such deadly concus sions therein, and such desolating appearances, had he not designed it for the habitation of such creatures as he foresaw would deserve these strokes of his indignation?" "And thus both Moses and St. Peter suppose God to have laid up stores of ruin and destruction within the bowels of the earth, that he might break open his dreadful treasures of flood and fire at proper seasons, to drown and to burn the world, together with the sinful inhabitants thereof." (Pages 18, 19.) "Now, the great God, who appointed such prodigious quan tities both of water and fire to be reserved in the bowels of the earth, and among the clouds of heaven, for such a foreseen day of general destruction, did also doubtless prepare the materials of all the lesser storms and hurricanes, earthquakes and floods, and convulsions of nature; and treasured up for these purposes his magazines of wind, and flood, and fire, in the earth. And is this a habitation prepared for the residence of pure and holy beings? Is this such a peaceful place as a kind Creator would have formed for innocent creatures? It is absurd to imagine this of a God so wise, so righteous, and so merciful!"

It is absurd to imagine this of a God so wise, so righteous, and so merciful!" "2. Let us take a survey of the vegetables which grow out of the earth, with the brute animals which are found on the surface of it; and we shall find more reasons to conclude that man, the chief inhabitant, is not such as he came first out of his Maker's hand. "It must be granted here again, that the wisdom and good ness of the Creator are amazingly displayed in the animal and the vegetable world, beyond the utmost reach of our thoughts or praises. But still we may have leave to inquire, whether, if man had continued innocent, among the numerous herbs and flowers fitted for his support and delight, any plants or fruits of a malignant, mortal nature would have grown out of the earth, without some plain mark or caution set upon them." "Can we suppose that among the roots, herbs, and trees, good for food, the great God would have suffered mischief, malady, and deadly poison, to spring up here and there, without any sufficient distinction, that man might know how to avoid them? This is the case in our present world; disease, anguish, and death, have entered into the bowels and veins of multitudes by an innocent and fatal mistake of these pernicious things for proper food. "There was indeed 'the tree of knowledge' in Paradise; but man was expressly cautioned against it. And certainly had he continued holy, no poisonous plant would have been suffered to grow on the earth, without either some natural mark set upon it, or some divine caution to avoid it. "Proceed to the animal world: There are many creatures, indeed, which serve the use or pleasure of man. But are there not many other sorts which he is neither able to govern nor to resist; and by which all his race are exposed, whenever they meet them, to wounds, and anguish, and death?" "If man had not sinned, would there have been in the world any such creatures as bears and tigers, wolves and lions, animated with such fierceness and rage, and armed with such destructive teeth and talons? Would the innocent children of men have ever been formed to be the living prey of these devourers?

Would the innocent children of men have ever been formed to be the living prey of these devourers? Were the life and limbs of holy creatures made to become heaps of agonizing carnage? Or would their flesh and bones have been given up to be crushed and churned between the jaws of panthers and leopards, sharks and croco diles? Let brutes be content to prey on their fellow-brutes, but let man be their lord and ruler. "If man were not fallen, would there have been so many tribes of the serpent kind, armed with deadly venom? Would such subtle and active mischiefs have been made and sent to dwell in a world of innocents? And would the race of all these murderers and destructive animals have been propagated for six thousand years, in any province of God's dominion, had not its rational inhabitants been in rebellion against God?" "What are the immense flights of locusts which darken the sky, and lay the fields desolate? What are the armies of hornets or musquitoes that frequently make a pleasant land almost intolerable? If they are found in the heats of Afric, and of the East and West Indies, one would think they should not infest the Polar regions, if the Creator had not designed them for a scourge to the nations on all sides of the globe. "What are the innumerable host of caterpillars, but so many messengers of the anger of God against a sinful race? And since we can neither resist nor subdue them, we may certainly infer, that we are not now such favourites of Heaven as God at first made us." "The troublesome and pernicious tribes of animals, both of large and smaller size, which are fellow-commoners with us on this great globe, together with our impotence to pre vent or escape their mischiefs, is a sufficient proof that we are not in the full favour and love of the God that made us, and that he has quartered his armies, his legions, among us, as Princes do in a rebellious province. "It is true, all these are trials for man during his state of probation.

"It is true, all these are trials for man during his state of probation. But a state of probation for innocent man would not have included death; much less a violent and bloody, or a lingering and painful, death." "Accordingly, our return to dust is mentioned by Moses as a curse of God for the sin of man. And when once life is forfeited by all mankind, then a painful death may properly become a part of the further trial of such creatures as are to rise again; and any pious sufferers may be rewarded by a happy resurrection. But a painful death could never be made a part of the trial of innocent creatures, who had never forfeited life, nor were ever legally subjected to death." "Upon the whole, therefore, such noxious and destructive plants and animals could not be made to vex and disturb, to poison and destroy, a race of innocent, intellectual beings. "3. The manner of our entrance into life is another proof of universal sin." "Would the great and good God have appointed intellectual animals, had they been sin less, to be propagated in such in a way as should necessarily give such exquisite pain and anguish to the mothers who bring them forth? And if the contagion had not been univer sal, why should such acute pangs attend almost every female parent? Are not the multiplied sorrows with which the daughters of Eve bring forth, an evident token that they are not in their original state of favour with that God who created them, and pronounced a blessing upon them in their propagation?" "Moses informs us, that God blessed the first pair, and bid them 'be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and soon after tells us that these 'multiplied sor rows in child-birth are a curse from an offended God. Surely the curse is not as old as the blessing; but sin and sorrow came in together, and spread a wide curse over the birth of man, which before stood only under a divine benediction. Not that the blessing is now quite taken away, though the pains of child-bearing are added to it: And daily experience proves, this curse is not taken away by the blessing repeated to Noah."

Not that the blessing is now quite taken away, though the pains of child-bearing are added to it: And daily experience proves, this curse is not taken away by the blessing repeated to Noah." "4. Let us consider, in the next place, how the generality of mankind are preserved in life. Some few have their food without care or toil: But the millions of human creatures, in all the nations of the earth, are constrained to support a wretched life by hard labour. What dreadful risks of life or limbs do multitudes run, to purchase their necessary food What waste of the hours of sweet repose, what long and slavish and painful toils by day, do multitudes sustain, in order to procure their daily nourishment! It is 'by the sweat of their brows they obtain 'their bread: It is by a continual exhausting their spirits, that many of them are forced to relieve their own hunger, and to feed their helpless offspring." "If we survey the lower ranks of mankind even in England, in a land of freedom and plenty, a climate temperate and fer tile, which abounds with corn and fruits, and rich variety of food; yet what a hard shift do ten thousand families make to support lifel Their whole time is devoured by bodily labour, and their souls almost eaten up with gnawing eares, to answer that question, What shall I eat, and what shall I drink? even in the poorest and coarsest manner? But if we "The Author has been censured here for not dropping a tear over the fair sex, under their sorrows and acute pains. But he imagines he has been drop ping tears in every page, and that over every part of mankind." Undoubtedly he has; and if so, how unjust, how cruel, is that censurel send our thoughts to the sultry regions of Afric, the frost and snows of Norway, the rocks and deserts of Lapland and northern Tartary, what a frightful thing is human life l How is the rational nature lost in slavery, and brutality, and incessant toils, and hardships They are treated like brutes by their lords, and they live like dogs and asses, among labours and wants, hunger and weariness, blows and burdens without end.

But he imagines he has been drop ping tears in every page, and that over every part of mankind." Undoubtedly he has; and if so, how unjust, how cruel, is that censurel send our thoughts to the sultry regions of Afric, the frost and snows of Norway, the rocks and deserts of Lapland and northern Tartary, what a frightful thing is human life l How is the rational nature lost in slavery, and brutality, and incessant toils, and hardships They are treated like brutes by their lords, and they live like dogs and asses, among labours and wants, hunger and weariness, blows and burdens without end. Did God appoint this for innocents?" "Is the momentary pleasure of eating and drinking a recom pence for incessant labour? Does it bear any proportion to the length of toil, pain, and hazard, wherewith the provisions of life are procured? Moses thought not. When he speaks of man's 'eating bread in the sweat of his brow, he acknowledges this to be another of the curses of God for the sin of man." "It is strange that any man should say, 'In this sentence of God, no curse is pronounced upon either Adam's body, soul, or posterity; that the sorrow of child-bearing is not inflicted as a curse; that the labours of life were increased, but not as a curse; that death was not a curse.' I would fain ask, What is a curse, if some natural evil pronounced and executed upon a person, or thing, be not so, especially when it is pronounced on account of sin, and by God himself, as supreme Governor and Judge? And even the curse on the ground falls properly on the person who tills it. "It is granted, God can turn curses into blessings. Yet these evils were originally pronounced and inflicted as a curse or punishment of sin; as it is written, 'Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things.' And that death was designed as a curse on man for sin is evident; for Christ 'suffered" that "curse for us." "5. Consider the character of mankind in general, with regard to religion and virtue, and it will be hard to believe they bear the image of their common Father in knowledge and holi ness.

Consider the character of mankind in general, with regard to religion and virtue, and it will be hard to believe they bear the image of their common Father in knowledge and holi ness. Some, I grant, are renewed in his image; but the bulk of the world are of another stamp, and sufficiently show, there is some fatal contagion spread through this province of God's dominion. So St. John tells us, that, except the few who are 'born of God, the whole world lieth in wickedness." "And can we think of that gross and stupid ignorance of God, which reigns through vast tracts of Asia, Africa, and America, and the thick darkness which buries all the heathen countries, and reduces them almost to brutes; can we think of the abominable idolatries, the lewd and cruel rites of worship, which have been spread through whole nations; the impious and ridiculous superstitions which are now practised among the greatest part of the world; and yet believe the blessed God would put such wretched, polluted workmanship out of his pure hands?" "Can we survey the desperate impiety and profaneness, the swearing, and cursing, and wild blasphemy, that is practised, day and night, among vast multitudes of those who profess to know the true God; can we behold that almost universal neg lect of God, of his fear, his worship, and the obedience due to him, which is found even among them who are called Chris tians; and yet imagine, that these bear that image of God in which they were created? "Nor have men forgot God only, but they seem also to have abandoned their duties to their fellow-creatures also. Hence the perpetual practices of fraud and villany in the commerce of mankind, the innumerable instances of oppression and cruelty which run through the world; the pride and violence of the great; the wrath, ambition, and tyranny of princes, and the endless iniquities and mischiefs that arise from malice, envy, and revenge, in lower people.

Hence the perpetual practices of fraud and villany in the commerce of mankind, the innumerable instances of oppression and cruelty which run through the world; the pride and violence of the great; the wrath, ambition, and tyranny of princes, and the endless iniquities and mischiefs that arise from malice, envy, and revenge, in lower people. If we add to these the impure scenes of lust and intemperance, which defy the day and pollute the darkness; with the monstrous barbarities which are con tinually committed by the heathen savages in Africa and America, (some of whom kill and roast their fellow-creatures, and eat up men as they eat bread,) and by the Christian savages in the Inquisition established in Asia, as well as in many parts of Europe; can we still imagine that mankind abide in that state, wherein they came from the hands of their Maker?" "That far the greatest number of men are evil, was the known sentiment of the wiser Heathens." "They saw and bewailed the undeniable fact, though they knew not how to account for it. Ot TAetoves cascot, "Most men are wicked,' was a common observation among thcm. Even the poets could not but see this obvious truth. So Virgil brings in Anchises, telling his son, "Few are happy in the other world:' Pauci laeta arva tenemus. And in this life, Horace remarks of men in general, Nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata. "We are always desiring and pursuing forbidden things.' Nay, he says, Witiis memo sine nascitur. "No man is born without vices; and gives this character of young men in general, Cereus in vitium flecti, monitoribus asper. Seneca says just the same, Pejora juvenes facile precepta audiunt. 'Young men readily hearken to evil counsels: They are soft as wax to be moulded into vice, but rough and rugged to their best monitors.'" "Juvenal abounds with the same accounts of human nature: Quas tam festa dies, ut cesset proderefuren f Ad mores natura recurrit Damnatos, fixa et mutari nescia. Quisnam hominum est, quem tu contentum videris uno Flagitiof Dociles imitandis Turpibus et pravis omnes sumus." "6. And not only they of riper age, but even those of ten der years, discover the principles of iniquity and seeds of sin.

And not only they of riper age, but even those of ten der years, discover the principles of iniquity and seeds of sin. What young ferments of spite and envy, what native wrath and rage, are found in the little hearts of infants, and sufficiently discovered by their hands, and eyes, and countenances, before they can speak, or know good from evil ! What additional crimes of lying and deceit, obstinacy and perverseness proceed to blemish their younger years!" (Pages 39, 41.) "How little knowledge or thought of God, their Creator and Governor, is found in children when they can distinguish good and evil!" "What an utter disregard of Him that made them, and of the duties they owe to him And when they These quotations from Juvenal are thus translated by Gifford : "What day so sacred, which no guilt profanes?" "Nature still, Incapable of change, and fix'd in ill, Recurs to her old habits:-never yet Could sinner to his sin a period set. When did the flush of modest blood inflame The cheek once harden'd to the sense of shame? Or when the offender, since the birth of time, Retire, contented with a single crime?" "For youth is facile, and its yielding will Receives, with fatal ease, the print of ill."-EDIT. begin to act according to their childish age, how little sense have they of what is morally right and good How do evil passions or irregular appetites continually prevail in them ! Even from their first capacity of acting as moral creatures, how are they led away to practise falsehood and injury to their play-fellows, perhaps with cruelty or revenge How often are they engaged in bold disobedience to their parents or teachers And whence does this arise ? What is the root, that brings forth such early bitter fruit?" "It cannot be imputed to custom, education, or example; for many of these things appear in children before they can take any notice of ill examples, or are capable of imitating them. And even where there are only good examples about them, and where the best and earliest instructions are given them, and inculcated with the utmost care, yet their hearts run astray from God.

And even where there are only good examples about them, and where the best and earliest instructions are given them, and inculcated with the utmost care, yet their hearts run astray from God. The far greatest part of them visibly follow the corrupt influences of sense, appetite, passion, and manifest very early the evil principles of stubbornness, pride, and disobedience." "To give a still fuller confirmation of this truth, that man kind have a corrupt nature in them, let it be observed, that where persons have not only had all possible helps of educa tion from their parents, but have themselves taken a religious turn betimes, what perpetual hinderance do they find within themselves!" "What inward oppositions work in their heart, and, perhaps, interrupt their holy course of life What vanity of mind, what irregular appetites, what forget fulness of God, what evil thoughts and tendencies of heart rise up in contradiction to their best purposes ! Insomuch, that "there is not a just man upon earth, who, through his whole life, 'doeth good and sinneth not.'" "To sum up the three last considerations: If the bulk of mankind are grossly sinful, and if every individual, without exception, is actually a sinner against the law of his Creator; if sinful propensities appear even in our most tender years, and every child becomes an actual sinner almost as soon as it becomes a moral agent; then we have just reason to con clude, that there is some original taint spread through the whole race of men from their birth. "7. It has been said, indeed, that, "if the first man fell into sin, though he was innocent and perfect, then among a million of men, every one might sin, though he was as inno cent and perfect as Adam.'" "I answer, There is a bare possibility of the event; but the improbability of it is in the proportion of a million to one. "And I prove it thus: If a million of creatures were made in an equal probability to stand or fall; and if all the num bers, from one to one million inclusively, were set in a rank, it is a million to one that just any single proposed number of all these should fall by sin.

"And I prove it thus: If a million of creatures were made in an equal probability to stand or fall; and if all the num bers, from one to one million inclusively, were set in a rank, it is a million to one that just any single proposed number of all these should fall by sin. Now, the total sum is one of these numbers, that is, the last of them; consequently it is a million to one against the supposition that the whole number of men should fall. "And yet farther, if they were all made (as the goodness of God seems to require) in a greater probability of standing than falling, then it is abundantly more than a million to one, that all should sin without exception. And the argument grows still ten thousand times stronger, if we suppose ten thousand millions to have lived since the creation." "8. That man is a fallen creature, appears farther from hence: No man is able by his present natural powers to per form that law of his Creator which is still written upon his heart." "Does not this law require us to love God with all our heart, to do to others as we would they should do to us, and to go vern our senses, appetites, and passions by the rules of reason? Does it not require that these things, whether they regard God, ourselves, or others, should be done perfectly, without defect? Doth it not demand, that we should fear, honour, and trust the great God, and obey all his will in a perfect manner P Doth it not prescribe constant justice, truth, and goodness, toward our neighbour, without one covetous wish, one act of the will, or tongue, or hand, contrary to truthor love? Does it not demand, that every sense, appetite, and passion, should be perfectly sub ject to reason?

Does it not demand, that every sense, appetite, and passion, should be perfectly sub ject to reason? Now, is there a man on earth, who can say, 'I am able by my natural powers to do this?'" "Even the outward temptations to which man is exposed, are evidently too strong to be effectually and constantly re sisted by his now enfeebled reason and conscience; while at the same time, his will, his appetites, and passions, have a powerful propensity to comply with them." "Now, would a just, a wise, and a merciful God have formed intellectual creatures in such awretched state, with powers and capacities so much below their duties, that they break his law daily and continually, and are notable to help it?" "Should it be said, 'God cannot require more than we are able to perform: 'You have an answer in your own bosom; for you know and feel God does require this, even by the law he has written in your heart; yet you feel you are not able to perform it, untie or cut the knot how you may. "Should it be said again, "God pities and pardons feeble creatures:" I answer, (1.) According to the covenant of grace, he does, but not according to the law of creation. But, (2) Did God make some of his noblest creatures so feeble in their original state, as continually to offend, and want pardon? Did he give them such a law as should never, never be fulfilled by any one of them? Would a God who adjusts the proportion of all things with the exactest wisdom, give a law to his crea tures so disproportionate to their original powers, that, even in the state of their creation, they are under a necessity of breaking it, and stand in need of daily forgiveness?

Would a God who adjusts the proportion of all things with the exactest wisdom, give a law to his crea tures so disproportionate to their original powers, that, even in the state of their creation, they are under a necessity of breaking it, and stand in need of daily forgiveness? Does not this single consideration prove, that man is now a degenerate being, and not such as he was at first created by the wise, the righteous, the merciful God?" "If you, who are most unwilling to acknowledge the fall of man, would but look into yourself daily, and observe all the sinful and irregular turns of your own heart; how propense you are to folly, in greater or less instances; how soon appetite and passion oppose reason and conscience; how frequently you fall short of the demand of the perfect law of God; how thoughtless and forgetful you are of your Creator; how cold and languishing your affection to Him; how little delight you have in virtue, or in communion with God: Could you think you are such an innocent and holy creature as God at first created you? and that you have been such even from your childhood? Surely a more accurate observation of your own heart must convince you, that you yourself are degenerated from the first rectitude of your mature." "9. Another proof of the degeneracy of mankind is this: They are evidently under the displeasure of God, which could not be in their primeval state. As we have taken a short view of the sins of men, let us also briefly survey the miseries of mankind, and see how these consist with their being in the favour of God." "Think on the thousands of rational creatures descending hourly to the grave: A few, by some sudden stroke; but far the greater part by painful and slow approaches. The gravel A dark and shameful prison which would never have been made for creatures persisting in innocence, and abiding in the favour of Him that gave them life and being. Death is the wages of sin; and from this punishment of sin, none of man kind can claim a discharge. "Had they stood, can we think any of them would have died; much less every one of them?

"Had they stood, can we think any of them would have died; much less every one of them? And, especially, that half the human race should have been doomed to die before seven years old? before they reach the tenth part of the present age of man, or have done anything in life worth living for?" "But let us proceed to other miseries that attend us, and hasten us down to the grave: "Think next of the multitudes that are racked day and night by the gout and stone, the colic and rheumatism, and all man ner of acute and painful diseases; and then say, Would a mer ciful God have contrived these torments for sinless creatures? Think of the dismal scenes of war and bloodshed that have by times overspread all nations. Cast your thought on a field of battle, where thousands of men are destroyed like brute beasts, and perish by sharp and bloody strokes, or by the fatal engines of death. See thousands more lie on the cold ground, with their flesh and limbs battered and torn, wounded and panting in extreme anguish, till the murmuring soul takes its flight. Are these the signals of their Maker's love, and of his image in which they were created?" "Think of the numbers that are swallowed up in the mighty waters, by the rage of stormy winds and seas; review the mul titudes which have been swept away by the pestilence, or con sumed by the tedious agonies of famine.

Are these the signals of their Maker's love, and of his image in which they were created?" "Think of the numbers that are swallowed up in the mighty waters, by the rage of stormy winds and seas; review the mul titudes which have been swept away by the pestilence, or con sumed by the tedious agonies of famine. Would famine and pestilence, with all the train of lingering horrors which attend them, have ever been made for innocent creatures, to have swept away whole nations of them, of every age and sex, men, women, and children, without distinction?" "Think yet again what numbers of men have been crushed into miseries and death, and buried by earthquakes; or have had their bones broken, their limbs disjointed, and leir flesh painfully battered by the fall of houses; perhaps buried alive in the ruins of entire towns or villages, while their neighbours have been drowned in multitudes by the dismal eruptions of water, or destroyed by deluges of liquid fire bursting out of the earth: Would a God of goodness and justice have treated innocent creatures in this manner P" "Carry your thoughts to the countries of those savages, where thousands of their conquered enemies, or prisoners of war, are offered in sacrifice to their idols, or tortured and roasted to death by slow fires! Add this to all the former miseries, and then let calm reflection say, whether this world does not look like a province half forsaken of its gracious Governor. "Some, perhaps, will say, It is but a small part of mankind who are involved in these dreadful calamities; and they may suffer peculiar afflictions for their own personal iniquities." "I answer: Take a just survey of those who have suf fered thus, and there is not the least reason to think they were sinners above others. Do not these calamities spread through whole countries, and involve the best and the worst of men together? Whole nations suffer by them at once. And, indeed, such is the corruption of human nature, that wherever they come they find none innocent. And it is the general situation of mankind, under the just displeasure of God, which exposes them to such destruction. "But to proceed: Think of the innumerable common mis fortunes that attend human life. What multitudes perish by these in one week!

What multitudes perish by these in one week! And how much larger a number do these accidents injure, and fill their lives with pain, though they are not brought immediately to the grave! Think of the mischiefs which one part of mankind, in every place, are continually contriving or practising against the other. Take a view of these extensive and reigning evils, and then say, whether this world be not a part of the creation of God, which bears plain marks of its Creator's displeasure." "Much is added to the heap of human miseries by the sor rows that arise from the daily loss of our dearest comforts. What groans and wailings of the living surround the pillows of dying friends or relations! What symptoms of piercing dis tress attend the remains when they are conveyed to the gravel By such losses, the comforts of future life lose their relish, and the sorrows are doubly embittered." "In the civilized parts of the world, there is scarce one per son sick or in pain, miserable or dying, but several others sus tain a considerable share of misery, by the strong ties of nature or friendship. This diffuses a personal calamity through whole families. This multiplies human miseries into a new and end less number. Add to this, not only the unkindness or false hood of those from whom we expected the tenderest affection, but the anguish which springs from all our own uneasy and unruly passions. Bring in here all the wrath and resent ment in the hearts of men; all the envy and malice that burn within; all the imaginary fears, and the real terrors, of future distress coming upon us; all the rage and despair of lost bless ings that were once within our hopes, and all the ferments of animal nature, which torment the spirit all day, and forbid our nightly repose. Would mankind be in such a condition as this, if they were still in the favour of their Maker?" "'Yes; men may make miseries for themselves, and be punished by them. But compare the sorrows which any man necessarily suffers, with the comforts he enjoys, and the one will balance the other.

But compare the sorrows which any man necessarily suffers, with the comforts he enjoys, and the one will balance the other. Or if his sorrows outweigh his com forts, this may be necessary in a state of trial; and God will reward the over-balance of sufferings hereafter.' "I answer: There is no reason to think the far greater part of mankind will have any reward hereafter; and if not, how shall we account for this over-balance of sufferings with regard to them? Therefore, we cannot reasonably impute their supe rior sorrows merely to their being in a state of probation; but rather to the displeasure of the righteous Creator and Governor of the world." (Pages 65, 66.) "10. To make this still clearer: Not only those who are grown up in the practice of iniquity, who may be punished by their own sins, but all mankind, in their very infancy, bear the tokens of God's displeasure. "Before children are capable of committing sin, they are subject to a thousand miseries. What anguish and pain are they frequently exposed to, even as they are coming into the world, and as soon as they are entered into it! What agonies await their birth ! What numerous and acute maladies are ready to attack them I What gripes, what convulsions, what inward torments, which bring some of them down to death within a few hours or days after they have begun to live! And if they survive a few months, what torture do they find in breeding their teeth, and other maladies of infancy, which can be told only by shrieks and tears, and that for whole days and nights together! What additional pains do they often sustain by the negligence of their mothers, or cruelty of their nurses! whereby many of them are brought down to the grave, either on a sudden, or by slow and painful degrees." "And what shall we say of whole nations in elder times, and some even at this day, who, when they cannot, or will not, maintain them, expose their children in the woods to be torn and devoured by the next wild beast that passes by? Add to this the common calamities in which infants are involved by fire, earthquake, pestilence.

Add to this the common calamities in which infants are involved by fire, earthquake, pestilence. And there are a thousand other acci dents which attend them, whereby their members, their natural powers, receive dismal injuries; so that, perhaps, they drag on life with blindness, deafness, lameness, or distortion of body or limbs. Sometimes they languish on to manhood, or even old age, under sore calamities, which began almost as soon as their being, and which are only ended by death." "Now, as these sufferings cannot be sent upon them to cor rect their personal sins, so neither are they sent as a trial of their virtue; for they have no knowledge of good or evil. Yet we see multitudes of these little, miserable beings. And are these treated as innocent creatures; or rather, as under some gene ral curse, involved in some general punishment?" "'But may not these sufferings of children be for the punishment of the sins of their parents?" "Not with any justice or equity, unless the sins of the parents are imputed to their children. Besides, many of the parents of these suffering children are dead or absent, so as never to know it. And how in these cases can it be a punishment for their parents' sin, any otherwise than as it is a general punish ment for the sin of their first parent?" "But God recompenses them for these sufferings hereafter.' Where does the Scripture affirm this? Besides, many of them grow up to manhood. And if they prove wicked, and are sent to hell at last, what recompence have they for their infant suffer ings? Or will you say, God punished them before they had sinned, because he knew beforehand they would sin? Yet far ther: What wise or good design can this their punishment answer, when no creature can know what they are punished for, if it be not for that which affects all mankind? "'But how are such miseries reigning among his creatures consistent with the goodness of God?" Perfectly well, if we consider mankind as a sinful, degenerate part of God's creation. It is most abundant goodness that they have any comforts left, and that their miseries are not doubled.

It is most abundant goodness that they have any comforts left, and that their miseries are not doubled. Now, the inspired writers do consider mankind as fallen from God; and so his goodness is evident in a thousand instances; though it must be confessed there are also a thousand instances of his just hatred of sin, and his righteous punishments among all nations." "11. If we put together all these scenes of vice and misery, it is evident that creatures lying in such deplorable circum stances are not such as they came out of the hands of their Cre ator, who is wise, holy, and good. His wisdom, which is all harmony and order, would not suffer him to frame a whole race of beings, under such wild and innumerable disorders, moral as well as matural; his holiness would not permit him to create beings with innate principles of iniquity; nor his goodness to produce a whole order of creatures in such circumstances of pain, torment, and death." "Could the holy and blessed God originally design and frame a whole world of intelligent creatures in such circumstances, that every one of them, coming into being, according to the laws of nature, in a long succession of ages, in different climates, of different constitutions and tempers, and in ten thousand differ ent stations and conditions of life; that every one of them should break the laws of reason, and more or less defile them selves with sin? that every one should offend his Maker? every one become guilty in his sight? every one expose him self to God's displeasure, to pain, and misery, and mortality, without one single exception? If men were such creatures as God at first made them, would not one man among so many millions have made a right use of his reason and conscience, and so have avoided sin and death? Would this have been the universal consequent of their original constitution, as framed by the hand of a wise, holy, merciful God? What can be more absurd to imagine than this?

What can be more absurd to imagine than this? Surely God made man upright and happy; nor could all these mischiefs have come directly from our Creator's hand." (Pages 75, 76.) "Is it objected, that 'still the greater part of men have more moral good than evil in them, and have more pleasure than pain; and therefore, on the whole, mankind is not sinful and miserable; and that even the best human constitutions lay some innocent persons under unavoidable hardships?' I answer, (1.) In order to pronounce a man miserable, he must have more pain than pleasure; but in order to pronounce a man a sinner, there is no need that his moral evil should exceed his good. If a man had a hundred virtues, one vice would make him a criminal in the sight of God; one trans gression of the law of his Creator would lay him under his just displeasure. He that keeps the whole law, except in one point, affronts that authority which requires all obedience. All men, therefore, are under this condemnation; they are sinners every one of them." "As to misery, let it be supposed, (though by no means granted,) that there are many whose pleasures exceed their uneasiness; yet it is certain there are more whose pains and uneasiness far exceed their pleasures; and it is hard to conceive how this should be, if all men were innocent and happy by nature." "I answer, (2.) Men are not able to frame such constitutions in every case, as shall secure happiness to all the innocent. Their narrow views of things do not enable them to provide against all future inconveniences. But it is not thus with the Creator and Governor of all things. He views at once all possibles and all futures. Therefore, he is well able to guard against any inconvenience that might befal innocent beings. "I answer, (3.) Though the bulk of mankind were happy in the present constitution of things, this gives no manner of satisfaction to any one individual who is unhappy without any demerit: The advantage of the majority is no reason at all why any one innocent should suffer.

"I answer, (3.) Though the bulk of mankind were happy in the present constitution of things, this gives no manner of satisfaction to any one individual who is unhappy without any demerit: The advantage of the majority is no reason at all why any one innocent should suffer. If any one, therefore, man or child, and much more, if numbers of them, have more pain than pleasure, they must be involved in some guilt, which may give just occasion to their misery." "12. To enforce this, after the survey of these pains and sorrows, let us consider what are the pleasures of the bulk of mankind. Cast a glance at the sports of children, from five to fifteen years of age. What toys and fooleries are these! Would a race of wise and holy beings waste so many years of early life in such wretched trifles? And as for our manly years, what are the greatest part of the delights of men, but silly and irrational, if not grossly sinful? What are the pleaaures even of the rich and great, to relieve them under the common sorrows of life? If they be not luxury and intemperance, are they not furniture and equipage, finery of dress and gay appearances? to shine in silks of various dye, and blaze in the splendour of gold and jewels? Now, would wise and holy creatures have made this the matter of their joy and pleasure: 'My coat is gayer than yours, and I have more glittering things about me than you have P'" (Pages 80, 81.) "Others call for cards, or dice, to divert their trouble, and pass away their time. How inexpressibly trifling are these sports, if mere diversion be sought therein But if the design be gain, how is the game mingled with uneasy fears, with the working of various passions, which, in case of disappointment and loss, often break out into wrath and fury! "Again: What multitudes drench themselves in gross sensualities as their chief delight ! They make a god of their belly, till they overload nature, and make haste to disease and death. They drown their cares and their senses together; or they bury them in sensual impurities." "Others release themselves from the troubles of life, by gadding abroad, and mixing with impertinent company.

They drown their cares and their senses together; or they bury them in sensual impurities." "Others release themselves from the troubles of life, by gadding abroad, and mixing with impertinent company. Some delight in wanton jests, in foolish merriment, in mean and trifling conversation; a little above the chattering of monkeys in a wood, or the chirping of crickets upon a hearth. Nay, perhaps it is their diversion to rail at their neighbours, to murder the reputation of the absent. This is their mirth and recreation; these their reliefs against the common miseries of human life l'' "But would a race of innocent beings fly to such mean and foolish, or criminal, refuges from pain as these? Would they pursue such vain or vile delights? Would they become rivals to the beasts of the field, or sport themselves, as devils do, in accusing their fellow-creatures? Surely, if we survey the very pleasures, as well as the sorrows, of the bulk of mankind, we may learn from thence, that we are by no means such creatures as we were originally created. "13. I need add but one more proof of the general ruin of human nature. We are all posting to the grave. Every one of us are succeeding our neighbours, into some unknown, invisible world. And we all profess to believe this. Yet how exceeding few are solicitous about this great and awful futurity Though we are exposed to so many sins and miseries in this life, and are hastening visibly and hourly to the end of it, yet how few are there that make any careful preparation for a better state than this! What multitudes are daily running down into darkness, speeding to an endless duration in an unknown country, without any earnest inquiries about the manner of exist ence there! They walk over the busy stage of life, they toil and labour, or play and trifle awhile here, and then plunge into a strange unseen world, where they will meet with a just and holy God, whose wisdom will assign them a place and portion suited to their own character. Now, were men indeed wise and holy, could they remain so ignorant and thoughtless of that state into which they are all hastening?

Now, were men indeed wise and holy, could they remain so ignorant and thoughtless of that state into which they are all hastening? Or could a gracious God create a race of beings in such a stupid insensi bility of their eternal interests, so unsuited to the felicities of an immortal spirit, and so negligent of all preparations for them?" (Pages 84, 85.) "Upon this whole survey, reason must join in this mournful confession,-that there must be some spreading poison which has tainted our nature, made us so sinful and miserable, so thoughtless of the future, and unprepared for it. There must have been some general revolt of mankind from their Creator, whereby they have ruined their innocence and peace, and pro voked the anger of their Maker; whereby they become exposed to such wretched circumstances, even in their infancy and childhood, as well as when they grow to years of ripe under standing." "And, methinks, when I take a just survey of this world, with all the inhabitants of it, I can look upon it no otherwise than as a grand and magnificent structure in ruins, wherein lie millions of rebels against their Creator, under condemnation to misery and death; who are at the same time sick of a mortal distemper, and disordered in their minds even to distraction. Hence proceed those numberless follies and vices which are practised here, and the righteous anger of an offended God visible in ten thousand instances. Yet are there proclama tions of divine grace, health, and life, sounding among them; though very few take any notice thereof. Only here and there one attends to the call, and complies with the proposals of peace. His sins are pardoned and healed. And though his body goes down to the dust for a season, his soul is happy with God; while the bulk of those criminals, despising all the offers of mercy, perish in their own wilful madness." (Pages 89, 90.) "What is the chief temptation that leads some men to deny so glaring a truth? Is it that they cannot give a satisfactory account of some of the difficulties that attend it? Nay, many even of the heathen philosophers believed it, from their own experience, and their daily survey of mankind; though they were utterly at a loss how to account for it.

Nay, many even of the heathen philosophers believed it, from their own experience, and their daily survey of mankind; though they were utterly at a loss how to account for it. And what, if we could not assign a sufficient and satisfactory reason for it, or show how this spreading degeneracy began, or how it came to take place so universally? What, if we were still at a loss to explain how all this guilt and misery came upon us, must we therefore deny the things which we see, and hear, and feel, daily?" "Can we account for all the secret things in the creation of God? And must we deny whatever we cannot account for? Does any man refuse to believe that the infinite variety of plants and flowers, in all their beauteous colours and forms, grow out of the same earth, because he does not know all the springs of their vegetation? Do men doubt of a loadstone's drawing iron to itself, because they cannot find out the way of its operation? Are we not sure that food nourishes our bodies, and medicines relieve our pains? Yet we know not all the ferment and motions of those atoms by which we are relieved and nourished. Why then should we deny that degeneracy of our nature which admits of so full and various proof, though we are not able to account for every circumstance relating to it, or to solve every difficulty that may attend it?" "How came vice and misery to overspread mankind in all nations, and in all ages? "Heathen philosophers could never answer this; but Chris tians may from the oracles of God." "These inform us, that the first man was a 'common head and representative of all mankind;' and that he, by sinning against his Maker, lost his own holiness and happiness, and exposed himself and his posterity (whom he naturally pro duced, and whom he legally represented) to the displeasure of his Maker, and so spread sin and misery through his whole offspring." "So St. Paul: "As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Rom. v. 12.) All are esteemed in some sort guilty before God, though they "did not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression.

12.) All are esteemed in some sort guilty before God, though they "did not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression. They did not commit actual personal sin against a known law, as Adam did." "This may more fully appear from the following parti culars: "1. It is plainly taught us in Scripture, that God at first created one man and woman, called Adam and Eve; and from them is derived the whole race of mankind. God "hath made of one blood, as the Apostle observes, 'all nations of men, to dwell on all the face of the earth.'" "2. God created man at first in a holy and happy state, in his own likeness, and in his favour. "And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our own likeness.' (Gen. i. 26.) And that none of the brute creation might molest him, but all of them be for his service, he said, 'Let them have dominion over the fish, and the fowl, and the cattle.' 'So God created man in his own image.' And what this image consisted in, beside his spiritual and immortal nature, and his dominion over other creatures, we are told by St. Paul, where he speaks of 'the new man, which, says he, "after God," that is, after the likeness of God, 'is created in righteousness and true holiness." (Eph. iv. 24.) So Solomon assures us, God "made man upright." And Moses says, when God had finished all his creation, "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.' It was all according to his idea and his will, and well-pleasing in his sight. Man, the last of his creatures, as well as all the rest, 'was very good;' was holy and happy." (Pages 160, 161.) "3. God originally appointed that Adam, when innocent, should produce an offspring in his own holy image; and, on the other hand, that if he sinned, he should propagate his kind in his own sinful image. The former is allowed. The latter may be gathered from Gen. v.

v. 1-3, 5: "In the day that God cre ated man, in the likeness of God made he him: And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years' after his loss of the image of God, 'and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image;' that is, his own sinful and mortal image. "It is not to be supposed, that Moses, in this brief history of the first generations of men, should so particularly repeat 'the image and likeness of God in which Adam was created, unless he had designed to set the comparison in a fair light, between Adam's begetting a son in his own sinful and mortal mage, whereas he himself was created in God's holy and immortal image." "4. God was pleased to put the man whom he had made upon a trial of his obedience for a season. He placed him in a garden of Eden, (or pleasure,) and gave him a free use of all the creatures; only forbidding him to eat of the fruit of one tree, 'the tree of the kncwledge of good and evil." "For in the day," said he, 'that thou eatest of it, thou shalt surely die.' In which threatening were doubtless included all evils, death spiritual, temporal, and eternal." "5. As Adam was under a law whose sanction threatened death upon disobedience, so doubtless God favoured him with a covenant of life, and a promise of life and immortality upon his obedience." "6. Adam broke the law of his maker, lost his image and his favour, forfeited the hope of immortality, and exposed him self to the wrath of God, and all the punishment which he had threatened; in consequence of which he was now painfully afraid of Him in whom he before delighted, and foolishly endeavoured to 'hide himself from the presence of the Lord.'" "7. Adam, after his sin, propagated his kind according to the law of nature; not in the moral image or likeness of God; not "in righteousness and true holiness;' but in his own sinful likeness; with irregular passions, corrupt appetites and inclina tions. To this degeneracy Job manifestly refers in those expressions: 'What is man, that he should be clean? or the son of man, that he should be righteous? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?

Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.' And David says the same thing: 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.'" (Pages 170, 171.) "This is not an hyperbolical aggravation of David's early sins, and propensity to evil from his childhood. But the text is strong and plain in asserting sin someway to belong to his very conception, and to be conveyed from his natural parents; which is a different idea from his actual sins, or pro pensity to sin in his infancy. It shows the cause both of this propensity, and of his actual sins, which operated before he was born. So that if original pravity be not so conveyed and derived as is here asserted, the words are not an exaggeration of what is, but a downright fiction of what is not. "8. As Adam produced his offspring, like himself, destitute of the image of God, so he produced them destitute of the favour of God, under the same condemnation with himself. So Job: 'Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble;' (xiv. 1;) that is, his short life, and his troubles, proceed from his very birth; his propagation from sinful and mortal parents: Otherwise, God would not have appointed his noblest creature in this world to have been 'born to trouble:" Yet this is the case; 'man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward;' (Job v. 7;) naturally; for it is owing to his birth and his natural derivation from a sinful stock. We are a miserable race, springing from a corrupted and dying root, prone to sin, and liable to sorrows and sufferings." (Pages 174, 175.) "In proof of this sentence of condemnation and death coming upon all mankind for the sin of Adam, we need only read from the twelfth verse of the fifth chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans; on which I observe," (page 176,) "1. Here Adam and Christ are set up as distinct heads or representatives of their several families. Adam was the head of all mankind, who became sinful and mortal through his sin; Christ was the head of all believers, who obtain pardon and life through his righteousness.

Adam was the head of all mankind, who became sinful and mortal through his sin; Christ was the head of all believers, who obtain pardon and life through his righteousness. To prove this headship of Adam, the Apostle says, "Until the law,' (that is, from the creation till the law of Moses,) "sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law; that is, where there is no law or constitution of duty or penalty at all. Yet, saith he, "Death reigned from Adam to Moses:" Yet sin was imputed, and pun ished by death, even upon all mankind, both small and great, before the law given by Moses. The inference is, therefore, there was some law or constitution during all the time from Adam to Moses, in virtue of which sin was imputed to man kind, and death accordingly executed upon them. Now, what law or constitution could this be, beside that which said to Adam, as a representative of his whole posterity, 'In the day thou sinnest thou shalt die?'" (Pages 177, 178.) "2. The Apostle carries his argument yet farther: 'Sin was imputed, and death reigned, or was executed, "even upon those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgres sion;' who had not broken an express command, as Adam had done. This manifestly refers to infants; death reigned over them; death was executed upon them. And this must be by some constitution which, in some sense, imputed sin to them who had not committed actual sin: For without such a con stitution, sin would never have been imputed, nor death executed on children. "Yet, 3. Death did not come upon them as a mere natural effect of their father Adam's sin and death, but as a proper and legal punishment of sin; for it is said, his sin brought "con demnation' upon all men. (Verse 18.) Now, this is a legal term, and shows that death is not only a natural but a penal evil, and comes upon infants as guilty and condemned; not for their own actual sins, for they had none; but for the sin of Adam, their legal head, their appointed representative." "In the eighteenth verse the expression is very strong: "By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to con demnation.

(Verse 18.) Now, this is a legal term, and shows that death is not only a natural but a penal evil, and comes upon infants as guilty and condemned; not for their own actual sins, for they had none; but for the sin of Adam, their legal head, their appointed representative." "In the eighteenth verse the expression is very strong: "By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to con demnation. All the children of Adam, young and old, are condemned for his one offence. But farther: "4. In the original it is not, "By the offence of one;" but, "By one offence.' By the single offence of Adam, when he stood as the head of all his offspring, and brought sin and death upon them by his disobedience; as in the following verse: 'By one man's disobedience many were made, or constituted, 'sin ners; that is, became liable to guilt and death. And so, in the sixteenth verse, one single offence is represented as con demning through Adam, and stands in opposition to the 'many offences' which are pardoned through Christ. "5. There is a yet farther proof in this chapter, that Adam conveyed sin and death to his posterity, not merely as a natural parent, but as a common head and representative of all his off spring. As Adam and Christ are here said to be the two springs of sin and righteousness, of death and life to mankind, so the one is represented as a "type' and 'figure' of the other. In this very respect Adam was a 'figure or type of Christ.' (Verse 14.) And for this very reason Christ is called 'the Second Man, the last Adam." (Cor. xv. 45-47.) As one was the spring of life, so the other was the spring of death, to all his seed or offspring." "Now, Christ is a spring of life, not only as he conveys sanc tification or holiness to his seed, but as he procures for them justification and eternal life by his personal obedience. And so Adam is a spring of death, not only as he conveys an unholy nature to his seed, to all men, but as he brings condemnation to eternal death upon them, by his personal disobedience.

And so Adam is a spring of death, not only as he conveys an unholy nature to his seed, to all men, but as he brings condemnation to eternal death upon them, by his personal disobedience. And this is the chief thing which the Apostle seems to have in his eye, throughout the latter part of this chapter; the conveyance of condemnation and death to the seed of Adam, of justification and eternal life to the seed of Christ, by the means of what their respective heads or representatives had done. "But some object: 'All the blessings which God gave at first to Adam consisted in these three particulars: (1.) The blessing of propagation: (2.) Dominion over the brutes: (3.) The image of God. But all these three are more expressly and emphatically pronounced to Norh and his sons, than to Adam in Paradise.'" "I answer, If we review the history and context, we shall find, the blessing of Adam, and that of Noah, very widely differ from each other, in all the three particulars mentioned." "l. The blessing of Adam relating to propagation was with out those multiplied pains and sorrows which, after the first sin, fell upon women in bearing children. It was also a blessing of sustentation or nourishment, without hard toil and the sweat of his brow. It was a blessing without a curse on the ground, to lessen or destroy the fruitfulness thereof. It was a blessing without death, without returning to dust; whereas the blessing of Noah did not exclude death, no, nor the pains of child-birth nor the earning our bread by the sweat of our brow. "2. To Adam was given 'dominion over the brutes. To Noah it was only said, 'The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast. But notwithstanding this fear and dread, yet they frequently sting men to death, or bite and tear them in pieces. Whereas no such calamity could ever have befallen innocent Adam, or his innocent offspring." "The 'image of God," in which Adam was created, consisted eminently in righteousness and true holiness.

Whereas no such calamity could ever have befallen innocent Adam, or his innocent offspring." "The 'image of God," in which Adam was created, consisted eminently in righteousness and true holiness. But that part of the 'image of God' which remained after the fall, and remains in all men to this day, is the natural image of God, namely, the spiritual nature and immortality of the soul; not excluding the political image of God, or a degree of dominion over the creatures still remaining. But the moral image of God is lost and defaced, or else it could not be said to be 'renewed." It is then evident, that the blessing given to Adam in innocency, and that given to Noah after the flood, differ so widely, that the latter was consistent with the condemnation or curse for sin, and the former was not. Consequently, mankind does not now stand in the same favour of God, as Adam did while he was innocent." (Pages 188, 189.) "Thus it appears that the holy Scriptures, both in the Old and New Testaments, give us a plain and full account of the conveyance of sin, misery, and death, from the first man to all his offspring." APosTACY FROM GoD 7 A GENERAL survey of THE FOLLIES AND MISERLEs "UPoN a just view of human nature, from its entrance into life, till it retires behind the curtain of death, one would be ready to say concerning man, 'Is this the creature that is so superior to the rest of the inhabitants of the globe, as to require the peculiar care of the Creator in forming him? Does he deserve such an illustrious description, as even the heathen poet has given us of him?" Sanctius his animal, mentisque capacius alte Deerat adhuc, et quod dominari in catera posset. Natus homo est / sive hunc divino semine cretum Ille opifex rerum mundi melioris origo Finzit in effigiem moderantúm cuncta deorum. Pronaque cum spectent animalia caetera terram; Os homini sublime dedit; calumque tueri Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus. A creature of a more exalted kind Was wanting yet; and then was man design'd: Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast, For empire form'd, and fit to rule the rest.

A creature of a more exalted kind Was wanting yet; and then was man design'd: Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast, For empire form'd, and fit to rule the rest. Whether with particles of heavenly fire The God of nature did his soul inspire, And moulding up a mass in shape like ours, Form'd a bright image of the all-ruling powers, And while the mute creation downward bend Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend, Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes Beholds his own hereditary skies.' "Now, if man was formed in the image of God, certainly he was a holy and a happy being. But what is there like holi ness or happiness now found, running through this rank of creatures? Are there any of the brutal kind that do not more regularly answer the design of their creation? Are there any brutes that we ever find acting so much below their original character, on the land, in the water, or the air, as mankind does all over the earth? Or are there any tribes among them, through which pain, vexation, and misery are so plentifully distributed as they are among the children of men?" (Pages "Were this globe of earth to be surveyed from one end to the other by some spirit of a superior order, it would be found such a theatre of folly and madness, such a maze of mingled vice and misery, as would move the compassion of his refined nature to a painful degree, were it not tempered by a clear sight of that wise and just Providence which strongly and sweetly works in the midst of all; and will, in the end, bring good out of all evil, and justify the ways of God with man." A PARTICULAR VieW of ThE MISERIES OF MAN. "BUT, to wave for the present the sins and follies of man kind, may we not infer from his miseries alone, that we are degenerate beings, bearing the most evident marks of the displeasure of our Maker?" "View the histories of mankind; and what is almost all his tory but a description of the wretchedness of men, under the mischiefs they bring upon themselves, and the judgments of the great God?

"BUT, to wave for the present the sins and follies of man kind, may we not infer from his miseries alone, that we are degenerate beings, bearing the most evident marks of the displeasure of our Maker?" "View the histories of mankind; and what is almost all his tory but a description of the wretchedness of men, under the mischiefs they bring upon themselves, and the judgments of the great God? The scenes of happiness and peace are very thin setamong all thenations; and they are ratheratransient glimpse, here and there, than anything solid and durable. But if we look over the universe, what public desolations by plague and famine, by storms and earthquakes, by wars and pestilence! What secret mischiefs reign among men, which pierce and tor ture the soul! What smarting wounds and bruises, what pains and diseases, attack and torment the animal frame!" "Where is the family of seven or eight persons wherein there is not one or more afflicted with some troublesome malady, or tiresome inconvenience? These indeed are often concealed by the persons who suffer them, and by the families where they dwell. But were they all brought together, what hospitals or infirmaries would be able to contain them?" "What toils and hardships, what inward anxieties and sor rows, disappointments and calamities, are diffused through every age and country ! Do not the rich feel them as well as the poor? Are they not all teazed with their own appetites, which are never satisfied ? And their impetuous passions give them no rest. What keen anguish of mind arises from pride, and envy, and resentment ! What tortures does ambition, or disappointed love, or wild jealousy, infuse into their bosoms Meanwhile the poor, together with inward vexations and corroding maladies of the mind, sustain like wise endless drudgeries in procuring their necessary subsist ence. And how many of them cannot, after all, procure even food to eat and raiment to put on l'' "Survey man through every stage. See, first, what a figure he makes, at his entrance into life!

See, first, what a figure he makes, at his entrance into life! "This animal," says Pliny, 'who is to govern the rest of the creatures, how he lies bound hand and foot, all in teals, and begins his life in misery and pun ishment!' If we trace the education of the human race, from the cradle to mature age, especially among the poor, who are the bulk of all nations, the wretchedness of mankind will farther appear. How are they everywhere dragged up in their tender age,through a train of nonsense, madness, and miseries! What millions of uneasy sensations do they endure in infancy and childhood, by reason of those pressing necessities, which, for some years, they can tell only in cries and groans, and which their parents are either so poor they cannot relieve, or so savage or blutish that they will not! How wretchedly are these young generations hurried on through the folly and weakness of child hood, till new calamities arise from their own ungoverned appe tites and impetuous passions! As youth advances, the ferments of the blood rise higher, and the appetites and passions grow much stronger, and give more abundant vexation to the race of mankind than they do to any of the brutal creation. And whereas the all-wise God, for kind reasons, has limited the gratification of these appetites by rules of virtue; perhaps those very rules, through the corruption of our nature, irritate mankind to greater excesses." (Pages 368, 369.) "Would the affairs of human life, in infancy, childhood, and youth, have ever been in such a sore and painful situation, if man had been such a being as God at first made him, and had continued in the favour of his Maker?

And whereas the all-wise God, for kind reasons, has limited the gratification of these appetites by rules of virtue; perhaps those very rules, through the corruption of our nature, irritate mankind to greater excesses." (Pages 368, 369.) "Would the affairs of human life, in infancy, childhood, and youth, have ever been in such a sore and painful situation, if man had been such a being as God at first made him, and had continued in the favour of his Maker? Could divine wisdom and goodness admit of these scenes, were there not a degeneracy through the whole race, which, by the just per mission of God, exerts itself some way or other in every stage of life?" "Follow mankind to the age of public appearance upon the stage of the world, and what shall we find there, but infinite cares, labours, and toil, attended with fond hopes almost always frustrated with endless crosses and disappointments, through ten thousand accidents that are every moment flying across this mortal stage As for the poor, how does the sultry toil exhaust their lives in summer, and what starving wretchedness do they feel in winter ! How is a miserable life sustained among all the pains and fatigues of nature, with the oppression, cruelty, and scorn of the rich !" "Let us follow on the track to the close of life. What a scene is presented us in old age How innumerable and how inexpressible are the disasters and sorrows, the pains and aches, the groans and wretchedness, that meet man on the borders of the grave, before they plunge him into it ! "And indeed, is there any person on earth, high or low, without such distresses and difficulties, such crossing accidents and perplexing cares, such painful infirmities in some or other part of life, as must pronounce mankind, upon the whole, a miserable being? Whatever scenes of happiness seem to attend him, in any shining hour, a dark cloud soon casts a gloom over them, and the pleasing vision vanishes as a dream. "And what are the boasted pleasures which some have sup posed to balance the sorrows of life? Are not most of them owing, in a good degree, to some previous uneasiness? It is the pain of hunger which makes food so relishing; the pain of weariness that renders sleep so refreshing.

It is the pain of hunger which makes food so relishing; the pain of weariness that renders sleep so refreshing. And as for the blessings of love and friendship, among neighbours and kindred, do they not often produce as much vexationassatisfaction; not, indeed, of themselves, but by reason of the endless humours and follies, errors and passions, of mankind?" "Again: Do not the very pleasures of the body prove the ruin of ten thousand souls? They may be used with innocence and wisdom; but the unruly appetites and passions of men continually turn into a curse what God originally designed for a blessing." "Think again how short and transient are the pleasures of life in comparison of the pains of it! How vanishing the sweetest sensations of delight! But, in many persons and families, how many are the days, the months, the years, of fatigue, or pain, or bitter sorrow ! What pleasure of the animal frame is either as lasting, or as intense, as the pain of the gout or stone? How small is the proportion of sensible pleasure to that of pain, or trouble, or uneasiness! And how far is it over-balanced by the maladies or miseries, the fears or sorrows, of the greatest part of mankind "As for intellectual pleasures, how few are there in the world who have any capacity for them ! and among those few, how many differences and contentions! How many crossing objections, bewildered inquiries, and unhappy mistakes, are mingled with the enjoyment so that 'He who increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow," saith the wisest of men; and upon the whole computation, he writes on this also, "Vanity and vexation of spirit." "To talk, then, of real happiness to be enjoyed in this life, (abstracted from the foretaste of another,) is contrary to all the common sense and experience of everythinking man. Without this 'taste of the powers of the world to come," I know not what wise man would willingly come into these scenes of mortality, or go through them with any patience." (Pages 376, 377.) "What, to be trained up from infancy under so many una voidable follies, prejudices, and wretched delusions, through the power of flesh and sense! to be sunk into such gross ignorance both of our souls, our better selves, and of the glorious Being that made us!

to be sunk into such gross ignorance both of our souls, our better selves, and of the glorious Being that made us! to lie under such heavy shades of darkness, such a world of mistakes and errors, as are mingled with our little faint glimpses, and low notices of God our Creator ! What, to be so far distant from God, and to endure such a long estrange ment from the Wisest and Best of Beings, in this foolish and fleshly state, with so few and slender communications with or from him "What, to feel so many powerful and disquieting appe tes, so many restless and unruly passions, which want the perpetual guard of a jealous eye, and a strong restraint over them; otherwise they will be ever breaking out into some new mischief! "What, to be ever surrounded with such delights of sense as are constant temptations to folly and sin! to have scarce any joys, but what we are liable to pay dear for, by an exces sive or irregular indulgence I Can this be a desirable state, for any wise being, who knows what happiness is, to be united to such a disorderly machine of flesh and blood with all its uneasy and unruly ferments?" "Add to this another train of inbred miseries which attend this animal frame. What wise spirit would willingly put on such flesh and blood as ours, with all the springs of sickness and pain, anguish and disease, in it? What, to be liable to the racking disquietudes of gout and stone, and a thousand other distempers! to have nature worn out by slow and long aches and infirmities, and lie lingering many years on the borders of death, before we can find a grave "Solomon seems to be much of this mind, when, after a survey of the whole scheme of human life, in its variety of scenes, (without the views of hereafter,) he declares, 'I praised the dead who were already dead, more than the living who are yet alive." (Eccles. iv.

iv. 2.) And, indeed, it appears that the miseries of life are so numerous as to over-balance all its real comforts, and sufficiently to show, that mankind now lie under evident marks of their Maker's displeasure, as being degenerated from that state of innocence wherein they were at first created." (Pages 380, 381.) "BUT it is objected, "If human life in general is miserable, how is it that all men are so unwilling to die?' "I answer, 1. Because they fear to meet with more misery in another life than they feel in this. So our Poet, 'The weariest and most loathed worldly life That pain, age, penury, and imprisonment Can lay on nature, 'tis a paradise To what we fear of death.' "And in another place : "If by the sleep of death we could but end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'twere a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. O who would bear The oppressor's wrongs, the proud man's contumely, The insolence of office, and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, With all the long calamities of life; When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? Who would bear such burdens, And groan and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death That undiscover'd country, from whose border No traveller returns puzzles the will, And makes us rather bear those ills we have, Than fly to others which are all unknown." "If you say, "But the Heathens knew nothing of a future life; and yet they too, in all their generations, have been unwilling to die; nor would they put an end to their own life, were it never so miserable;' I answer, Most of the ancient, as well as the modern, Heathens, had some motions of an after-state, and some fears of punishment in another life for sins committed in this. And in the politer nations they generally supposed self-murderers in particular would be punished after death." (Pages 384, 385.) Prorima deinde tenent maesti loca, qui sibi lethum Insontes peperére manu, lucemque perosi Projecáre animas. Quam vellent aethere in alto Nunc et pauperiem et duros perferre labores / Fata obstant : Duraque palus innabilis unda Alligat, et novies Styr interfusa coercet. 'The next in place and punishment are they Who prodigally throw their lives away.

'The next in place and punishment are they Who prodigally throw their lives away. Fools, who, repining at their wretched state, And loathing anxious life, have hurried on their fate. With late repentance now they would retrieve The bodies they forsook, and wish to live: All pain and poverty desire to bear, To view the light of heaven, and breathe the vital air. But fate forbids; the Stygian floods oppose, And with nine circling streams the captive souls inclose." "I answer, 2. Suppose this love of life and aversion to death are found even where there is no regard to a future state, this will not prove that mankind is happy; but only that the God of nature hath wrought this principle into the souls of all men, in order to preserve the work of his own hands: So that reluctance against dying is owing to the natural principle of self-preservation, without any formed and sedate judgment, whether it is best to continue in this life or no, or whether life has more happiness or misery." "It may be objected, Secondly, "If brutes suffer nearly the same miseries with mankind, and yet have not sinned, how can these miseries prove that man is an apostate being?'" (Page 389. "7. I answer: It is by reason of man's apostasy that even brute animals suffer. 'The whole creation groaneth together' on his account, 'and travaileth together in pain to this day." For the brute "creation was made subject to vanity, to abuse, pain, corruption, death, "not willingly, not by any act of its own, "but by reason of him that subjected it;' of God, who, in consequence of Adam's sin, whom he had appointed lord of the whole lower world, for his sake pronounced this curse, not only on the ground, but on all which was before under his dominion. "The misery, therefore, of the brute creation is so far from being an objection to the apostasy of man, that it is a visible standing demonstration thereof: If beasts suffer, then man is fallen." (389.) "BUT whether or no the miseries of mankind alone will prove their apostasy from God, it is certain these, together with the sins of men, are an abundant proof that we are fallen creatures.

"The misery, therefore, of the brute creation is so far from being an objection to the apostasy of man, that it is a visible standing demonstration thereof: If beasts suffer, then man is fallen." (389.) "BUT whether or no the miseries of mankind alone will prove their apostasy from God, it is certain these, together with the sins of men, are an abundant proof that we are fallen creatures. And this I shall endeavour to show, both from the express testimony of Scripture, from the necessity of renewing grace, and from a survey of the heathen world." (Pages 409, 410.) "First. The Scripture testifies that a universal degeneracy and corruption is come upon all the sons and daughters of Adam. "Every imagination of the thoughts of the heart of man is only evil continually;' (Gen. vi. 5;) yea, "evil from his youth." (Gen. viii. 21.) 'The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand and seek God. They are gone out of the way; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Psalm xiv. 2, 3.) "There is not a just man upon earth, who doeth good, and sin neth not." (Eccles. vii. 20.) "All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way; ' (Isaiah liii. 6;) different wanderings, but all wanderers. 'There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Every mouth is stopped, and all the world become guilty before God. All are fallen short of the glory of God, because all have sinned. (Rom. iii. 10, 12, 19, 23.) "If one died for all, then were all dead;' (2 Cor. v. 14;) that is, spiritually dead; 'dead in trespasses and sins." "Now, can we suppose that all God's creatures would uni versally break his law, run into sin and death, defile and destroy themselves, and that without any one exception, if it had not arisen from some root of bitterness, some originaliniquity, which was diffused through them all, from their very entrance into the world?

14;) that is, spiritually dead; 'dead in trespasses and sins." "Now, can we suppose that all God's creatures would uni versally break his law, run into sin and death, defile and destroy themselves, and that without any one exception, if it had not arisen from some root of bitterness, some originaliniquity, which was diffused through them all, from their very entrance into the world? It is utterly incredible, that every single person, among the millions of mankind, should be born pure and inno cent, and yet should all, by free and voluntary choice, every one for himself, for near six thousand years together, rebel against Him that made them, if there were not some original contagion spread through them all at their entrance into life. "Secondly. The same thing appears from the scriptural doctrine of our recovery by divine grace, Let us consider in what manner the Scripture represents that great change which must be wrought in our souls, in order to our obtaining the favour and image of God, and future happiness. 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John iii. 3,6,8.) In other scriptures it is represented, that they 'must be born of the Spirit;' they must be 'born of God;' they must be 'created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works;' (Eph. ii. 10;) they must "be quickened, or raised again, from their 'death in trespasses and sins;' (Eph. ii. 5;) they must "be renewed in their spirit, or 'created after the image of God in righteousness and true holiness;' they must "be recon ciled to God by Jesus Christ; they must be "washed from their sins in his blood.' "Since all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, therefore, if ever they are saved, they must be justified freely by his grace, through the redemp tion that is in Christ Jesus. Now, can any one suppose God to have made so many millions of creatures, as have come into the world from Adam till now, which have all entered the world, innocent and holy, and yet not one of them should retain his image in holiness, or be fit for his favour, without being born again, created anew, raised from the dead, re deemed, not with corruptible things, but with the blood of his own Son?

Now, can any one suppose God to have made so many millions of creatures, as have come into the world from Adam till now, which have all entered the world, innocent and holy, and yet not one of them should retain his image in holiness, or be fit for his favour, without being born again, created anew, raised from the dead, re deemed, not with corruptible things, but with the blood of his own Son? Do not all these representations prove that every man is born with some original contagion, and under some criminal imputation in the sight of God? Else would not one among all these millions be fit to be made a partaker of his favour, without such amazing purifications as require the blood of the Son of God, and the almighty operation of his Spirit! Do not all these things show that mankind in their present generations are not such creatures as God at first made them?" (Pages 413, 414.) "The same great truth we may learn, Thirdly, from even a slight survey of the heathen nations. A few days ago I was viewing, in the map of the world, the vast Asiatic empires of Tartary and China, and a great part of the kingdom of the Mogul, with the multitude of islands in the East Indies. I went on to survey all the southern part of Afric, with the savage nations of America. I observed the thousands, or rather millions, who dwell on this globe, and walk, and trifle, and live and die there, under the heaviest cloud of ignorance and darkness, not knowing God, nor the way to his favour; who are drenched in gross impieties and superstitions, who are continually guilty of national immoralities, and practise idolatry, malice, and lewdness, fraud and falsehood, with scarce any regret or restraint." "Then, sighing within myself, I said, It is not many years since these were all infants; and they were brought up by parents who knew not God, nor the path that leads to life and happiness. Are not these unhappy children born under diffi culties almost unsurmountable? Are they not laid under almost an impossibility of breaking their way of themselves, through so much thick darkness, to the knowledge, the fear, and love of Him that made them 7 Dreadful truth indeed ! Yet, so far I can see, certain and incontestable.

Yet, so far I can see, certain and incontestable. Such, I fear, is the case of those of the human race who cover at present the far greatest part of the globe." "Then I ran back in my thoughts four or five thousand years, and said within myself, What multitudes, in every age of the world, have been born in these deplorable circumstances! They are inured from their birth to barbarous customs and impious practices; they have an image of the life of brutes and devils wrought in them by their early education; they have had the seeds of wretched wickedness sown, planted, and cul tivated in them, by the savage instructions of those that went efore them; and their own imitation of such horrible ex amples has confirmed the mischief, long before they knew or heard of the true God, if they have heard of Him to this day. Scarce any of them have admitted one thoughtful inquiry, whether they follow the rules of reason, or whether they are in the way of happiness and peace, any more than their parents before them. As they are born in this gross darkness, so they grow up in the vile idolatries, and all the shameful abomina tions, of their country; and go on to death in the same course. Nor have they light enough, either from without or within, to make them ask seriously, 'Is there not a lie in my right hand? Am I not in the way of destruction?'" "St. Peter says indeed, that 'in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him;' but if there were very few (among the Jews) who feared God, very few in those learned nations of the Gentiles; how much fewer, may we suppose, are in those barbarous countries, which have no knowledge either divine or human l'' "But would this have been the case of those unhappy na tions, both of the parents and their children, in a hundred long successions, had they been such a race of creatures as they came out of the hand of the Creator? If those children had been guiltless in the eye of God, could this have been their portion?

If those children had been guiltless in the eye of God, could this have been their portion? In short, can we suppose the wise, and right eous, and merciful God would have established and continued such a constitution for that propagation of mankind which should naturally place so many millions of them so early in such dismal circumstances if there had not been some dread ful and universal degeneracy spread over them and their fathers, by some original crime, which met and seized them at the very entrance into life?" "THIs doctrine has been attended with many noisy contro versies in the Christian world. Let us try whether it may not be set in so fair and easy a light as to reconcile the sentiments of the contending parties." "When a man has broken the law of his country, and is punished for so doing, it is plain that sin is imputed to him; his wickedness is upon him; he bears his iniquity; that is, he is reputed, or accounted guilty; he is condemned and dealt with as an offender." "On the other hand, if an innocent man, who is falsely accused, is acquitted by the court, sin is not imputed to him, but righteousness is imputed to him; or, to use another phrase, his 'righteousness is upon him.' "Or if a reward be given a man for any righteous action, this righteous act is imputed to him. "Farther: If a man has committed a crime, but the Prince pardons him, then he is justified from it; and his fault is not imputed to him." "But if a man having committed treason, his estate is taken from him and his children, then they "bear the iniquity of their father, and his sin is imputed to them also. "If a man lose his life and estate for murder, and his children thereby become vagabonds, then the blood of the person murdered is said to be upon the murderer, and upon his children also. So the Jews: 'His blood be on us and on our children;' let us and our children be punished for it !

So the Jews: 'His blood be on us and on our children;' let us and our children be punished for it ! "Or if a criminal had incurred the penalty of imprison ment, and the State were to permit a friend of his to become his surety, and to be confined in his room, then his crime is said to be imputed to his surety, or to be laid upon him; he bears the iniquity of his friend, by suffering for him. Mean time the crime for which the surety now suffers, is not imputed to the real offender." "And should we suppose the Prince to permit this surety to exert himself in some eminent service, to which a reward is promised; and all this in order to entitle the criminal to the promised reward: Then this eminent service may be said to be imputed to the criminal, that is, he is rewarded on the account of it. So in this case, both what his friend has done and suffered is imputed to him. "If a man do some eminent service to his Prince, and he with his posterity are dignified on account of it; then the service performed by the father is said to be imputed to the children also." "Now, if, among the histories of nations, we find anything of this kind, do we not easily understand what the writers say? Why then do we judge these phrases, when they are found in the inspired writers, to be so hard to be understood? "But it may be asked, "How can the acts of the parent's treason be imputed to his little child, since those acts were quite out of the reach of an infant, nor was it possible for him to commit them?" "Or, "How can the eminent service performed by a father be imputed to his child, who is but an infant?' "I answer: 1. Those acts of treason, or acts of service, are, by a common figure, said to be imputed to the children, when they suffer or enjoy the consequences of their father's treason or eminent service; though the particular actions of treason or service could not be practised by the children. This would easily be understood, should it occur in a human history: And why not, when it occurs in the sacred writings? "I answer: 2.

"I answer: 2. Sin is taken either for an act of disobedience to a law, or for the legal result of such an act; that is, the guilt, or liableness to punishment. Now, when we say, The sin of a traitor is imputed to his children, we do not mean, that the act of the father is charged upon the child; but that the guilt, or liableness to punishment, is so transferred to him, that he suffers banishment or poverty on account of it." (Pages 432, 433,434.) "In like manner, righteousness is either particular acts of obedience to a law, or the legal result of those actions; that is, a right to the reward annexed to them. "And so when we say, The righteousness of him that has performed some eminent act of obedience is imputed to his children, we do not mean, that the particular act of the father is charged on the child, as if he had done it; but that the right to reward, which is the result of that act, is transferred to his children. "Now, if we would but thus explain every text of Scripture wherein either imputed sin, or imputed righteousness, is men tioned, (whether in express words, or in the plain meaning of them,) weshould find them all easy and intelligible." "Thus we may easily understand how the obedience of Christ is imputed to all his seed; and how the disobedience of Adam is imputed to all his children." "To confirm this, I would add these three remarks: "1. There are several histories in Scripture, where expres sions of the same import occur. "So Gen. xxii. 16: "Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies, because thou hast obeyed my voice." Here Abraham's obedience, that is, the result of it, is imputed to his posterity. "So Num. xxv. 13: 'God gave to Phinehas and his seed after him the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God," and slew the criminals in Israel. This was so imputed to his children, that they also received the reward of it." "Thus the sin of Achan was so imputed to his children, that they were all stoned on account of it. (Joshua vii. 24.) In like manner, the covetousness of Gehazi was imputed to his posterity, (2 Kings v.

In like manner, the covetousness of Gehazi was imputed to his posterity, (2 Kings v. 27) when God by his Prophet pronounced that the leprosy should cleave unto him and to his seed for ever." "2. The Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, use the words sin and iniquity, (both in Hebrew and Greek,) to signify, not only the criminal actions themselves, but also the result and consequences of those actions; that is, the guilt or liableness to punishment; and sometimes the punish ment itself, whether it fall upon the original criminal, or upon others on his account." "In the same manner, the Scriptures use the word righteous ness, not only for acts of obedience, but also the result of them; that is, justification, or right to a reward. A moderate study of some of those texts where these words are used may convince us of this. "So Job xxxiii. 26: "God will render to a man his righteousness, that is, the reward of it. "Sow to yourselves in righteousness, till the Lord come and rain righteousness upon you:' (Hosea x. 12:) That is, till he pour down the rewards, or fruits, of it upon you. "I might add here, that, in several places of St. Paul's Epistles, righteousness means justification, in the passive sense of the word." "So Rom. x. 4: 'Christ is the end of the law for righteous ness to every one that believeth;' that is, in order to the justification of believers. . 'With the heart man believeth unto righteousness;' (verse 10;) that is, so as to obtain jus tification. "'If righteousness, that is,justification, 'come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." (Gal. ii. 21.) This particularly holds where the word Aoyugouai, or impute, is joined with righteousness. As Rom. iv. 3: Abraham 'believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness.' 'His faith is counted to him for righteousness." (Rom. iv.5.) It is not avrt or varep, for or instead of righteousness; but evs Bucatoavvmw, 'in order to justification, or acceptance with God. "And in other places of Scripture, a work, whether good or evil, is put for the reward of it: 'The work of a man will he render unto him;' (Job xxxiv. 11;) that is, the recompence of it. So St.

So St. Paul desires Philemon to impute any wrong he had received from Onesimus to himself; that is, not the evil action, but the damage he had sustained. "Indeed, when sin or righteousness are said to be imputed to any man, on account of what himself hath done, the words usually denote both the good or evil actions themselves, and the legal result of them. But when the sin or righteousness of one person is said to be imputed to another, then, generally, those words mean only the result thereof; that is, a liableness to punishment on the one hand, and to reward on the other. "But let us say what we will to confine the sense of the imputation of sin and righteousness to the legal result, the reward or punishment of good or evil actions; let us ever so explicitly deny the imputation of the actions themselves to others; still Dr. Taylor will level almost all his arguments against the imputation of the actions themselves, and then triumph in having demolished what we never built, and refuting what we never asserted." "3. The Scripture does not, that I remember, anywhere say, in express words, that the sin of Adam is imputed to his children; or, that the sins of believers are imputed to Christ; or, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers: But the true meaning of all these expressions is sufficiently found in several places of Scripture." "Yet since these express words and phrases, of the imputa tion of Adam's sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ's righteousness to us, are not plainly written in Scripture, we should not impose it on every Christian, to use these very expressions. Let every one take his liberty, either of con fining himself to strictly scriptural language, or of manifest ing his sense of these plain scriptural doctrines, in words and phrases of his own." "But if the words were expressly written in the Bible, they could not reasonably be interpreted in any other sense, than this which I have explained by so many examples, both in Scripture, history, and in common life.

Let every one take his liberty, either of con fining himself to strictly scriptural language, or of manifest ing his sense of these plain scriptural doctrines, in words and phrases of his own." "But if the words were expressly written in the Bible, they could not reasonably be interpreted in any other sense, than this which I have explained by so many examples, both in Scripture, history, and in common life. "I would only add, If it were allowed, that the very act of Adam's disobedience was imputed to all his posterity; that all the same sinful actions which men have committed were imputed to Christ, and the very actions which Christ did upon earth were imputed to believers; what greater punish ments would the posterity of Adam suffer, or what greater blessings could believers enjoy, beyond what Scripture has assigned, either to mankind, as the result of the sin of Adam; or to Christ, as the result of the sins of men; or to believers, as the result of the righteousness of Christ?" I BELIEVE every impartial reader is now able to judge, whether Dr. Taylor has solidly answered Dr. Watts or no. But there is another not inconsiderable writer whom I can not find he has answered at all, though he has published four several tracts professedly against Dr. Taylor, of which he could not be ignorant, because they are mentioned in "The Ruin and Recovery of Human Nature;" I mean the Rev. Mr. Samuel Hebden, Minister at Wrentham, in Suffolk. I think it, therefore, highly expedient, to subjoin a short abstract of these also ; the rather, because the tracts them selves are very scarce, having been for some time out of print. "Lo, this only have I found, that God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Eccles. vii. 29. "IN the preceding verse Solomon had declared, how few wise and good persons he had found in the whole course of his life; but, lest any should blame the providence of God for this, he here observes, that these were not what God made man at first; and that their being what they were not was the effect of a wretched apostasy from God.

"IN the preceding verse Solomon had declared, how few wise and good persons he had found in the whole course of his life; but, lest any should blame the providence of God for this, he here observes, that these were not what God made man at first; and that their being what they were not was the effect of a wretched apostasy from God. The original words stand thus: Only see thou, I have found." "Only: This word sets a mark on what it is prefixed to, as a truth of great certainty and importance. See, observe, thou. He invites every hearer and reader, in particular, to consider what he was about to offer. I have found: I have discovered this certain truth, and assert it on the fullest evidence, 'that God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.'" "The Hebrew word "ws which we render upright, is pro perly opposed to crooked, irregular, perverse. It is applied to things, to signify their being straight, or agreeable to rule; but it is likewise applied both to God and man, with the words and works of both. As applied to God, the ways of God, the word of God, it is joined with good; (Psalm xxv. 8;) with righteous; (Psalm crix. 137;) with true and good; (Neh. ix. 13;) where mention is made of 'right judgments, true laws, good statutes. The uprightness with which God is said to minister judgment to the people, answers to righteousness: In a word, God's uprightness is the moral rectitude of his nature, infinitely wise, good, just, and perfect. The upright ness of man, is his conformity, of heart and life, to the rule he is under; which is the law or will of God. Accordingly, we read of uprightness of heart; (Psalm xxxvi. 10; Job xxxiii. 33) and uprightness of way, or conversation; (Psalm xxxvii. 14;) and often elsewhere. 'The upright man,' throughout the Scripture, is a truly good man; a man of integrity, a holy person. In Job i. 1, 8; ii. 3, upright is the same with perfect, (as in Psalm xxxvii. 37, and many other places,) and is explained by, one "who feareth God and escheweth evil. In Job viii. 6, it is joined and is the same with pure.

6, it is joined and is the same with pure. In the same sense it is taken, (to mention but a few out of many texts which might be produced,) Prov. x. 29: "The way of the Lord is strength to the upright; but destruc tion shall be to the workers of iniquity.' 'The integrity of the upright shall guide them; but the perverseness of trans gressors shall destroy them. (xi. 3.) 'The righteousness of the upright shall deliver them; but transgressors shall be taken in their own naughtiness." (Verse 6.) 'By the blessing of the upright the city is exalted. (Verse 11.) 'The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord; but the prayer of the upright is his delight." (xv.8.) "A wicked man hardeneth his face; but as for the upright, he directeth his way." (xxi. 29.) From all these texts it manifestly appears, that uprightness, as applied to man, is the very same with righteousness, holi ness, or integrity of heart and conversation." (Pages 5, 6.) "When, therefore, Solomon says, God "made man upright,' the plain, undeniable meaning is, God at first formed man righteous or holy; although "they have sought out many inventions." They, this refers to Adam, which is both a singular and a plural noun: They, our first parents, and with them their posterity, have sought out many inventions;' many contrivances, to offend God, and injure themselves. These 'many inventions' are opposed to the uprightness, the simplicity of heart and integrity, with which our first parents, and mankind in them, were originally made by God." "The doctrine of the text then is, that God, at his creation, 'made man upright, or righteous; not only rational, and a free agent, but holy. Therefore, to maintain, that 'man neither was, nor could be, formed holy, because none can be holy, but in consequence of his own choice and endeavour, is bold indeed! To prove the contrary, and justify Solomon's assertion, I offer a few plain arguments." "1. Moses, in his account of the creation, writes, "And God said, Let us make man in our own image. Now, that righte ousness or holiness is the principal part of this image of God, appears from Eph. iv. 22, 24, and Col. iii. 9, 10.

9, 10. On which passages I observe, (1.) By 'the old man' is not meant a heathenish life, or an ungodly conversation; but a corrupt nature. For the Apostle elsewhere speaks of our 'old man,' as 'crucified with Christ;' and here distinguishes from it their 'former conversation,' or sinful actions, which he calls 'the deeds of the old man.' (2.) By 'the new man' is meant, not a new course of life; (as the Socinians interpret it;) but a principle of grace, called by St. Peter, 'The hidden man of the heart, and a 'divine nature. (3.) To put off 'the old man' (the same as to 'crucify the flesh") is, to subdue and mortify our corrupt nature; to "put on the new man' is, to stir up and cultivate that gracious principle, that new nature. 'This," saith the Apostle, 'is created after God, in righteous ness and true holiness.' It is created: Which cannot pro perly be said of a new course of life; but may of a 'new nature. It is 'created after God; or, 'in his image and likeness, mentioned by Moses. But what is it to be "created after God," or 'in his image?' It is to be "created in righte ousness and true holiness;' termed 'knowledge, the practical knowledge of God. (Col. iii. 10.) But if 'to be created after God, or 'in his image and likeness, is 'to be created in righteousness and true holiness, and if that principle of right eousness and holiness by which we are 'created unto good works, is a 'new man," a "divine nature; it is easy to infer, that man was at first created 'righteous' or 'holy.'" (Pages 9, 10.) "2. All things, as at first made by God, 'were very good.' Nor indeed could he make them otherwise. Now, a rational being is not good, unless his rational powers are all devoted to God. The goodness of man, as a rational being, must lie in a devotedness and consecration to God. Consequently, man was at first thus devoted to God: Otherwise he was not good. But this devotedness to the love and service of God is true righteous ness or holiness. This righteousness then, this goodness, or uprightness, this regular and due state or disposition of the human mind, was at first natural to man. It was wrought into his nature, and concreated with his rational powers.

It was wrought into his nature, and concreated with his rational powers. A rational creature, as such, is capable of knowing, loving, serving, living in communion with, the Most Holy One. Adam at first either did or did not use this capacity; either he knew and loved God, or he did not. If he did not, he was not 'very good, no, nor good at all: If he did, he was upright, righteous, holy." "3. When God vested man with dominion over the other creatures, how was he qualified for exercising that dominion,' unless he had in himself a principle of love and obedience to the Supreme Governor? Did not God form the creatures obedient to man, to confirm man in his loving obedience to God; Or did he create them with a disposition to depend on and obey man as their lord, and not create man with a disposition to obey and live dependent on the Lord of all? But this disposition is uprightness. Therefore God "made man upright.'" "4. Either man was created with principles of love and obe dience, or he was created an enemy to God. One of these must be: For as all the duty required of man, as a rational being, is summarily comprised in love, a supreme love to God, and a sub ordinate love to others, for his sake; so there can be no me dium between a rational creature's loving God, and not loving, which is a degree of 'enmity' to him. Either, O man, thou lovest God, or thou dost not: If thou dost, thou art holy or righteous; if thou dost not, thou art indisposed to serve him in such a manner, and with such a frame of spirit, as he re quires. Then thou art an enemy to God, a rebel against his authority. But God could not create man in such a state, in a state of enmity against himself. It follows, that man was created a lover of God, that is, righteous and holy." "In a word: Can you prove, either that man was not 'created after God," or that this does not mean, being 'created in righteousness and true holiness?' Was not man, as all crea tures, good in his kind? And is a rational creature good, unless all its powers are devoted to God?

And is a rational creature good, unless all its powers are devoted to God? Was not man duly qualified at first to exercise dominion over the other creatures? And could he be so qualified without a principle of love and obedience to their common Lord? Lastly: Can any man prove, either that man could be innocent if he did not love the Lord his God with all his heart; or that such a love to God is not 'righteousness and true holiness?'" "From the doctrine of man's original righteousness we may easily conclude that of original sin. For this reason it is, that some so earnestlyprotestagainstoriginal righteousness, because they dread looking on themselves as 'by nature' fallencreatures, and 'children of wrath. If man was not holy at first, he could not fall from a state of holiness; and, consequently, that first transgression exposed him and his posterity to nothing but tem poral death. But, on the other hand, if 'man was made upright,' it follows, (1.) That man, when he fell, lost his original righte ousness, and therewith his title to God's favour, and to commu nion with God. (2.) That he thereby incurred not only tem poral but spiritual death. He became dead in sin, and a child of wrath. And, (3.) That all his posterity are born with such a nature, not as man had at first, but as he contracted by his fall." (Pages 20, 21.) "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thow mayest freely eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it : For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen. ii. 16, 17. "GoD forbade man to eat of this tree, in token of his sove reign authority, and for the exercise of man's love, and the trial of his obedience. The words added, 'In the day thou eatest thereofthou shalt surely die, or literally, "In dying thou shalt die, mean, not only, 'Thou shalt certainly die, but, 'Thou shalt suffer every kind of death:" Thy soul as well as thy body shall die.

The words added, 'In the day thou eatest thereofthou shalt surely die, or literally, "In dying thou shalt die, mean, not only, 'Thou shalt certainly die, but, 'Thou shalt suffer every kind of death:" Thy soul as well as thy body shall die. And, indeed, if God made manupright or holy; if man at first enjoyed the life of God, including holiness joined with blessedness; and if the miserable state of the soul (as well as the dissolution of the body) is in the Scripture termed 'death;' it plainly follows, that the original threatening includes nothing less than a loss of man's original uprightness, of his title to God's favour, and happy life of communion with God." (Pages 26, 27.) "The words mean, farther, "Thou shalt instantly die;' as soon as ever thou eatest. And so he did. For in that instant his original righteousness, title to God's favour, and communion with God being lost, he was spiritually dead, 'dead in sin; his soul was dead to God, and his body liable to death, temporal and eternal." (Pages 28, 29.) "And as there is a threatening of death expressed in these words, so a promise of life is implied. The threatening death only in case of disobedience, implied, that otherwise he should not die. And even since the fall, the law of God promises life to obedience, as well as threatens death to disobedience; since the tenor of it is, "Do this and live: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.'" "Now, a law given by God with a promise of life and a threatening of death, consented to by man, is evidently a cove nant. For what is a covenant, but a mutual agreement of two or more parties on certain terms? Now, in this sense God covenanted with man, and man covenanted with God. God gave a law, promising life in case of obedience, threat ening death in case of disobedience. And man accepted of the terms. Here, therefore, was a real covenant." "But, to guard this against objections, I add: "1. We do not affirm, that God visibly appeared, and form ally treated with Adam, as one man with another. Without so formal a procedure, God could, and doubtless did, signify to him, on what terms he was to expect life or death."

Without so formal a procedure, God could, and doubtless did, signify to him, on what terms he was to expect life or death." "2. We do not assert, that God promised to translate him to heaven; but, without question, he made Adam sensible, that if he continued obedient he should continue happy, whether in paradise or some other region. "3. If one greatly superior will freely condescend to treat with an inferior, this does not disannul the mutual agreement, or hinder its having the nature of a covenant. So God entered into a proper covenant with Abraham of old, and with his peo ple in the gospel. And if so, much more might he do so with man, when perfectly upright toward God." "And this covenant was made with Adam, not only for himself, but likewise for all his posterity. This appears, "1. From the tenor of the original threatening, compared with the present state of mankind. For it is evident, that every one of his posterity is born liable to death; that the death, to which all are liable, was not threatened but in case of man's sinning; that man was not liable to death till he sinned, and his being so was the result of the threatening; and that the Scripture constantly points at sin as the sole cause of death, and of all suffering. But if all mankind are born liable to that which was originally threatened only to sin, then all mankind are accounted sinners, and as such are concerned in the original threatening, and consequently in the original promise." "2. From 1 Cor. xv. 22: 'In Adam all die.' Here the Apostle speaks, not of both our parents, but of Adam singly, (as also Rom. v.) to denote our peculiar relation to him. The 'all' mentioned, are all his natural descendants, who 'all die in or through him; that is, are liable to death on account of their relation to him. And it is not only a bodily death that is here spoken of; for it stands opposed, not to a bare revival of the body, but to a happy and glorious resurrection, such as 'they that are Christ's' will partake of at his second coming For of this resurrection, not that of the ungodly, the Apostle is speaking throughout this chapter.

And it is not only a bodily death that is here spoken of; for it stands opposed, not to a bare revival of the body, but to a happy and glorious resurrection, such as 'they that are Christ's' will partake of at his second coming For of this resurrection, not that of the ungodly, the Apostle is speaking throughout this chapter. But they could not "die in Adam, if they did not in some sense sin in him, and fall with him; if the covenant had not been made with him, not for himself only, but for all his posterity." (Pages 35, 36.) "3. From verses 45 and 47 of the same chapter. The 'first man, Adam, and 'the second Man, the last Adam, are here opposed. Now, why is Christ, notwithstanding the millions of men intervening between Adam and him, and following after his birth, called 'the second Man, and 'the last Adam?' We have an answer, Rom. v. 12, 14, c., where Adam is said to be 'a figure of Christ; and the resemblance between them is shown to lie in this, that as 'sin' and 'death' descend from one, so 'righteousness' and 'life." from the other. Consequently, what Christ is with regard to all his spiritual seed, that Adam is with regard to all his natural descendants; namely, a public person, a federal head, a legal representative: One with whom the covenant was made, not only for himself, but also for his whole posterity." "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John iii. 5, 6. "IN this text we have, "I. The new birth described; "II. The necessity of it insisted on; "III. The original corruption of every child of Adam ob served, as that from which the necessity of such a change arises. "I. The new birth is here described. Whatever this im plies, the Spirit of God is the sole author of it. He does not help a man to regenerate himself, but takes the work into his own hands. A child of God, as such, is 'not born of blood;' does not become so by descent from pious parents.

A child of God, as such, is 'not born of blood;' does not become so by descent from pious parents. He is not 'born of the will of the flesh; is not renewed by the power of 'his own carnal will; 'nor of man,' of any man whatsoever, "but of God, by the sole power of his Spirit. "In regeneration, the Holy Spirit mortifies "the old man,' corrupt nature, and breathes a principle of life into the soul; a principle of faith, of sincere love, and willing obedience to God. He who was 'dead in sin," is now 'dead to sin," and "alive to God through Jesus Christ." God has 'created in him a clean heart, and renewed a right spirit within him.' He has 'created" him 'unto good works, and 'written" his 'law in his heart." But if the Spirit of God is the sole agent in the work of regeneration; if the soul of man has no active interest or concern in his 'being born again;' if man was created holy, and regeneration re-instamps that holy image of God on the soul; if 'the new man is created after God in righteousness and true holiness; if the corruption of nature (termed 'the old man' or 'flesh") is not contracted by imita tion or custom, but is an inbred hereditary distemper, coeval with our nature; if all truly good works are the fruits of a good heart, a good principle wrought in the soul; it plainly follows, that the faith, hope, love, fear, which distinguish the children of God from others, are not of the nature of acquired, but of infused, habits or principles. To say then, "that all holiness must be the effect of a man's own choice and en deavour, and that, by a right use of his natural powers, every man may and must attain a habit of holiness,' that is, 'be born again, however pleasing it may be to human vanity, is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture. "And all the scriptural expressions on this head are grounded on the real nature of things. "Sin' is of the nature of 'filth' and 'corruption.". It pollutes the whole man, and renders him as an 'unclean thing' in the sight of God.

It pollutes the whole man, and renders him as an 'unclean thing' in the sight of God. When, therefore, the Spirit of God removes this, he is said to "create a clean heart, to "purify the heart, to 'sprinkle clean water upon us, to wash us 'from our 'filthiness.' And this cleansing efficacy is in the text expressed by being 'born of water and of the Spirit." "When, therefore, our Lord speaks of being 'born of the Spirit, his plain meaning is, there is a spiritual cleansing you must partake of, mentioned in those promises: 'I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you. And I will take away the stony heart, and I will give you a heart of flesh." These promises give us a plain description of the Spirit's regenerating work; without experiencing which, our state is miserable now, and will be much more so hereafter. "II. For this spiritual renovation of the soul is indispens ably necessary. Without it none can 'enter the kingdom of heaven, either the kingdom of grace or of glory. "1. 'Except a man be born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of grace; he cannot be a loyal subject of Jesus Christ. By nature we are subjects of Satan; and such we must remain, unless renewing grace 'translate us into the kingdom of God's dear Son." "2. Consequently, 'except we are born again, we cannot "enter into the kingdom of glory. Indeed, supposing he could be admitted there, what could an unregenerate sinner do in heaven? He could not possibly have any relish either for the business, the company, or the enjoyments of that world. "III. Our Lord, having asserted the absolute necessity of the new birth, to show the ground of this necessity, adds, 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Here observe, "l. Our Lord opposes 'flesh" and 'spirit" to each other; which opposition we often meet with. Whatever, therefore, is meant by these two, they denote things opposite. "2. He speaks here of two several births, which are dis tinctly mentioned. "3.

"3. The former of these two is spoken of as that which renders the other so necessary. Because "that which is born of the flesh is flesh; therefore 'we must be born of the Spirit: Therefore this great change must be wrought in us, or we cannot 'enter into the kingdom of God." "4. If the latter of these is made necessary by the former, then to be 'born flesh" is to be born corrupt and sinful. And, indeed, the word 'flesh" is very frequently taken for the corrupt principle in man. It is always so taken when it stands opposed to 'the Spirit, or to that inwrought principle of obedience, which itself also (taking the name of its Author) is sometimes termed 'Spirit." "Now, in the text, whatever or whoever is born of a man, since the fall, is denominated 'flesh.' And that "flesh" is here put, not for sinless frailty, but sinful corruption, we learn from its being opposed to the 'Spirit." Christ was born frail, as well as we, and in this sense was 'flesh; yet, being without sin, he had no need to be 'born of the Spirit." This is not made necessary by any sinless infirmities, but by a sinful nature only. This alone is opposite to 'the Spirit; thus, therefore, we must understand it here. "But Dr. Taylor says, "To be born of the flesh is only to be naturally born of a woman. I answer, Is not 'flesh" op posed to 'Spirit' in this verse? Is it not the Spirit of God, which is spoken of in the latter clause, together with the principle of grace, which is in every regenerate person? And is anything beside sinful corruption opposite to the Spirit of God? No, certainly . But if so, and if wherever 'flesh" is opposed to 'the Spirit, it implies sinful corruption, then it is evident, to be 'born of the flesh, is to be the sinful offspring of sinful parents, so as to have need of the renewing influ ences of the Holy Spirit, on that account, even from our birth.

But if so, and if wherever 'flesh" is opposed to 'the Spirit, it implies sinful corruption, then it is evident, to be 'born of the flesh, is to be the sinful offspring of sinful parents, so as to have need of the renewing influ ences of the Holy Spirit, on that account, even from our birth. "If to 'walk after the flesh, as opposed to "walking after the Spirit," is to follow our sinful inclinations; if to 'be in the flesh, opposed to "being in the Spirit, is to be in a state of sin; if 'the flesh" and 'the Spirit" are two contrary prin ciples, which counteract each other; (Gal. v. 16, 17;) if 'the works of the flesh, and the lusts of the flesh, are opposed to 'the Spirit" and 'the fruit of the Spirit;' then, "to be born of the flesh" must signify more than barely to be born of a woman. Had Adam transmitted a pure nature to his de scendants, still each of them would have been born of a woman; but they would have had no necessity of being 'born of the Spirit, or renewed by the Holy Ghost. "But what is that corruption of nature which the Scrip ture terms flesh 2 There are two branches of it: 1. A want of original righteousness: 2. A natural propensity to sin. "1. A want of original righteousness. God created man righteous; holiness was connatural to his soul; a principle of love and obedience to God. But when he sinned he lost this principle. And every man is now born totally void both of the knowledge and love of God. "2. A natural propensity to sin is in every man. And this is inseparable from the other. If man is born and grows up without the knowledge or love of God, he is born and grows up propense to sin; which includes two things,' an aversion to what is good, and an inclination to what is evil. "We are naturally averse to what is good. 'The carnal mind is enmity against God. Nature does not, will not, cannot, submit to his holy, just, and good law. Therefore, 'they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Being averse to the will, law, and ways of God, they are utterly indisposed for such an obedience as the relation between God and man indispensably requires.

Being averse to the will, law, and ways of God, they are utterly indisposed for such an obedience as the relation between God and man indispensably requires. "And as we are all naturally averse to what is good, so we are naturally inclined to what is evil. Even young children of themselves run into evil; but are with difficulty brought to practise what is good. No sooner do they discover rea son, than they discover evil, unreasonable dispositions. And these discovering themselves in every one, even from his early childhood, manifestly prove the inbred and universal corruption of human nature. "But why is this corruption termed flesh? Not because it is confined to the body. It is the corruption of our whole nature, and is therefore termed 'the old man." Not because it consists merely in a repugnance of the sensual appetites to reason. This is but one branch of that corruption; the whole of it is far more extensive. Not because it is prima rily seated in the body; it is primarily seated in the soul. If "sin reigns in our mortal bodies, it is because the sinful soul uses the bodily members as 'instruments of unrighteousness.' "'Nay, all which those words, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, mean, is this: All men being descended of frail and mortal parents are, like them, frail and mortal. In con sequence of Adam's sin, all his descendants die.' "I answer, 1. Though this be true, it is not the whole truth. Nor is it the proper truth of the text, which speaks of our being 'born of the flesh, as the reason why we must be 'born of the Spirit." "2. It is not consistent with the moral perfections of God for sinless creatures to be born 'mortal." Death, in every sense of the word, is the proper "wages of sin.' 'Sin has the same casual influence on death, as the obedience of Christ has on eternal life. "3. We are not only born 'mortal, but 'children of wrath; we who are now regenerate, as well as others. "4. The Scripture ascribes both our "mortality' and 'cor ruption' to our relation to Adam. "In him all die; 'through the offence of one, many, all mankind, are dead, liable to death. Again: "By the disobedience of one, the same, 'many are constituted sinners.

Again: "By the disobedience of one, the same, 'many are constituted sinners. Therefore, when our Lord says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, he means, not only that we and our parents are 'mortal, but that all man kind derive spiritual as well as temporal death from their first father." "1. SIN is "a transgression of the law;' of that law of God to which a rational creature is subject. "Righteousness' is a fulfilment of, or conformity to, that law. This is the proper scriptural sense of the words. But as sin involves the creature in guilt, that is, a liableness to punishment, the same words are often used to denote either sin itself, or guilt and punishment. On the other hand, righteousness denotes, not only a fulfilling of the law, but also a freedom from guilt and punishment; yea, and sometimes all the rewards of righteousness." (Pages 1,2...) "Accordingly, to impute sin, is either to impute sin itself, or guilt on the account of it. To impute sin itself to a person, is to account him a transgressor of the law, to pronounce him such, or to treat him as a transgressor. To impute guilt to a person, is to account him obnoxious to a threatened punish ment, to pronounce him so, or to inflict that punishment. So, to impute righteousness, properly so called, is to account him a fulfiller of the law, to pronounce him so to be, and to treat him as righteous. And to impute righteousness, as opposed to guilt, is to account, to pronounce, and to treat him as guiltless. "Thus much is agreed. But the point in question is, "Does God impute no sin or righteousness but what is per sonal?" Dr. Taylor positively asserts, he does not. I under take to prove that he does; that he imputes Adam's first sin to all mankind, and our sins to Christ." "l. God imputes Adam's first sin to all mankind. I do not mean that the actual commission of it was imputed to any beside himself; (it was impossible it should;) nor is the guilt of it imputed to any of his descendants, in the full latitude of it, or in regard to its attendant circumstances. It consti tutes none of them equally guilty with him.

It consti tutes none of them equally guilty with him. Yet both that sin itself, and a degree of guilt on account of it, are imputed to all his posterity; the sin itself is imputed to them, as included in their head. And on this account, they are reputed guilty, are 'children of wrath, liable to the threat ened punishment. And this cannot be denied, supposing, (1.) Man's original righteousness: (2.) Adam's being the federal head of all mankind." "(1.) Man's original righteousness has been largely proved. Let me add only an argument ad hominem. Supposing (not granting) that the Son of God is no more than the first of creatures, either he was originally righteous, or he was not. If he was not, then time was when he was not 'the Holy One of God;' and possibly he never might have been such, no, nor righteous at all; but instead of that, as ungodly, guilty, and wretched, as the devil himself is. For the best creature is (Dr. Taylor grants) alterable for the worst; and the best, when corrupted, becomes the worst. Again: If the Son of God was a mere creature, and as such made without righteousness, (which every creature must be, according to Dr. Taylor,) then he was not, could not be, at first as righteous, as like God, as the holy angels are now, yea, or as any holy man on earth is. But if these suppositions are shockingly absurd; if the Son of God could not have become as bad as the devil; if he never was unrighteous; if he was not originally less holy than angels and men are now; then the assertion, 'that righteous ness must be the effect of a creature's antecedent choice and endeavour, falls to the ground." (Pages, 7, 9, 10.) "But the Hebrew word jasher, Dr. Taylor says, "does not generally signify a moral character. This is one of the numer ous critical mistakes in this gentleman's books. Of the more than one hundred and fifty texts in which jasher, or the sub stantive josher, occurs, there are very few which do not confirm our interpretation of Ecclesiastes vii.29. "But jasher is applied to various things not capable of moral action. It is; and what then? Many of these applications are neither for us, nor against us.

Many of these applications are neither for us, nor against us. Some make strongly for us; as when it is applied to the words or ways of God and man. But the question now is, what it signifies when applied to God or to moral agents, and that by way of opposition to a vicious character and conduct. Is it not, in the text before us, applied to man as a moral agent, and by way of opposition to a corrupt character and conduct? No man can deny it. Either, therefore, prove, that jasher, when opposed, as here, to a corrupt conduct and character, does not signify righteous, or acknowledge the truth, that God "created man upright, or righteous." "To evade the argument from Ephesians iv. 24, Dr. Taylor first says, "The old man means a heathenish life;' and then says, "The old and new man do not signify a course of life.' What then do they signify? Why, 'The old man,' says he, "relates to the Gentile state; and the new man is either the Christian state, or the Christian Church, body, society.' But for all this, he says again, a page or two after, "The old and new man, and the new man's being renewed, and the renewing of the Ephesians, do all manifestly refer to their Gentile state and wicked course of life, from which they were lately converted.' "When, then, the Apostle says, "Our old man is crucified with Christ, (Romans vi. 6) is it the Gentile state or course of life which was so crucified? No; but the corrupt nature, 'the body of sin," as it is termed in the same verse. And 'to put off the old man,' is, (according to St. Paul,) 'to crucify" this 'with its affections and desires.' On the other hand, to 'put on the new man,' is to cultivate the divine principle which is formed in the soul of every believer by the Spirit of Christ. It is this of which it is said, (i.) It is created; and in regard to it we are said to be "created unto good works." (ii.) It is renewed; for it is indeed no other than original righteousness restored. (iii.) It is after God, after his image and likeness, now stamped afresh on the soul.

(iii.) It is after God, after his image and likeness, now stamped afresh on the soul. (iv.) It con sists in righteousness and holiness, or that knowledge which comprehends both." (Pages 13, 14.) "Again: To that argument, "Either man at first loved God, or he was an enemy to God," Dr. Taylor gives only this slight, superficial answer: "Man could not love God before he knew him;' without vouchsafing the least notice of the arguments which prove, that man was not created without the knowledge of God. Let him attend to those proofs, and either honestly yield to their force, or, if he is able, fairly confute them. "The doctrine of original sin presupposes, "(2.) Adam's being the federal head of all mankind. Seve ral proofs of this having been given already, I need not pro duce more until those are answered. "2. God imputes our sins, or the guilt of them, to Christ. He consented to be responsible for them, to suffer the punish ment due for them. This sufficiently appears from Isai. liii., which contains a summary of the Scripture doctrine upon this head. "He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows." The word nasa (borne) signifies, (1.) To take up somewhat, as on one's shoulders: (2.) To bear or carry something weighty, as a porter does a burden: (3.) To take away : And in all these senses it is here applied to the Son of God. He carried, as a strong man does a heavy burden, (the clear, indisputable sense of the other word, sabal,) our sorrows; the suffering of various. kinds which were due to our sins. 'He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. Wounds and bruises are put for the whole of his sufferings; as his death and blood frequently are. He was wounded and bruised, not for sins of his own; not merely to show God's hatred of sin; not chiefly to give us a pattern of patience; but for our sins, as the proper, impulsive cause. Our sins were the procuring cause of all his sufferings. His sufferings were the penal effects of our sins.

His sufferings were the penal effects of our sins. 'The chastisement of our peace, the punishment necessary to procure it, "was laid "on him, freely submitting thereto: "And by his stripes" (a part of his sufferings again put for the whole) "we are healed;' pardon, sanctification, and final salvation, are all purchased and bestowed upon us. Every chastisement is for some fault. That laid on Christ was not for his own, but ours; and was needful to reconcile an offended Lawgiver, and offending guilty creatures, to each other. So 'the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all; that is, the punishment due to our iniquity." (Pages 16-20.) "It is true, as Dr. Taylor says, "sin and iniquity often sig nify affliction or suffering. But why? Because it is usual for a cause to give denomination to its effect. And so the conse quences of sin are called by the same name. But this rather hurts Dr. Taylor's cause than helps it. For sufferings could with no propriety be called sin, if they were not the proper effects of it. Man, in innocence, was liable to no suffering or sorrow ; he was indeed tried, but not by suffering. All sorrow was introduced by sin; and if man is 'born to trouble, it is because he is born 'in sin." God indeed does afflict his children for their good; and turns even death into a blessing. Yet as it is the effect of sin, so is it in itself an enemy to all mankind; nor would any man have been either tried or cor rected by affliction, had it not been for sin." (Pages 21, 22.) "The Lord's laying on Christ 'the iniquity of us all,' was eminently typified by the High Priest putting all the iniqui ties of Israel on the scape-goat, who then carried them away. "But the goat, says Dr. Taylor, "was to suffer nothing. This is a gross mistake. It was a 'sin-offering,' (verse 5) and, as such, was to 'bear upon him all the iniquities' of the people into the wilderness; and there (as the Jewish Doctors una nimously hold) to suffer a violent death, by way of punish ment, instead of the people, for their sins "put upon him.' Yet Dr. Taylor says, "Here was no imputation of sin. No! What is the difference between imputing sins, and putting them upon him?

What is the difference between imputing sins, and putting them upon him? This is just of a piece with, "A sin-offering that suffered nothing; a creature 'turned loose into a land the properest for its subsistence, while bearing upon him all the iniquities of God's people !" (Pages 23-25.) "Thus 'Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Dr. Taylor, when he wrote his late books, was not apprized of the usual scripture meaning of this awful word, curse. It is often put to signify the legal punishment of sin. What the law of God threatens against transgressors, or the threatening itself, is frequently called by this name. What signifies then his trifling observation, 'that God inflicted no curse on our first parents?' (Gen. iii. 16-18;) that is, he did not say, in so many words, 'Cursed art thou, O man, or 'O woman. But God's cursing the ground for man's sake, was really a curse pronounced against him; and what the Lord said to the woman was really a curse, a penalty legally inflicted on her. For God is then said to curse, when he either threatens to punish, or actually punishes, his creatures for sin. See Deut. xxvii. 15, c.; xxviii. 16, c.; Jer. xvii. 5; Zech. v. 3." (Pages 39, 40.) "To conclude: Either we must allow the imputation of Adam's sin, whatever difficulties attend it, or renounce justifi cation by Christ, and salvation through the merit of his blood. Accordingly, the Socinians do this. Whether Dr. Taylor does, let every thinking man judge, after having weighed what he writes, particularly at pages 72,73, of his 'Scripture Doctrine.' 'The worthiness of Christ is his consummate virtue. It is virtue that carrieth every cause in heaven. Virtue is the only price which purchaseth everything with God. True virtue, or the right exercise of reason, is true worth, and the only valu able consideration, the only power which prevails with God." These passages are indeed connected with others, which carry with them a show of ascribing honour to Christ and grace. But the fallacy lies open to every careful, intelligent, unpre judiced reader. He ascribes to Christ a singular worthiness; but it is nothing more than superior degree of the same kind of worthiness which belongs to every virtuous man.

He ascribes to Christ a singular worthiness; but it is nothing more than superior degree of the same kind of worthiness which belongs to every virtuous man. He talks of Christ's consummate virtue, or his obedience to God, and good-will to man. And to this virtue of his, as imitated by us, he would teach us to ascribe our acceptance with God; which is indeed to ascribe it to ourselves, or to our own virtue; to works of righteousness done by us, in direct opposition to the whole tenor of the gospel. To what dangerous lengths are men carried by an ignorance of God, as infinitely holy and just; by a fond conceit of their own abilities, and a resolved opposition to the doctrine of original sin! Rather than allow this, they renounce Christ as the meritorious procurer of sal vation for sinners. They may seem, indeed, to acknowledge him as such, and talk of "eternal life as given by God through his Son." But all this is mere show, and can only impose on the ignorant and unwary. They dare not profess, in plain terms, that Christ has merited salvation for any; neither can they consistently allow this, while they deny original sin." (Pages 80, 81.) "Let not any, then, who regard their everlasting interests, entertain or even tamper with doctrines which, how plausibly soever recommended, are contrary to many express texts, nay, to the whole tenor of Scripture, and which cannot be embraced without renouncing an humble dependence on Christ, and rejecting the gospel method of salvation." "God grant every reader of this plain treatise may not only be convinced of the truth and importance of the scripture doctrines maintained therein, but invincibly confirmed in his attachments to them, by an experimental knowledge of their happy influence on faith, holiness, and comfort Then shall we gladly say, We, who are made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, are made righteous by the obedience of Christ. His righteousness entitles us to a far better inheritance than that we lost in Adam. In consequence of being justified through him, we shall "reign in life' with him. Unto whom, with God the Father, and the sanctifying, comforting Spirit, be ascribed all praise for ever !" "THE phrase, original sin, so far as we can discover, was first used in the fourth century.

Unto whom, with God the Father, and the sanctifying, comforting Spirit, be ascribed all praise for ever !" "THE phrase, original sin, so far as we can discover, was first used in the fourth century. The first who used it was either St. Chrysostom, or Hilary, some of whose words are these: 'The Psalmist says, Behold, I was conceived in iniqui ties, and in sins did my mother conceive me. He acknow ledges that he was born under original sin and the law of sin." Soon after Hilary's time, St. Augustine, and other Christian writers, brought it into common use." (Pages 2, 3.) "The scriptural doctrine of original sin may be comprised in the following propositions: "I. Man was originally made righteous or holy. "II. That original righteousness was lost by the first sin. "III. Thereby man incurred death of every kind; for," "IV. Adam's first sin was the sin of a public person, one whom God had appointed to represent all his descendants. "W. Hence all these are from their birth 'children of wrath,' void of all righteousness, and propense to sin of all sorts. "I add, WI. This is not only a truth agreeable to Scripture and reason, but a truth of the utmost importance, and one to which the Churches of Christ, from the beginning, have borne a clear testimony." - "I. Man was originally made righteous or holy; formed with such a principle of love and obedience to his Maker as disposed and enabled him to perform the whole of his duty with ease and pleasure. This has been proved already; and this wholly over turns Dr. Taylor's fundamental aphorism, 'Whatever is natural is necessary, and what is necessary is not sinful. For if man was originally righteous or holy, we may argue thus: It was at first natural to man to love and obey his Maker; yet it was not necessary; neither as necessary is opposed to voluntary or free; (for he both loved and obeyed freely and willingly;) nor, as necessary means unavoidable; (this is manifest by the event;) no, nor as necessary is opposed to rewardable; for had he continued to love and obey, he would have been rewarded with everlasting happiness.

For if man was originally righteous or holy, we may argue thus: It was at first natural to man to love and obey his Maker; yet it was not necessary; neither as necessary is opposed to voluntary or free; (for he both loved and obeyed freely and willingly;) nor, as necessary means unavoidable; (this is manifest by the event;) no, nor as necessary is opposed to rewardable; for had he continued to love and obey, he would have been rewarded with everlasting happiness. Therefore that assertion, 'What ever is natural is necessary, is palpably, glaringly false; consequently, what is natural, as well as what is acquired, may be good or evil, rewardable or punishable." "II. Man's original righteousness was lost by the first sin. Though he was made righteous, he was not made immutable. He was free to stand or fall. And he soon fell, and lost at once both the favour and image of God. This fully appears, 1. From the account which Moses gives of our first parents, where we read, (1.) 'The eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;' (Gen. iii.;) that is, they were conscious of guilt, and touched with a pungent sense of their folly and wickedness. They began to find their naked ness irksome to them, and to reflect on it with sinful emotions of soul. (2.) Immediately they were indisposed for com munion with God, and struck with such a dread of him as could not consist with true love. (Verse 8.) (3.) When questioned by God, how do they prevaricate, instead of con fessing their sin, and humbly imploring forgiveness! which proves, not only their having "inned, but their being as yet wholly impenitent. (4.) The judgment passed upon them was a proof of their being guilty in the sight of God. Thus was man's original righteousness lost; thus did he fall both from the favour and image of God." (Pages 14, 15.) "This appears, 2. From the guilt which inseparably attends every trangression of the divine law. I say, every transgres sion; because every sin virtually contains all sin; for 'whoso ever keepeth the whole law, and offendeth in one point, he is guilty of all." Every single offence is a virtual breach of all the commands of God.

I say, every transgres sion; because every sin virtually contains all sin; for 'whoso ever keepeth the whole law, and offendeth in one point, he is guilty of all." Every single offence is a virtual breach of all the commands of God. There is in every particular sin, the principle of all sin; namely, the contempt of that sovereign authority which is equally stamped upon every command. When, therefore, our first parents ate the forbidden fruit, they not only violated a particular precept, but the entire law of God. They could not sin in one instance, without virtually transgressing the whole law of their creation; which being once done, their title to God's favour and their original righteousness were both lost." "This appears, 3. From the comprehensive nature and aggravating circumstances of the first transgression. For it implied, (1.) Unbelief: Man did not dare to break the divine command till he was brought to question the truth of the divine threatening. (2.) Irreverence of God: Reverence is a mixture of love and fear; and had they continued in their first love and filial fear, they could not have broken through the sole com mand of God. (3.) Ingratitude : For what a return did they hereby make to their Creator for all his benefits 1 (4.) Pride and ambition; affecting to be 'as gods, knowing good and evil." (5.) Sensuality: The woman looked upon the fruit with an irregular appetite. Here the conflict between reason and sense began. To talk of such a conflict in man before he fell is to represent him as in a degree sinful and guilty even while innocent. For conflict implies opposition; and an opposition of appetite to reason is nothing else than a repugnance to the law of God. But of this our first parents were no way guilty, till their innocence was impaired; till they were led by the temptation of the devil to desire the forbidden fruit. (6) Robbery: For the fruit was none of theirs. They had no manner of right to it. Thereforetheir taking it was a flatrobbery of God; which cannot be less criminal than robbing our fellow creatures. So comprehensive was the nature, so aggravated the circumstances, of man's first transgression." (Pages 17, 18.) "III. Hereby he incurred death of every kind; not only temporal, but also spiritual and eternal.

Hereby he incurred death of every kind; not only temporal, but also spiritual and eternal. By losing his original righteousness, he became not only mortal as to his body, but also spiritually dead, dead to God, dead in sin; void of that principle which St. Paul terms, 'the life of God;' (Eph. iv. 18;) St. John, "eternal life abiding in us." (1 John iii. 15.) A creature formed with a capacity of knowing, loving, and serving God, must be either 'dead in sin," or 'alive to God." Adam, in his primitive state, was 'alive to God;' but after he had sinned, dead in sin, as well as dead in law." "But Dr. Taylor is sure, only temporal death was to be the consequence of his disobedience. 'For death is the loss of life, and must be understood according to the nature of the life to which it is opposed. Most true; and the life to which it is here opposed, the life Adam enjoyed, till lost by sin, was not only bodily life, but that principle of holiness which the Scrip ture terms, 'the life of God. It was also a title to eternal life. All this, therefore, he lost by sin. And that justly; for 'death is the due "wages of sin;' death, both temporal, spiritual, and eternal." "IV. Adam's first sin was the sin of a public person,-one whom God had appointed to represent all his descendants. "This also has been proved. In one sense, indeed, Adam's sin was not ours. It was not our personal fault, our actual transgression. But in another sense it was ours; it was the sin of our common representative: And, as such, St. Paul shows it is imputed to us and all his descendants. Hence, "W. All these are from their birth 'children of wrath;' void of all righteousness, and propense to sin of all sorts. "In order to clear and confirm this proposition, I intend, "1. To consider a text which proves original sin in the full extent of it. "2. To explain some other texts, which relate either to the guilt or the corruption we derive from our first parents. "3. To add some arguments which Dr. Taylor has taken no notice of, or touched but very slightly. "4. To answer objections. "And, 1.

"And, 1. To consider that text, "And were by nature chil dren of wrath, even as others." (Eph. ii. 3.) In the beginning of the chapter, St. Paul puts the Ephesians in mind of what God had done for them. This led him to observe what they had been before their conversion to God: They had been 'dead in trespasses and sins; but were now "quickened, made alive to God. They had "walked according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that worketh with energy in the children of disobedience.' 'Among such," saith the Apostle, 'we all had our conversation in times past; the whole time before our conversion; 'fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature children of wrath, even as others." On this I observe, "(1.) The persons spoken of are both the believing Ephe sians and the Apostle himself. For he says not, "Ye were,' speaking in the second person, as he had done, verses 1, 2; but, "We were,' plainly with a design the more expressly to include himself. Indeed, had he still spoken in the second Terson, yet what is here affirmed would have been true of him as well as them. But for the sake of more explicitly including himself, he chose to say, 'We were; ' you, Ephesians, who were descended of heathen parents, and I who was born in the visible Church. "(2.) The 'wrath' here spoken of, means either God's displeasure at sinners, or the punishment which he threatens and inflicts for sin." (Pages 25-28.) "(3.) 'Children of wrath," is an Hebraism, and denotes persons worthy of, or liable to, wrath. And this implies the being sinners; seeing sin only exposes us to God's displea sure and the dreadful effects of it. "(4.) This charge the Apostle fixes on himself and them, as they had been before their conversion. He does not say, We are, but "we were, children of wrath.' " (5.) He speaks of himself and the converted Ephesians as having been so equally with others. There is an emphasis on the words, "even as others; even as the stubborn Jews and idolatrous Heathens; even as all who are still "strangers and enemies' to Christ. These are still 'children of wrath: ' But whatever difference there is between us and them, we were once what they are now.

These are still 'children of wrath: ' But whatever difference there is between us and them, we were once what they are now. "(6.) He expressly says, "We were children of wrath even as others, by nature," or, from our birth. He does not say, We became so by education, or by imitation, or by cus tom in sinning; but, to show us when it is that we commence sinners, by what means we become 'children of wrath, whence it is that we are so prone to evil from our infancy and to imitate bad rather than good examples, he says, "We were children of wrath by nature; we were born fallen crea tures; we came into the world sinners, and, as such, liable to wrath, in consequence of the fall of our first father. "But, it is affirmed, (i.) That "by nature means, by habit or custom.' I answer, Though the term, nature, with some qualifying expression annexed, is sometimes taken for in veterate custom, yet it is never so taken when put singly, without any such qualifying expression. When, therefore, the Apostle says absolutely, 'We are children of wrath by nature, this, according to the constant sense of the words, must mean, We were so from our birth." "It is affirmed, (ii.) That "because the original words stand thus, tekwa buoet opyms, children by nature of wrath; therefore, children by nature means only truly and really children of wrath. I answer, The consequence is good for nothing: For let the words stand as they will, it is evident that recwa. vae are, children by birth ; or, such as are born so, in dis tinction from those who became such afterward. "It is affirmed, (iii.) 'That buoet, by nature, signifies no more than truly or really." I answer, First, It is not allowed, that any good Greek writers ever use the word in this sense. Secondly, Whatever others do, the writers of the New Testa ment always use it in another sense. So Galatians ii. 15: "We who are Jews by nature,' buoet Iovôatou that is, We who are born Jews, in contradistinction to proselytes. 'Ye did service to them which by nature are no gods; " (Gal. iv.8;) um bvaret ovat Seous, persons or things which are partakers of no divine nature.

iv.8;) um bvaret ovat Seous, persons or things which are partakers of no divine nature. 'The Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law; " (Rom. ii. 14;) that is, by their own natural powers, with out a written law. Neither here, nor anywhere else, does the word (bvael signify no more than really or truly." "It remains, then, that the word which we render by nature does really so signify. "And yet it is allowed, we are not so guilty by nature, as a course of actual sin afterward makes us. But we are, ante cedent to that course, 'children of wrath; liable to some degree of wrath and punishment. Here, then, from a plain text, taken in its obvious sense, we have a clear evidence both of what Divines term, original sin imputed, and of original sin inherent. The former is the sin of Adam, so far reckoned ours as to constitute us in some degree guilty; the latter, a want of original righteousness, and a corruption of nature; whence it is, that from our infancy we are averse to what is good, and propense to what is evil." "I am, 2. To explain some other texts which relate either to theguilt or the corruption which we derive from our first parents. "Genesis v. 3: Here the image of Adam, in which he begat a son after his fall, stands opposed to the image of God, in which man was at first created. Moses had said, 'In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him." (Verse 1.) In this, speaking of Adam as he was after the fall, he does not say, He begat a son in the likeness of God; but, He 'begat a son in his own likeness, after his image. Now, this must refer to Adam, either as a man, or as a good man, or as a mortal, sinful man. But it could not refer to him merely as a man. The inspired writer could not design to inform us, that Adam begat a man, not a lion, or a horse.

The inspired writer could not design to inform us, that Adam begat a man, not a lion, or a horse. It could not well refer to him as a good man; for it is not said, Adam begat a son, who at length became pious like himself; but, He 'begat a son in his own like mess.' It refers to him, therefore, as a mortal, sinful man; giv ing us to know, that the mortality and corruption contracted by the fall descended from Adam to his son: Adam, a sinner, begat a sinner like himself. And if Seth was thus a sinner by nature, so is every other descendant of Adam." (Pages 35, 36.) "Dr. Taylor takes no notice of the antithesis between 'the likeness of God," (verse 1) and 'the likeness of Adam : ' (Verse 3:) On the other hand, he speaks of these two as one; as if Seth had been 'born' in the very same image of God wherein Adam was 'made." But this cannot be admitted; because Adam had now lost his original righteousness. It must therefore be "the likeness' of fallen, corrupted Adam which is here intended. "'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen. vi. 5.) Here Moses, having observed, as the cause of the flood, that 'God saw that the wickedness of man was great," to account for this general wickedness, adds, "Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil; yea, was 'only evil, and that "continually." The heart of man is here put for his soul. This God had formed with a marvellous thinking power. But so is his soul debased, that "every imagination, figment, formation, 'of the thoughts' of it, "is evil, only evil, 'continually evil. Whatever it forms within itself, as a thinking power, is an evil formation. This Moses spoke of the Antediluvians; but we cannot confine it to them. If all their actual wickedness sprung from the evil formations of their corrupt heart; and if consequently they were sinners from the birth, so are all others likewise." "'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil fröm his youth; neither will I again smite any more every living thing." (Gen. viii.

viii. 21.) I will not be provoked to this by the wickedness of mankind; for they are inclined tosin from their childhood. Was I, therefore,to do this as often as they deserve, I must be continually destroying the earth. The word-iss imagination (as was observed before) includes the thoughts, affections, inclinations, with everything which the soul, as a thinking being, forges and frames within itself. And the word we render youth, includes childhood and infancy, the earliest age of man; the whole time from his birth, or (as others affirm) from his formation in the womb. "Indeed Dr. Taylor would translate the text, 'Although the imagination of man's heart should be evil from his youth. But, (1.) Though the particle sometimes signifies although ; yet for is its common meaning. And we are not to recede from the usual signification of a word without any necessity. (2.) If we read although, it will not at all invalidate our proof. For still the plain meaning of the words would be, 'I will not send another general flood, although every figment or formation of the heart of every man is evil from his earliest infancy.'" "Although affliction cometh not forth of the dust; yet man is born to trouble, as the sparks fly upward.' (Job v. 6, 7.) The word which is here rendered affliction, sometimes signifies 'iniquity. For what reason, but to show that these two, 'sin' and 'affliction, are inseparable? Sin is the cause of affliction; and affliction, of whatever kind, is the genuine effect of sin. Indeed it is incompatible with the justice and mercy of God to appoint afflictions of any kind for the innocent. If Christ suffered, it was because the sins of others were im puted to him. If, then, every one of the posterity of Adam "is born to trouble, it must be because he is born a sinner: For man was not originally made to suffer. Nor while he preserved his innocence was he liable to suffering of any kind. Are the angels, or any pure, sinless creatures, liable to any sorrow or affliction? Surely no. But every child of Adam is. And it is in consequence of his sin, that the present life of man is short and afflictive; of which the very Heathens were deeply sensible.

And it is in consequence of his sin, that the present life of man is short and afflictive; of which the very Heathens were deeply sensible. They also saw, that "great travail is created for every man, and a heavy yoke is upon the sons of Adam, from the day that they go out of their mother's womb, till the day that they return to the mother of all things.'" "'Wain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass's colt;' (Job xi. 12;) in the original, 'though man be born' (will be born in every age) 'the colt of a wild ass. Dr. Taylor owns, "We are born quite ignorant." But this is far from reach ing the plain import of the text, in which man, as born into the world, is compared to an animal most remarkably stupid and intractable. And such all the sons of Adam naturally are, particularly with regard to the things of God; from their infancy slow to learn what is good, though impetuously pro pense to learn and practise what is evil." (Pages 43, 44.) "Job xiv. 4, and xv. 14. I join these, because the latter confirms the former. "Who can bring a clean thing, or person, "out of an unclean? Not one.' This is express. Job had been reflecting on the sorrowful, uncertain, imperfect state of all Adam's children in the present world. (xiv. 1-3.) Then he carries his thoughts to the spring of such a state, the original corruption of man. "Who, what creature, can make an innocent, righteous person proceed from a parent defiled by sin? 'Not one.' Through the whole Scripture we may observe, 'sin' is described as 'uncleanness,' and a sinner as an unclean thing. On the contrary, holiness is expressed by 'cleanness' of heart and hands; and the right eous man is described as clean. Agreeably to which, the text asserts the natural impossibility of any man's being born clean, guiltless, and sinless, because he proceeds from them who are unclean, guilty, and defiled with sin. "The Septuagint translate the text, "Who shall be clean from filth?

"The Septuagint translate the text, "Who shall be clean from filth? Not one; even though his life on earth be a single day.' And this rendering, though not according to the Hebrew, is followed by all the Fathers; and shows what was the general belief of the Jews before Christ came into the world." "'But since the heavens and stars are represented as not clean, compared to God, may not man also be here termed unclean, only as compared with him?" I answer, (1.) The heavens are manifestly compared with God; but man is not in either of these texts. He is here described, not as he is in comparison of God, but as he is absolutely in himself. (2.) When 'the heavens' and man' are mentioned in the same text, and man is set forth as 'unclean,' his 'uncleanness' is expressed by his being 'unrighteous;' and that always means guilty or sinful. Nor, indeed, is the innocent frailty of man kind ever in Scripture termed 'uncleanness.'" (Pages 45,46.) "'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm li. 5.) The Psalmist here con fesses, bewails, and condemns himself for his natural corrup tion, as that which principally gave birth to the horrid sins with which he had been overtaken. 'Behold !" He prefixes this to render his confession the more remarkable, and to show the importance of the truth here declared : 'I was shapen; this passive verb denotes somewhat in which neither David nor his parents had any active concern: "In or with 'iniquity, and in or with 'sin did my mother conceive me.' The word which we render 'conceive, signifies properly, to warm, or to cherish by warmth. It does not, therefore, so directly refer to the act of conceiving as to the cherishing what is conceived till the time of its birth. But either way the proof is equally strong for the corruption of mankind from their first existence." (Pages 47, 48.) "'The wicked are estranged from the womb : They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.' 'They are estranged from the womb;' (Psalm lviii. 3, 4;) strangers and averse to true, practical religion, from the birth. 'They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

'They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Not that they actually speak lies as soon as they are born; but they natu rally incline that way, and discover that inclination as early as is possible." (Pages 51, 52.) "'Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.' (Prov. xxii. 15.) 'The rod and reproof give wisdom: But a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.' (xxix. 15.) These passages put together are a plain testimony of the inbred corruption of young children. "Foolishness, in the former, is not barely "appetite, or a want of the knowledge attainable by instruction." Neither of these deserve that sharp correction. But it is an indisposedness to what is good, and a strong propensity to evil. This 'foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; it is rooted in his inmost nature. It is, as it were, 'fastened to him by strong cords; so the original word signifies. From this corrup tion of heart in every child it is, that the 'rod of correction' is necessary to give him 'wisdom: Hence it is, that "a child left to himself,' without correction, 'brings his mother to shame. If a child were born equally inclined to virtue and vice, why should the wise man speak of foolishness, or wicked ness, as fastened so closely to his heart? And why should 'the rod and reproof' be so necessary for him? These texts, therefore, are another clear proof of the corruption of human nature. "'Those things which proceed out of the mouth, come from the heart, and they defile the man. For from within, out of the heart, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, murders: All these things come from within, and defile the man.' (Matt.xv. 18, 19; Mark vii. 20-23.) Our Lord here teaches, that all evil thoughts, words, and actions, of every kind, flow out of the heart, the soul of man, as being now averse to all good, and inclined to all evil." (Pages 55, 56.) "Rom. v. 12-19. Let the reader please to read the whole passage very carefully.

Let the reader please to read the whole passage very carefully. The Apostle here discourses of Adam and Christ as two representatives or public persons, comparing the 'sin' of the one, with the 'righteousness' of the other." "On this I observe, (1.) The 'one man, spoken of through out, is Adam, the common head of mankind: And to him (not to the devil or Eve) the Apostle ascribes the introduction of 'sin' and 'death. The devil was the first sinner, and Eve, seduced by him, sinned before her husband. Yet the Apostle saith, "By one man sin entered into the world; through the offence of one many are dead; the judgment was by one to con demnation; death reigned by one. By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men; by one man's disobedience many were made sinners." Now, why should the Apostle lay all this on Adam, whose sin was posterior both to the devil's and Eve's, if Adam was not appointed by God the federal head of mankind? In regard to which the Apostle points at him singly, as the type or 'figure of Him that was to come.' According to Dr. Taylor's doctrine, he should rather have said, 'By the devil sin entered into the world;' or, 'Through the disobedience of Eve, many were made sinners. But, instead of this he fixes on our first father alone, as bringing sin and death on all his posterity." "(2.) 'The sin, transgression, offence, disobedience, here spoken of, was Adam's eating the forbidden fruit. It is remark able, that as the Apostle throughout his discourse arraigns one man only, so he ascribes all the mischief done to one single offence of that one man. And as he then stood in that special relation of federal as well as natural head to his descendants, soupon his committing that one sin, this special relation ceased. "(3.) The 'all, (verses 12, 18,) and the 'many,' (verses 15, 19,) are all the natural descendants of Adam; equivalent with 'the world, (verse 12,) which means the inhabitants of it." "(4.) The effects of Adam's sin on his descendants, the Apos tlereduces to two heads, sin and death.

"(3.) The 'all, (verses 12, 18,) and the 'many,' (verses 15, 19,) are all the natural descendants of Adam; equivalent with 'the world, (verse 12,) which means the inhabitants of it." "(4.) The effects of Adam's sin on his descendants, the Apos tlereduces to two heads, sin and death. 'By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned.' "Sin' sometimes means "punishment; but not here: 'Sin and 'death' are here plainly distinguished. The common translation is therefore right, and gives us the true meaning of the words. "Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned; ' namely, in or with their first father. And this agrees with the context; the purport of which is, that all have sinned, and are therefore liable to the death originally threatened; which is evident from this: That ' until the law sin was in the world; ' in the ages that preceded the law of Moses, all men were sinners in the sight of God: "But sin is not imputed where there is no law; ' none can be sinners in the sight of God if they are not transgressors of some law, for the transgressing of which they are reputed guilty: "Nevertheless death reigned' all the time 'from Adam to Moses' over all mankind. Now, if none is liable to death, but for sin; if "sin is not imputed where there is no law; and if, notwithstanding this, all mankind in all ages have died; infants themselves, who cannot actually sin, not excepted; it is undeniable, that guilt is imputed to all for the sin of Adam. Why else are they liable to that which is inflicted on none but for sin 7 "This is the purport of the Apostle's arguing, (verses 1214,) which having led him to mention Adam as a figure of Christ, he then draws a parallel between them. The substance of it is this: As through the 'offence of Adam many are dead," as 'by the disobedience of him many are made sinners;" so through the righteousness or "obedience of Christ many are made righteous. But how are many dead, or made sinners, through the disobedience of Adam?

But how are many dead, or made sinners, through the disobedience of Adam? His first sin so far affects all his descendants as to constitute them guilty, or liable to all that death which was contained in the original threatening." "But Dr. Taylor avers, 'To be made sinners, means only to be subjected to temporal death.' "I answer, (1.) Whatever it means, the disobedience of Adam had a proper, causal influence upon it; just as the obedience of Christ has upon our being made righteous. "(2.) What 'to be made sinners' means, must be learned from the opposite to it, in the latter part of the verse. Now, allowing the Apostle to be his own interpreter, "being made righteous' is the same with "justification." (Verse 16.) Of this he had treated largely before. And through the whole of his discourse, 'to be justified is to be acquitted from guilt, and accepted of God' as righteous. Consequently, 'to be made sinners' is to be 'condemned of God," or to be 'children of wrath, and that on account of Adam's sin." "By man came death: In Adam all die." (1 Cor. xv.21, 22.) Let the reader please to bear in mind the whole of the two verses and the context. By 'man,' in the twenty-first verse, is meant Adam. The "all" spoken of are all his natural descendants. These 'all die;' that is, as his descendants, are liable to death, yea, to death everlasting. That this is the meaning appears hence: That the 'being made alive," to which this dying stands opposed, is not a mere recovery of life, but a blessed resurrection to a glorious immortality. Hence I observe, (1.) Man was originally immortal as well as righteous. In his primitive state he was not liable to death. (2.) Death is constantly ascribed to sin, as the sole and proper cause of it. As it was threatened only for sin, so the sentence was not pronounced till after man had sinned. (3.) All men are mortal from their birth. As soon as they begin to live they are liable to death, the punishment de nounced against sin, and sin only. (4.) This is the genuine effect of the first sin of our first father.

(4.) This is the genuine effect of the first sin of our first father. The Apostle does not attribute it to the devil; neither does he say, 'In Adam and Eve all die.' But here also he mentions Adam singly. Him he speaks of as 'a figure of Christ." (Verses 45, 47, 48.) And here, as the sole author of death to all his natural de scendants. 'In Adam, or on account of his fall, "all" of mankind, in every age, 'die;' consequently, in him all sinned. With him all fell in his first transgression. That they are all born liable to the legal punishment of sin proves him the federal as well as natural head of mankind; whose sin is so far imputed to all men, that they are born 'children of wrath, and liable to death." (Pages 74-77.) "Thus have I considered a large number of texts, which testify of original sin, imputed and inherent. Some are more express than others, of which kind are Job xiv. 4; Psalm li. 5; lviii. 3; Rom. v. 12, c.; 1 Cor. xv. 22; Eph. ii. 3. That in Ephesians presents us with a direct proof of the entire doc trine. Those in Romans and Corinthians relate directly to original sin imputed, and are but consequential proofs of original corruption. The rest refer particularly to this, and are but consequential proofs of original sin imputed. "And as this doctrine stands impregnable on the basis of Scripture, so it is perfectly agreeable to sound reason; as may appear from a few plain arguments which confirm this scripture doctrine." "(1.) If the first man was by God's appointment, as has been shown, the federal head of all his descendants, it fol lows, that when Adam sinned and fell, they all sinned in him, and fell with him. And if they did, they must come into the world both guilty and unclean. "'But we had no hand in Adam's sin, and therefore can not be guilty on account of it.' "This, 'We had no hand in it, is ambiguous. It means either, "We did not actually join therein, which no one denies, or, "We were wholly unconcerned in it; the contrary to which has been fully proved. "(2.) Since Adam's posterity are born liable to death, which is the due "wages of sin, it follows, that they are born sinners.

"(2.) Since Adam's posterity are born liable to death, which is the due "wages of sin, it follows, that they are born sinners. No art can set aside the consequence. "(3.) Either Christ is the Saviour of infants, or he is not; if he is not, how is he 'the Saviour of all men?" But, if he is, then infants are sinners; for he suffered death for sinners only. He 'came to seek and save' only 'that which was lost;' to 'save his people from their sins. It follows, that infants are sinners; that they are lost, and, without Christ, are undone for ever. "(4) The consequences of the contrary opinion are shock ingly absurd: "(i.) If original sin is not, either death is not 'the wages of sin," or there is punishment without guilt; God punishes innocent, guiltless creatures. To suppose which is to impute iniquity to the Most Holy." "(ii.) If we are not sinners by nature, there are sinful actions without a principle, fruit growing without a root. 'No; men contract sinful habits by degrees, and then com mence sinners.' But whence is it that they contract those habits so easily and speedily? Whence is it, that, as soon as ever we discover reason, we discover sinful dispositions? The early discoveries of reason prove a principle of reason planted in our nature. In like manner, the early discoveries of sinful dispositions prove those dispositions planted therein." "(iii.) If we were not ruined by the first Adam, neither are we recovered by the Second. If the sin of Adam was not imputed to us, neither is the righteousness of Christ. "(iv.) If we do not derive a corrupt nature from Adam, we do not derive a new nature from Christ. "(v.) A denial of original sin not only renders baptism needless with regard to infants, but represents a great part of mankind as having no need of Christ, or the grace of the new covenant. I now speak of infants in particular, who, if not "guilty before God,' no more need the merits and grace of the Second Adam than the brutes themselves. "Lastly. A denial of original sin contradicts the main design of the gospel, which is to humble vain man, and to ascribe to God's free grace, not man's free will, the whole of his salvation.

A denial of original sin contradicts the main design of the gospel, which is to humble vain man, and to ascribe to God's free grace, not man's free will, the whole of his salvation. Nor, indeed, can we let this doctrine go with out giving up, at the same time, the greatest part, if not all, of the essential articles of the Christian faith. If we give up this, we cannot defend either justification by the merits of Christ, or the renewal of our natures by his Spirit. Dr. Taylor's book is not, therefore, subversive of a particular branch, but of the whole scheme, of Christianity. "WI. The doctrine, therefore, of original sin is not only a truth agreeable to Scripture and reason, but a truth of the utmost importance. And it is a truth to which the Churches of Christ, from the beginning, have borne a clear testimony. "Few truths, if any, are more necessary to be known, be lieved, and thoroughly considered. For if we are not ac quainted with this, we do not know ourselves; and if we do not know ourselves, we cannot rightly know Christ and the grace of God. And on this knowledge of Christ and the grace of God depends the whole of our salvation. St. Augustine, therefore, well remarks, 'Christianity lies properly in the knowledge of what concerns, Adam and Christ. For, certainly, if we do not know Christ, we know nothing to any purpose; and we cannot know Christ, without some knowledge of what relates to Adam, who was 'the figure of Him that was to come.' "'But if this doctrine is so important, why is so little said of it in Scripture, and in the writings of the ancients?" "This is a grand mistake. We totally deny that the Scrip ture says little of it. Dr. Taylor, indeed, affirms, 'There are but five passages of Scripture that plainly relate to the effects of Adam's fall." Not so: Many Scriptures, as has been shown, plainly and directly teach us this doctrine; and many others deliver that from which it may be rationally and easily de duced. Indeed, the whole doctrine of salvation by Christ, and divine grace, implies this; and each of its main branches justification and regeneration directly leads to it.

Indeed, the whole doctrine of salvation by Christ, and divine grace, implies this; and each of its main branches justification and regeneration directly leads to it. So does the doctrine of man's original righteousness, than which nothing is more clearly revealed." "And if the writers before St. Augustine say little con cerning it, is not the reason plain? The occasions of their writing did not lead them to enlarge on what none had ever opposed or denied. For none had ever opposed or denied this doctrine. "Who, says Vincentius Lirinensis, 'before Celestius, denied all mankind to be involved in the guilt of Adam's transgression ?' Yet they are not silent concerning it. Justin Martyr speaks of 'mankind as fallen under death and the deceit of the serpent; of 'all Adam's descendants, as condemned for his sin; and all that are Christ's, as justi fied by him.' (Dial. with Trypho.) In Irenaeus there are nu merous, strong, express testimonies, both to original righteous ness and original sin in the full extent: 'What we lost in Adam, that is, a being after the image and likeness of God, this we recover by Christ." (Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 20.) Again "They who receive the ingrafted word return to the ancient nature of man, that by which he was made after the image and likeness of God." (Ibid. l. 5, c. 10.) He likewise speaks of our sinning in Adam: 'In the first Adam," says he, "we offended God; in the Second Adam, we are reconciled: " And frequently of "man's losing the image of God by the fall, and recovering it by Christ.' Tertullian says, "Man was in the beginning deceived, and, therefore, condemned to death; upon which his whole race became infected and par taker of his condemnation.' (De Testimonio Animae.) Cyprian is express in his Epistle to Fidus. Origen says, "The curse of Adam is common to all. Again: 'Man, by sinning, lost the image and likeness of God.' And again : "No one is clean from the filth of sin, even though he is not above a day old.'" "'The whole of me,' says Nazianzen, 'has need of being saved, since the whole of me fell, and was condemned for the disobedience of my first father. Many more are the testi monies of Athanasius, Basil, Hilary; all prior to St. Augus tine. And how generally since St.

And how generally since St. Augustine this important truth has been asserted is well known. Plain it is, therefore, that the Churches of Christ, from the beginning, have borne clear testimony to it. "To conclude, 1. This is a scriptural doctrine: Many plain texts directly teach it. "2. It is a rational doctrine, throughly consistent with the dictates of sound reason; and this, notwithstanding there may be some circumstances relating thereto which human reason cannot fathom." "3. It is a practical doctrine. It has the closest connexion with the life, power, and practice of religion. It leads man to the foundation of all Christian practice, the knowledge of him self; and hereby, to the knowledge of God, and the knowledge of Christ crucified. It prepares him for, and confirms him in, just conceptions of the dependence of his salvation, on the merits of Christ for justification, and the power of his Spirit for inward and outward holiness. It humbles the natural pride of man; it excludes self-applause and boasting; and points out the true and only way whereby we may fulfil all righteousness. "4. It is an experimental doctrine. The sincere Christian, day by day, carries the proof of it in his own bosom; expe riencing that in himself, which is abundantly sufficient to convince him, that "in him," by nature, 'dwelleth no good thing; but that it is God alone who worketh in him both to will and to do of his good pleasure.'" LEWISHAM, March 23, 1757. I HAVE now gone through, as my leisure would permit, this whole complicated question; and I have spoken on each branch of it with plainness and openness, according to the best light I have at present. I have only a few words more to add, and that with the same openness and simplicity. What I have often acknowledged, I now repeat. Were it not on a point of so deep importance, I would no more enter the lists with Dr. Taylor, than I would lift my hand against a giant. I acknowledge your abilities of every kind; your natural and acquired endowments; your strong understanding; your lively and fruitful imagination; your plain and easy, yet nervous style. I make no doubt of your having studied the original Scriptures for many years. And I believe you have moral endowments which are infinitely more valuable and more amiable than all these.

And I believe you have moral endowments which are infinitely more valuable and more amiable than all these. For (if I am not greatly deceived) you bear "good-will to all men." And may not I add, you fear God? O what might not you do with these abilities! What would be too great for you to attempt and effect! Of what service might you be, not only to your own countrymen, but to all that bear the Christian name ! How might you advance the cause of true, primitive, scriptural Christianity; of solid, rational virtue; of the deep, holy, happy, spiritual religion, which is brought to light by the gospel ! How capable are you of recommending, not barely morality, (the duty of man to man,) but piety, the duty of man to God, even the "worshipping him in spirit and in truth !" How well qualified are you to explain, enforce, defend, even "the deep things of God," the nature of the kingdom of God "within us;" yea, the interiora regni Dei !" (I speak on supposition of your having the "unction of the Holy One," added to your other qualifications.) And are you, whom God has so highly favoured, among those who serve the opposite cause? If one might transfer the words of a man to Him, might not one conceive Him to say, Kat av et exeuvov; scal av, Texvov;t Are you disserving the cause of inward religion, labouring to destroy the inward kingdom of God, sapping the foundations of all true, spiritual worship, advancing morality on the ruins of piety? Are you among those who are overthrow ing the very foundations of primitive, scriptural Christianity? which certainly can have noground to stand upon, if the scheme lately advanced be true. What room is there for it, till men repent? know themselves? Without this can they know or love God? O why should you block up the way to repentance, and, consequently, to the whole religion of the heart? "Let a man be a fool," says the Apostle, "that he may be wise." But you tell him, he is wise already; that every man is by nature as wise as Adam was in paradise. He gladly drinks in the soothing sound, and sleeps on and takes his rest.

He gladly drinks in the soothing sound, and sleeps on and takes his rest. We beseech those who are mad after earthly things, to take knowledge of the dreadful state they are in ; to return to their Father, and beg of him "the spirit of love and of asound mind." You tell them, they are of a "sound mind" already. They believe, and turn to their husks again. Jesus comes to "seek and save that which is lost." You tell the men of form, (though as dead to God as a stone,). that they are not lost; that (inasmuch as they are free from The more inward things of the kingdom of God. EDIT. + What! art thou one of them too ! Thou, my son? EDIT. gross sins,) they are in a good way, and will undoubtedly be saved. So they live and die, without the knowledge, love, or image of God; and die eternally ! "They will be saved." But are they saved already? We know all real Christians are. If they are, if these are possessed of the present salvation which the Scripture speaks of, what is that salvation? How poor, dry, dull, shallow, superficial a thing ! Wherein does it excel what the wiser Heathens taught, nay, and perhaps experienced? What poor pitiable creatures are those Christians, so called, who have advanced no higher than this! You see enough of these on every side; perhaps even in your own congregation. What knowledge have they of the things of God? what love to God, or to Christ? what heavenly mindedness? how much of "the mind which was in Christ Jesus?" How little have they profited by all your instructions ! How few are wiser and better than when you knew them first ! O take knowledge of the reason why they are not? That doctrine will not "make them wise unto salva tion." All it can possibly do, is to shake off the leaves. It does not affect the branches of sin. Unholy tempers are just as they were. Much less does it strike at the root: Pride, self-will, unbelief, heart-idolatry, remain undisturbed and unsuspected. I am grieved for the people who are thus seeking death in the error of their life. I am grieved for you, who surely desire to teach them the way of God in truth.

I am grieved for you, who surely desire to teach them the way of God in truth. O'Sir, think it possible, that you may have been mistaken that you may have leaned too far, to what you thought the better extreme! Be persuaded once more to review your whole cause, and that from the very foundation. And in doing so, you will not disdain to desire móre than natural light. O that "the Father of glory may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation : May He "enlighten the eyes of your understanding, that you may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints l'" March 24, 1757. BECAUSE of the unspeakable importance of throughly under standing this great foundation of all revealed religion, I subjoin one more extract, relating both to the original and the present state of man: "God "made man upright. By man we are to understand our first parents, the archetypal pair, the root of mankind. This man was made right, (agreeable to the nature of God, whose work is perfect) without any imperfection, corruption, or principle of corruption, in his body or soul. He was made upright; that is, straight with the will and law of God, with out any irregularity in his soul. God made him thus; he did not first make him, and then make him righteous: But in the very making of him he made him righteous; righteousness was concreated with him. With the same breath that God breathed into him a living soul, he breathed into him a righteous soul. "This righteousness was the conformity of all the faculties and powers of his soul to the moral law; which implied three things: "First. His understanding was a lamp of light. He was made after God's image, and, consequently, could not want knowledge, which is a part thereof. And a perfect knowledge of the law was necessary to fit him for universal obedience, see ing no obedience can be according to the law, unless it proceed from a sense of the command of God requiring it. It is true, Adam had not the law writ on tables of stone; but it was writ ten upon his mind.

It is true, Adam had not the law writ on tables of stone; but it was writ ten upon his mind. God impressed it upon his soul, and made him a law to himself, as the remains of it even among the Hea thens testify. And seeing man was made to be the mouth of the creation, to glorify God in his works, we have ground to believe, he had an exquisite knowledge of the works of God. We have a proof of this in his giving names to the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the air, and these such as express their From Mr. Boston's "Fourfold State of Man." nature: 'Whatsoever Adam called every living thing, that was the name thereof." And the dominion which God gave him over the creatures, soberly to use them according to his will, (still in subordination to the will of God,) implies a knowledge of their natures. "Secondly. His will lay straight with the will of God. There was no corruption in his will, no bent or inclination to evil; for that is sin properly so called; and, therefore, incon sistent with that uprightness with which it is expressly said he was endued at his creation. The will of man was then naturally inclined to God and goodness, though mutably. It was disposed by its original make to follow the Creator's will, as the shadow does the body. It was not left in an equal balance to good and evil; for then he had not been upright, or conform to the law; which no more can allow the creature not to be inclined to God as his end, than it can allow man to be a god to himself. "Thirdly. His affections were regular, pure, and holy. All his passions, yea, all his sensitive motions and inclinations, were subordinate to his reason and will, which lay straight with the will of God. They were all, therefore, pure from all defilement, free from all disorder or distemper; because in all their motions they were duly subjected to his clear reason and his holy will. He had also an executive power, answerable to his will ; a power to do the good which he knew should be done, and which he inclined to do; even to fulfil the whole law of God.

He had also an executive power, answerable to his will ; a power to do the good which he knew should be done, and which he inclined to do; even to fulfil the whole law of God. If it had not been so, God would not have required perfect obedience of him. For to say that "the Lord gathereth where he hath not strewed, is but the blasphemy of a slothful servant. "From what has been said it may be gathered, that man's original righteousness was universal, and natural, yet mutable. "1. It was universal, both with respect to the subject of it, the whole man; and the object of it, the whole law: It was diffused through the whole man; it was a blessed leaven that leavened the whole lump. Man was then holy in soul, body, and spirit: While the soul remained untainted, the members of the body were consecrated vessels and instruments of righteousness. A combat between reason and appetite, nay, the least inclination to sin, was utterly inconsistent with this uprightness in which man was created; and has been invented to veil the corruption of man's nature, and to obscure the grace of God in Christ Jesus. And as this righteousness spread through the whole man, so it respected the whole law. There was nothing in the law but what was agreeable to his reason. and will. His soul was shapen out in length and breadth, to the commandment, though exceeding broad; so that his origi mal righteousness was not only perfect in parts, but in degrees. "2. As it was universal, so it was natural to him. He was created with it. And it was necessary to the perfection of man, as he came out of the hand of God; necessary to con stitute him in a state of integrity. Yet, "3. It was mutable: It was a righteousness which might be lost, as appears from the sad event. His will was not indifferent to good and evil: God set it towards good only, yet did not so fix it, that it could not alter: it was movable to evil, but by man himself only. "Thus was man made originally righteous, being 'created in God's own image,' (Gen. i. 27,) which consists in 'knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.' (Col. iii. 10; Eph. iv. 24.) All that God made 'was very good, according to their several natures.

24.) All that God made 'was very good, according to their several natures. (Gen. i. 31.) And so man was morally good, being 'made after the image' of Him who is 'good and upright." (Psalm xxv. 8.) Without this he could not have answered the end of his creation, which was to know, love, and serve his God. Nay, he could not be created otherwise; for he must either have been conform to the law in his powers, principles, and inclinations, or not. If he was, he was righteous: If not, he was a sinner; which is absurd and horrible to imagine. "And as man was holy, so he was happy. He was full of peace as well as of love. And he was the favourite of Heaven. He bore the image of God, who cannot but love his own image. While he was alone in the world he was not alone; for he had free, full 'communion with God." As yet there was nothing to turn away the face of God from the work of his own hands; seeing sin had not as yet entered, which alone could make the breach. "He was also lord of the world, universal emperor of the whole earth. His Creator gave him 'dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, and everything that moveth on the earth.' He was God's deputy-governor in the lower world; and this his dominion was an image of God's sovereignty. Thus was man 'crowned with glory and honour, having 'all things put under his feet.' "Again : As he had perfect tranquillity in his own breast, so he had a perfect calm without. His heart had nothing to reproach him with; and, without, there was nothing to annoy him. Their beautiful bodies were not capable of injuries from the air. They were liable to no diseases or pains; and though they were not to live idle, yet toil, weariness, and sweat of the brows, were not known in this state. "Lastly. He was immortal. He would never have died if he had not sinned. Death was threatened only in case of sin. The perfect constitution of his body, which came out of God's hand, was 'very good;' and the righteousness of his soul removed all inward causes of death. And God's special care of his innocent creature secured him against outward violence.

And God's special care of his innocent creature secured him against outward violence. Such were the holiness and the happiness of man in his original state. "But there is now a sad alteration in our nature. It is now entirely corrupted. Where at first there was nothing evil, there is now nothing good: I shall, "First, prove this. "Secondly, represent this corruption in its several parts. "Thirdly, show how man's nature comes to be thus cor rupted. "First, I shall prove that man's nature is corrupted, both by God's word, and by men's experience and observation. "1. For proof from God's word, let us consider, "(1.) How it takes particular notice of fallen Adam's com municating his image to his posterity. 'Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image." (Gen. v. 3.) Compare this with verse 1: "In the day that God created man, in the image of God made he him. Behold here, how the 'image' after which man was 'made,' and the 'image' after which he is be gotten, are opposed. Man was 'made' in the likeness of God; a holy and righteous God "made a holy and righteous creature: But fallen Adam 'begat' a son, not in the likeness of God, but in his 'own likeness; corrupt, sinful Adam begat a corrupt, sinful son. For as the image of God included 'righteousness' and "immortality, so this image of fallen Adam included 'cor ruption' and 'death. Moses, giving us in this chapter the first bill of mortality that ever was in the world, ushers it in with this observation,-that dying Adam begat mortals. Having sinned, he became 'mortal, according to the threatening. And so he 'begat a son in his own likeness, sinful, and therefore mortal; and so "sin and death passed on all.' "Let us consider, (2.) That text, 'Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean P. Not one." (Job xiv. 4.) Our first parents were unclean; how then can we be clean? How could our immediate parents be clean? Or how shall our children be so? The uncleanness here mentioned is a sinful uncleanness; for it is such as makes man's days 'full of trouble.' And it is natural, being derived from unclean parents.

The uncleanness here mentioned is a sinful uncleanness; for it is such as makes man's days 'full of trouble.' And it is natural, being derived from unclean parents. 'How can he be clean that is born of a woman?" God can 'bring a clean thing out of an unclean; and did so in the case of the man Christ; but no other can. Every person then that is born according to the course of nature is born unclean; if the root be corrupt, so are the branches. Neither is the matter mended, though the parents be holy. For they are such by "grace, not by "nature: ' And they beget their children as men, not as holy men; wherefore, as the cir cumcised parent begets an uncircumcised child, so the holiest parents beget unholy children, and cannot communicate their grace to them as they do their nature. "(3.) Hear our Lord's determination of the point: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." (John iii. 6.) Behold the corruption of all mankind; all are 'flesh. It does not mean, all are frail; (though that is a sad truth too; yea, and our natural frailty is an evidence of our natural corruption;) but, all are 'corrupt" and 'sinful, and that naturally. Hence our Lord argues, that because they are 'flesh, therefore they 'must be born again, or they "cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Verses 3, 5.) And as the corruption of our nature evidences the absolute necessity of regeneration, so the necessity of regeneration proves the corruption of our nature. For why should a man need a second birth, if his nature were not ruined in the first birth ? Even infants must be born again; for this rule admits of no exception; and therefore they were circumcised under the Old Testament, as having 'the body of the sins of the flesh, (which is conveyed to them by natural generation,) the whole old man, "to put off." (Col. ii. 11.) And now, by the appointment of Christ, they are to be baptized; which shows they are unclean, and that there is no salvation for them, but "by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.' "(4.) 'We are by nature children of wrath.

11.) And now, by the appointment of Christ, they are to be baptized; which shows they are unclean, and that there is no salvation for them, but "by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.' "(4.) 'We are by nature children of wrath. We are wor thy of, and liable to, the wrath of God; and that "by nature; and therefore, doubtless, we are by nature sinful creatures. We are condemned before we have done good or evil; under the curse ere we know what it is. But 'will a lion roar in the forest while he hath no prey ?' Will a holy and just God roar in his wrath against man, if he be not, by his sin, made a prey for wrath? No, he will not, he cannot. We conclude, then, that, according to the word of God, man's nature is a corrupt nature. "2. If we consult experience, and observe the case of the world, in the things that are obvious to any person, we shall, by its fruits, easily discover the root of bitterness. I shall instance but in a few : "(1.) Who sees not a flood of miseries overflowing the world? Every one, at home and abroad, in city and country, in palaces and cottages, is groaning under some unpleasing circumstance or other. Some are oppressed with poverty or want; some chastened with pain or sickness; some are lamenting their losses; none is without a cross of one sort or another. No man's condition is so soft but there is some thorn of uneasiness in it. And at length death, 'the wages of sin,' comes, and sweeps all away. Now, what but sin has opened the sluice? There is not a complaint or sigh heard in the world, or a tear that falls from our eye, but it is an evidence, that man is fallen as a star from heaven. For God 'distributeth sorrows in his anger." (Job xxi. 17.) This is a plain proof of the corruption of nature; forasmuch as those that have not actually sinned have their share of these sor rows; yea, and draw their first breath weeping.

17.) This is a plain proof of the corruption of nature; forasmuch as those that have not actually sinned have their share of these sor rows; yea, and draw their first breath weeping. There are also graves of the smallest as well as the largest size; and there are never wanting some in the world, who, like Rachel, are 'weeping for their children, because they are not.' "(2.) How early does this corruption of nature appear ! It is soon discerned which way the bias of the heart lies. Do not the children of fallen Adam, before they can go alone, follow their father's footsteps? What pride, ambition, curiosity, vanity, wilfulness, and averseness to good, appear in them ! And when they creep out of infancy, there is a necessity of using 'the rod of correction, to drive away the foolishness that is bound in their heart." "(3.) Take a view of the out-breakings of sin in the world. 'The wickedness of man is yet great in the earth. Behold the bitter fruits of corrupt nature ! 'By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out,' (like the breaking forth of waters,) "and blood toucheth blood. The world is filled with all manner of filthi ness, wickedness, and impiety. And whence is this deluge of sin on the earth, but from the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, "the heart of man,' out of which 'proceed adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wicked ness?' Ye may, it may be, thank God, that ye are not in these respects 'like other men: And you have reason; for the corruption of nature is the very same in you as in them. "(4.) Cast your eye upon those terrible convulsions the world is thrown into by the wickedness of men. Lions prey not on lions, nor wolves on wolves; but men bite and devour one another. Upon how slight occasions will men sheathe their swords in one another's bowels Since Cain shed Abel's blood, the world has been turned into a slaughter-house. And the chase has been continued, ever since Nimrod began his hunting; as on the earth, so in the seas, the greater still devouring the lesser.

And the chase has been continued, ever since Nimrod began his hunting; as on the earth, so in the seas, the greater still devouring the lesser. Now, when we see the world in such a ferment, every one stabbing another with words or swords, these violent heats among the sons of Adam speak the whole body to be distempered; 'the whole head to be sick, and the whole heart faint." "(5.) Consider the necessity of human laws, fenced with terrors and severities. Man was made for society; and God himself said, when he created him, it was not good for him to be alone. Yet the case is such now, that, in society, he must be hedged in with thorns. And from hence we may the better discern the corruption of man's nature, consider, (i.) Every man naturally kves to be at full liberty himself; and, were he to follow his inclination, would vote himself out of the reach of all laws, divine and human: Yet, (ii) No man would willingly adventure to live in a lawless society; and, therefore, even pirates and robbers have laws among themselves. Thus men show they are conscious of the corruption of nature, not daring to trust one another but upon security. (iii.) How dangerous soever it is to break through the hedge, yet many will do it daily. They will not only sacrifice their conscience and credit, but, for the pleasure of a few moments, lay them selves open to a violent death, by the laws of the land wherein they live. (iv.) Laws are often made to yield to man's lusts. Sometimes whole societies break off the fetters, and the voice of laws cannot be heard for the noise of arms: And seldom there is a time, wherein there are not some persons so great and daring, that the laws dare not look them in the face. (v.) Observe even the Israelites, separated to God from all the nations of the earth; yet what horrible confusions were among them, when 'there was no King in Israel!" How hard was it to reform them, when they had the best of magistrates ! And how quickly did they turn aside again, when they had wicked rulers! It seems, one grand design of that sacred history was, to discover the corruption of man's nature.

It seems, one grand design of that sacred history was, to discover the corruption of man's nature. (vi.) Consider the remains of natural corruption, even in them that believe. Through grace has entered, corruption is not expelled; they find it with them at all times, and in all places. If a man have an ill neighbour, he may remove; but should he go into a wilderness, or pitch his tent on a remote rock in the sea, there it will be with him. I need not stand to prove so clear a point: But consider these few things on this head: 1st. If it be thus in the green tree, how must it be in the dry? Does so much of the old remain even in those who have received a new nature? How great, then, must that corruption be in those, where it is unmixed with renewing grace 2d. Though natural corruption is no burden to a natural man, is he therefore free from it? No, no. Only he is dead, and feels not the sinking weight. Many a groan is heard from a sick bed, but never one from a grave. 3d. The good man resists the old nature; he strives to starve it; yet it remains. How must it spread, then, and strengthen itself in the soul, where it is not starved, but fed, as in unbelievers! If the garden of the diligent find him full work, in cutting off and rooting up, surely that of the sluggard must needs be 'all grown over with thorns." "I shall add but one observation more, that in every man maturally the image of fallen Adam appears: To evince which, I appeal to the consciences of all, in the following particulars: "(1.) If God by his holy law or wise providence put a restraint upon us, to keep us back from anything, does not that restraint whet the edge of our natural inclinations, and make us so much the keener in our desires? The very Hea thens were convinced, that there is this spirit of contradiction in us, though they knew not the spring of it. How often do men give themselves a loose in those things, wherein if God had left them at liberty, they would have bound up themselves!

How often do men give themselves a loose in those things, wherein if God had left them at liberty, they would have bound up themselves! And is not this a repeating of our father's folly, that men will rather climb for forbidden fruit, than gather what Providence offers to them, when they have God's express allowance for it? "(2.) Is it not natural to us, to care for the body, at the expense of the soul? This was one ingredient in the sin of our first parents. (Gen. iii. 6.) O how happy might we be, if we were but at half the pains about our souls, which we bestow upon our bodies ! if that question, 'What must I do to be saved?" did but run near so often through our minds, as those, 'What shall we eat? What shall we drink? Wherewithal shall we be clothed ?" "(3.) Is not every one by nature discontent with his present lot, or with some one thing or other in it? Some one thing is always missing; so that man is a creature given to change. If any doubt of this, let them look over all their enjoyments, and, after a review of them, listen to their own hearts, and they will hear a secret murmuring for want of something. Since the hearts of our first parents wandered from God, their pos terity have a natural disease, which Solomon calls, 'the wandering of desire; literally, 'the walking of the soul." (Eccles. vi. 9.) This is a sort of diabolical trance, wherein the soul traverseth the world, feeds itself with a thousand airy nothings, snatcheth at this and the other imagined excellency; goes here and there and everywhere, except where it should go. And the soul is never cured of this disease till it takes up its rest in God through Christ. "(4.) Do not Adam's children naturally follow his foot steps, in 'hiding' themselves "from the presence of the Lord?" (Gen. iii. 8.) We are just as blind in this matter as he was, who thought to 'hide himself from the presence of the Lord among the trees of the garden. We promise ourselves more security in a secret sin than in one that is openly committed.

We promise ourselves more security in a secret sin than in one that is openly committed. 'The adulterer saith, No eye shall see me.' And men will freely do that in secret, which they would be ashamed to do in the presence of a child: As if darkness could hide from an all seeing God. Are we not naturally careless of 'communion with God?' nay, and averse to it? Never was there any communion between God and Adam's children, where God himself had not the first word. If he would let them alone, they would never inquire after him. "(5.) How loath are men to 'confess sin, to take guilt and shame to themselves! And was it not thus in the case before us? Adam confesses his nakedness, (which indeed he could not deny,) but not one word does he say about his sin. It is as natural for us to hide sin as to commit it. Many instances of this we see daily; but how many will there be in that day when God "will judge the secrets of men?" Many a foul mouth will then be seen, which is now "wiped, and saith, I have done no wickedness.' "Lastly. Is it not natural for us to extenuate our sin, and transfer the guilt to others? As Adam laid the blame of his sin on the woman: And did not the woman lay the blame on the serpent? Adam's children need not be taught this; for before they can well speak, if they cannot deny, they lisp out something to lessen their fault, and lay the blame upon another. Nay, so natural is this to men, that, in the greatest of sins, they will charge the fault on God himself: blaspheming his provi dence under the name of ill luck, or misfortune, and so laying the blame of their sin at Heaven's door. Thus does 'the fool ishness of man pervert his ways; and his heart fretteth against the Lord. Let us then call Adam, Father: Let us not deny the relation, seeing we bear his image. "I proceed to inquire into the corruption of nature in the several parts of it. But who can take the exact dimensions of it, in its breadth, length, height, and depth?

But who can take the exact dimensions of it, in its breadth, length, height, and depth? 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: Who can know it?" However, we may quickly perceive so much of it as may show the absolute necessity of regeneration. Man, in his natural state, is altogether corrupt, through all the faculties of his soul: Corrupt in his understanding, his will, his affections, his conscience, and his memory. "1. The understanding is despoiled of its primitive glory, and covered over with confusion. We are fallen into the hands of our grand adversary, and are deprived of our two eyes. 'There is none that understandeth;' the very mind and conscience of the natural man are defiled or spoiled. But to point out this corruption of the understanding more parti cularly, let the following things be considered: "First. There is a natural weakness in the minds of men, with respect to spiritual things. How hard is it to teach them the common principles of religion; to make truths so plain, that they may understand them I Try the same persons in other things, speak of the things of this world, and they will under stand quickly; but it is hard to make them know how their souls may be saved, or how their hearts may find rest in Christ. Consider even those who have many advantages above the common run of mankind: Yet how small is their knowledge of divine things! What confusion still remains in their minds! How often are they mired, and 'speak as a child, even in the matter of practical truths ! It is a pitiable weakness, that we cannot perceive the things which God has revealed. And it must needs be a sinful weakness, since the law of God requires us to know and believe them. "Secondly. Man's understanding is naturally overwhelmed with gross "darkness' in spiritual things. Man, at the instiga tion of the devil, attempting to break out a new light in his mind, instead of that, broke up the doors of the bottomless pit, by the smoke whereof he was covered with darkness. When God at first made man, his mind was a lamp of light; but sin has now turned it into darkness. Sin has closed the window of the soul.

Sin has closed the window of the soul. It is the land of darkness and the shadow of death, where 'the light is as darkness.' The 'prince of darkness' reigns therein, and nothing but the 'works of darkness' are framed there. That you may be the more fully convinced of this, take the following evidences of it: "1. The darkness that was upon the face of 'the world' before, and at the time that Christ came. When Adam by his sin had lost his light, it pleased God to reveal to him the way of salvation. (Gen. iii. 15.) This was handed down by holy men before the flood; yet the natural darkness of the mind of man so prevailed, as to carry off all sense of true religion from the old world, except what remained in Noah's family. After the flood, as men increased, their natural darkness of mind prevailed again, and the light decayed, till it died out among the generality of mankind, and was preserved only among the posterity of Shem. And even with them it was near setting, when God called Abraham 'from serving other gods." (Joshua xxiv. 15.) God gave him a more full revelation, which he communicated to his family: (Gen. xviii. 19:) Yet the natural darkness wore it out at length, save that it was preserved among the posterity of Jaeob. In Egypt, that darkness so prevailed over them also, that a new revelation was necessary. And many a dark cloud got above that, during the time from Moses to Christ. When Christ came, nothing was to be seen in the Gentile world but "darkness and cruel habitations. They were drowned in super stition and idolatry; and whatever wisdom was among their philosophers, 'the world by that wisdom knew not God, but became more and more vain in their imaginations. Nor were the Jews much wiser: Except a few, gross darkness covered them also. Their traditions were multiplied; but the know ledge of those things wherein the life of religion lies was lost. They gloried in outward ordinances, but knew nothing of "worshipping God in Spirit and in truth.' . "Now, what but the natural darkness of men's minds could still thus wear out the light of external revelation?

"Now, what but the natural darkness of men's minds could still thus wear out the light of external revelation? Men did not forget the way of preserving their lives; but how quickly did they forget the way of saving their souls' So that it was necessary for God himself to reveal it again and again. Yea, and a mere external revelation did not suffice to remove this darkness; no, not when it was by Christ in person; there needed also the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Such is the natural darkness of our minds, that it only yields to the blood and Spirit of Christ. "2. Every natural man's heart, how refined soever he appear, is full of darkness, disorder, and confusion. The unrenewed part of mankind are rambling through the world, like so many blind men, who will neither take a guide, nor can guide themselves, and therefore fall over this and the other precipice into destruc tion. Some are running after their covetousness, some sticking in the mire of sensuality, others dashing on the rock of pride; every one stumbling on one stone of stumbling or other, as their unmortified passions drive them. ...And while some are lying along in the way, others are coming up and falling headlong over them. Errors swarm in the world; all the unregenerate are utterly mistaken in the point of true happiness. All desire to be happy; but, touching the way to happiness, there are almost as many opinions as there are men. They are like the blind Sodomites about Lot's house; all seeking to 'find the door, but in vain. Look into thine own heart, (if thou art not born again,) and thou wilt see all turned upside down; heaven lying under, and earth at top; look into thy life, and see how thou art playing the madman, eagerly flying after that which is not, and slighting that which is, and will be for ever. Thus is man's understanding naturally overwhelmed with gross ' darkness' in spiritual things. "Thirdly. There is in the mind of man a natural bias to evil: Let us reflect a little, and we shall find incontestable evidence of it. "1. Men's minds have a natural dexterity to do mischief; none are so simple as to want skill for this.

Men's minds have a natural dexterity to do mischief; none are so simple as to want skill for this. None needs to be taught it; but as weeds, without being sown, grow up of their own accord, so does this 'earthly, sensual, devilish wisdom naturally grow up in us. "2. We naturally form gross conceptions of spiritual things, as if the soul were quite immersed in flesh and blood. Let men but look into themselves, and they will find this bias in their minds; whereof the idolatry which still prevails so far and wide is an incontestable evidence; for it plainly shows men would have a visible deity; therefore they change the "glory of the incorruptible God into an image.' Indeed the Reforma tion of these nations has banished gross idolatry out of our churches: But heart-reformation alone can banished mental idolatry, subtle and refined image-worship, out of our minds. "3. How difficult is it to detain the carnal mind before the Lord! to fix it in the meditation of spiritual things When God is speaking to man by his word, or they are speaking to him in prayer, the body remains before God, but the world steals away the heart. Though the eyes be closed, the man sees a thousand vanities, and the mind roves hither and thither; and many times the man scarce comes to himself, till he is 'gone from the presence of the Lord. The worldly man's mind does not wander when he is contriving business, casting up his accounts, or telling his money. If he answers you not at first, he tells you he did not hear you, he was busy, his mind was fixed. But the carnal mind employed about spiritual things is out of its element, and therefore cannot fix. "4. Consider how the carnal 'imagination' supplies the want of real objects to the corrupt heart. The unclean person is filled with speculative impurities, 'having eyes full of adultery. The covetous man fills his heart with the world, if he cannot get his hands full of it. The malicious person acts his revenge in his own breast; the envious, within his own nar row soul, sees his neighbour laid low enough; and so every lust is fed by the imagination. These things may suffice to con vince us of the natural bias of the mind to evil. "Fourthly.

"Fourthly. There is in the carnal mind an opposition to spiritual truths, and an aversion to the receiving them. God has revealed to sinners the way of salvation; he has given his word. But do natural men believe it? Indeed they do not. They believe not the promises of the word; for they who receive them are thereby made 'partakers of the divine nature." They believe not the threatenings of the word; otherwise they could not live as they do. I doubt not but most, if not all, of you, who are in a state of nature, will here plead, Not Guilty. But the very difficulty you find in assent ing to this truth, proves the unbelief with which I charge you. Has it not proceeded so far with some, that it has steeled their foreheads openly to reject all revealed religion? And though ye set not your mouths as they do against the heavens, yet the same bitter root of unbelief is in you, and reigns and will reign in you, till overcoming grace captivate your minds to the belief of the truth. To convince you of this, "Consider, 1. How have you learned those truths which you think you believe? Is it not merely by the benefit of your education, and of external revelation? You are strangers to the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness with the word in your hearts; and therefore ye are still unbe lievers. 'It is written in the Prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every one therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father,' saith our Lord, 'cometh unto me.' But ye have not come to Christ; therefore ye have not been "taught of God." Ye have not been so taught, and therefore ye have not come; ye believe not. "Consider, 2. The utter inconsistency of most men's lives with the principles which they profess. They profess to believe the Scripture; but how little are they concerned about what is revealed therein . How unconcerned are ye even about that weighty point, whether ye be born again, or not! Many live as they were born, and are like to die as they live, and yet live in peace. Do such believe the sinfulness of a natural state? Do they believe they are 'children of wrath? Do they believe there . is no salvation without regeneration?

is no salvation without regeneration? and no regeneration, but what makes man 'a new creature?' O no! If ye did, ye could not live in your sins, live out of Christ, and yet hope for mercy. "Fifthly. Man is naturally high-minded. Lowliness is not a flower which grows in the field of nature. It is natural to man to think highly of himself and what is his own. 'Vain man would be wise;" so he accounts himself, and so he would be accounted by others. His way is right, because it is 'his own;' 'for every way of man is right in his own eyes. He is 'alive without the law;' and therefore his hope is strong, and his confidence firm. It is another tower of Babel; the word batters it, yet it stands. One while breaches are made in it, but they are quickly repaired. At another time, it is all made to shake; but it is still kept up; till God's Spirit raise an heartquake within the man, which tumbles it down, and leaves not one stone upon another. "Thus much of the corruption of the understanding. Call the understanding, "Ichabod; for the glory is departed from it." Consider this, ye that are yet in the state of nature, and groan ye out your case before the Lord, that the Sun of Righteous ness may arise upon you, before ye be shut up in everlasting darkness. What avails your worldly wisdom? What do all your attainments in religion avail, while your understanding lies wrapped up in darkness and confusion, utterly void of the light of life? "2. Nor is the will less corrupted than the understanding. It was at first faithful, and ruled with God; but now it is turned traitor against God, and rules with and for the devil. To open this plague of the heart, let the following thingsbe considered:- "First. There is in the unrenewed will an utter inability for what is truly good in the sight of God. Indeed a natural man has a power to choose and do what is materially good; but though he can will what is good and right, he can do nothing aright and well. "Without me,' that is, separate from me, 'ye can do nothing; nothing truly and spiritually good.

"Without me,' that is, separate from me, 'ye can do nothing; nothing truly and spiritually good. To evidence this, consider, "(1.) How often do men see the good they should choose, and the evil they should refuse; and yet their hearts have no more power to comply with their light, than if they were arrested by some invisible hand! Their consciences tell them the right way; yet cannot their will be brought up to it. Else, how is it, that the clear arguments on the side of virtue do not bring men over to that side? Although heaven and hell were but a may be, even this would determine the will to holiness, could it be determined by reason. Yet so far is it from this, that men 'knowing the judgment of God, that they who do such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.' "(2.) Let those who have been truly convinced of the spirituality of the law, speak, and tell if they then found themselves able to incline their hearts toward it. Nay, the more that light shone into their souls, did they not find their hearts more and more unable to comply with it? Yea, there are some who are yet in the devil's camp that can tell from their own experience, light let into the mind cannot give life to the will, or enable it to comply therewith. "Secondly. There is in the unrenewed will an averseness to good. Sin is the natural man's element; and he is as loath to part with it, as the fishes are to come out of the water. He is sick; but utterly averse to the remedy: He loves his disease, so that he loathes the Physician. He is a captive, a prisoner, and a slave; but he loves his conqueror, gaoler, and master: He is fond of his fetters, prison, and drudgery, and has no liking to his liberty. For evidence of this averseness to good in the will of man, "Consider, 1. The untowardness of children. How averse are they to restraint ! Are they not 'as bullocks unaccus tomed to the yoke '' Yea, it is far easier to tame young bullocks to the yoke, than to bring young children under dis cipline.

Are they not 'as bullocks unaccus tomed to the yoke '' Yea, it is far easier to tame young bullocks to the yoke, than to bring young children under dis cipline. Every man may see in this, as in a glass, that man is naturally wild and wilful; that, according to Zophar's observ ation, he 'is born a wild ass's colt. What can be said more? He is like a 'colt, the colt of an "ass, the colt of a 'wild ass; a wild ass used to the wilderness, that snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can turn her away?' "2. What pain and difficulty do men find in bringing their hearts to religious duties ! And what a task is it to the natural man to abide at them to leave the world but a little, and converse with God! When they are engaged in worldly business or company, time seems to fly, and is gone before they are aware. But how heavily does it drive, while a prayer, a sermon, or a Sabbath lasts With many the Lord's day is the longest day in the week; and therefore they must sleep longer that morning, and go sooner to bed that night, than ordinarily they do, that the day may be of a tolerable length. And still their hearts say, 'When will the Sabbath be gone?" "3. Consider how the will of the natural man "rebels against the light. Sometimes he is not able to keep it out; but he "loves darkness rather than light. The outer door of the understanding is broken open, but the inner door of the will remains shut. Corruption and conscience then encounter; till conscience is forced to give back; convictions are murdered, and truth is made and "held prisoner "in righteousness." "4. When the Spirit of the Lord is working a deeper work, yet what "resistance' does the soul make When he connes, he finds the 'strong man keeping the house, while the soul is fast asleep in the devil's arms, till the Lord awakens in the sinner, opens his eyes, and strikes him with terror, while the clouds are black above his head, and the sword of vengeance is held to his breast. But what pains is he at to put a fair face on a black heart!

But what pains is he at to put a fair face on a black heart! to shake off his fears, or make head against them Carnal reason suggests, If it be ill with him, it will be ill with many. When he is beat from this, and sees no advantage in going to hell with company, he resolves to leave his sins; but cannot think of breaking off so soon; there is time enough, and he will do it afterwards. When at length he is constrained to part with some sins, others are kept as right hands or right eyes. Nay, when he is so pressed, that he must needs say before the Lord, he is willing to part with all his idols, yet how long will his heart give the lie to his tongue, and prevent the execution of it ! "Thirdly. There is in the will of man a natural proneness to evil. Men are naturally 'bent to backsliding from God;' they hang (as the word is) towards backsliding. Leave the unrenewed will to itself, it will choose sin and reject holi ness; and that as certainly as water poured on the side of a hill will run downward and not upward. "1. Is not the way of evil the first way wherein the children of men go? Do not their inclinations plainly appear on the wrong side, while they have not cunning to hide them ? As soon as it appears we are reasonable creatures, it appears we are sinful creatures. 'Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, till the rod of correction drives it from him.' It is bound in the heart, woven into our very nature; nor will the knots loose; they must be broke asunder by strokes. Words will not do; the rod must be taken to drive it away. Not that the rod of itself will do this; the sad experience of many parents testifies the contrary. And Solomon himself tells you, "Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar, yet will not his foolishness depart from him. But the rod is an ordinance of God, appointed for that end; which, like the word, is made effectual, by the Spirit's accompanying his Dwn ordinance. "2. How easily men are led into sin persuaded to evil, though not to good.

How easily men are led into sin persuaded to evil, though not to good. Those whom the word cannot draw to holiness, Satan leads to wickedness at his pleasure. To learn doing ill is always easy to the unrenewed man; but to learn to do good is as difficult as for 'the Ethiopian to change his skin." Were the will evenly poised between good and evil, one might be embraced with as much ease as the other. But experience testifies it is not; yea, the experience of all ages. How often did the Israelites forsake the almighty God, and dote upon the idols of the nations! But did ever one of those nations forsake their idols, and grow fond of the God of Israel? No, no. Though man is naturally given to change, it is but from evil to evil; not from evil to good. Surely then the will of man stands not in equal balance, but has a cast on the wrong side. "3. Consider how men go on still in the way of sin, till they meet with a stop from another hand than their own. "I hid me, and he went on frowardly in the way of his own heart. If God withdraws his restraining hand, man is in no doubt which way to choose; for the way of sin is 'the way of his heart; his heart maturally lies that way. As long as God suffereth them, all nations "walk in their own way.' The natural man is so fixed in evil, that there needs no more to show he is off of God's way, than to say, He is upon 'his own." "Fourthly. There is a natural contrariety, a directopposition, in the will of man to God himself. "The carnal mind is enmity against God; it is not subject to the law of God, neither can be.' "I have a charge against every unregenenerate man and woman, to be proved by the testimony of Scripture, and their own conscience; namely, that, whether they have the form of religion or no, they are heart-enemies to God; to the Son of God, to the Spirit of God, and to the law of God. Hear this, all ye careless souls, that live at ease in your natural state "1. Ye are 'enemies to God in your mind.' Ye are not as yet reconciled to him.

Ye are 'enemies to God in your mind.' Ye are not as yet reconciled to him. The natural enmity is not slain, though perhaps it lies hid, and ye do not perceive it. Every natural man is an enemy to God, as he is revealed in his word, to an infinitely holy, just, powerful, and true Being. In effect, men are naturally "haters of God;' and if they could, they would certainly make him another than what he is. "To convince you of this, let me propose a few queries: (1.) How are your hearts affected to the infinite holiness of God? If ye are not "partakers of his holiness, ye cannot be reconciled to it. The Heathens, finding they were not like God in holiness, made their gods like themselves in filthiness; and thereby discovered what sort of a god the natural man would have. God is holy. Can an unholy creature love his unspotted holiness? Nay, it is 'the righteous" only that can "give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness." God is light: Can creatures of darkness, and that walk in darkness, rejoice therein? Nay, "every one that doeth evil hateth the light." For what communion hath light with darkness? (2.) How are your hearts affected to the justice of God? There is not a man who is wedded to his sins, but would be content with the blood of his body to blot that letter out of the name of God. Can the malefactor love his condemning judge; or an unjustified sinner a just God? No, he cannot. And hence, since men cannot get the doctrine of his justice blotted out of the Bible, yet it is such an eye-sore to them, that they strive to blot it out of their minds; they ruin themselves by presuming on his mercy, " saying in their heart, The Lord will not do good, neither will he do evil." (3.) How are ye affected to the omniscience and omnipresence of God? Men naturally would ratherhave a blind idol, than an all-seeing God; and therefore do what they can, as Adam did, to 'hide themselves from the presence of the Lord.' They no more love an omni present God, than the thief loves to have the judge witness to his evil deeds. (4.) How are ye affected to the truth of God?

(4.) How are ye affected to the truth of God? How many hope that God will not be true to his word ' There are thousands that hear the gospel, and hope to be saved, who never experienced the new birth, nor do at all concern them selves in that question,-whether they are born again or not. Our Lord's words are plain and peremptory: 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." What, then, are such hopes, but real hopes that God will recal his word, and that Christ will prove a false Prophet? (5.) How are they affected to the power of God? None but new creatures can love him for it. Every natural man would contribute to the building another tower of Babel, to hem it in. On these grounds I declare every unrenewed man 'an enemy to God." "2. Ye are enemies to the Son of God: That enmity to Christ is in your hearts, which would have made you join the 'husband "men who killed the heir and cast him out of the vineyard." 'Am I a dog, ye will say, 'to have so treated my dear Saviour?" So said Hazael, in another case. Yet how did he act? Many call him dear, to whom their sins are ten times dearer than their Saviour. He is no otherwise dear to them, than as they abuse his death, for the peaceable enjoyment of their sins; that they may live as they list in this world, and, when they die, be kept out of hell. To convince you of this, I will lay before you the enumity of your hearts against Christ in all his offices: "(1.) Every unregenerate man is an enemy to Christ in his prophetic office. For evidence of this, consider, "(i.) The entertainment he meets with, when he comes to teach souls "inwardly' by his 'Spirit." Men do what they can to stop their ears, that they may not hear his voice. They "always resist the Holy Ghost;' they "desire not the knowledge of his ways. The old calumny is thrown upon him again: 'He is mad; why hear ye him?' 'The spirit of bondage is accounted by many mere distraction and melan choly: Men thus blaspheming God's work, because they themselves are beside themselves, and cannot judge of those matters.

The old calumny is thrown upon him again: 'He is mad; why hear ye him?' 'The spirit of bondage is accounted by many mere distraction and melan choly: Men thus blaspheming God's work, because they themselves are beside themselves, and cannot judge of those matters. "(ii) Consider the entertainment he meets with, when he comes to teach men outwardly by his word. "1st. His written word, the Bible, is slighted. Many lay by their Bibles with their Sunday clothes. Alas! the dust about your Bibles is a witness of the enmity of your hearts against Christ as a Prophet. And of those who read them oftener, how few are there that read them as the word of the Lord to their souls in particular, so as to keep up communion with God therein Hence they are strangers to the solid comfort of the Scriptures; and if at any time they are dejected, it is something else, and not the word of God, which revives their drooping spirits. "2d. Christ's word preached is despised. Men can, with out remorse, make to themselves one silent Sabbath after another. And, alas! when they 'tread his courts, how little reverence and awe of God appears on their spirits! Many stand like brazen walls before the word, on whom it makes no breach at all. Nay, not a few are growing worse and worse, notwithstanding 'precept upon precept." What tears of blood are sufficient to lament this ! Remember, we are but the 'voice of one crying. The Speaker is in heaven: Yet ye refuse Him that speaketh, and prefer the prince of darkness before the Prince of Peace. A dismal darkness overspread the world by Adam's fall, more terrible than if the sun and moon had been extinguished. And it must have covered us eternally, had not 'the grace of God appeared' to dispel it. But we fly from it, and, like the wild beasts, lay ourselves down in our dens. Such is the enmity of the hearts. of men against Christ in his prophetic office. "(2.) The natural man is an enemy to Christ in his priestly office. He is appointed of the Father 'a Priest for ever,' that, by his sacrifice and intercession alone, sinners may have access to, and peace with, God. But 'Christ crucified' is. ever a stumbling-block and foolishness to the unregenerate part of mankind.

ever a stumbling-block and foolishness to the unregenerate part of mankind. "None of Adam's children naturally incline to receive the blessing in borrowed robes, but would always climb up to heaven on a thread spun out of their own bowels. They look. on God as a great Master, and themselves as his servants, that must work and win heaven as their wages. Hence, when conscience awakes, they think that, to be saved, they must answer the demands of the law; serve God as well as they can, and pray for mercy wherein they come short. And thus many come to duties, that never come out of them to Christ. "Indeed, the natural man, going to God in duties, will continually be found, either to go without a Mediator, or with more mediators than one. Nature is blind, and therefore venturous; it puts men on going immediately to God without Christ. Converse with many hearers of the gospel on their hopes of salvation, and the name of Christ will scarce be heard from their mouth. Ask them, how they think to find the pardon of sin. They say, they look for mercy, because God is a merciful God; and this is all they have to trust in. Others look for mercy for Christ's sake. But how do they know Christ will take their plea in hand? Why, they pray, mourn, confess, and have great desires. So they have some thing of their own to recommend them to him. They were never made 'poor in spirit, and brought empty-handed to God, to lay the stress of all on his atoning blood. "(3.) The natural man is an enemy to Christ in his kingly office. "How unwilling are natural men to submit to the laws and discipline of his kingdom However they may be brought to some outward submission to the King of saints, yet sin alway retains its throne in their hearts, and they are 'serving divers lusts and pleasures. None but those in whom Christ is formed do really put the crown on his head. None but these receive the kingdom of Christ within them, and let him set up and put down in their souls as he will. As for others, any lord shall sooner have the rule over them than the Lord of glory. They kindly entertain his enemies, and will never absolutely resign themselves to his government.

They kindly entertain his enemies, and will never absolutely resign themselves to his government. Thus you see the natural man is an enemy to Jesus Christ in all his offices. "3. Ye are enemies to the Spirit of God: He is the Spirit of holiness. The natural man is unholy, and loves to be so; and therefore "resists the Holy Ghost. The work of the Spirit is to 'convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.' But O, how do men strive to ward off these convictions, as they would a blow that threatened their life! If the Spirit dart them in, so that they cannot avoid them, does not the heart say, 'Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?' And indeed they treat him as an enemy, doing their utmost to stifle their convictions, and to murder these harbingers that come to prepare the way of the Lord into the soul. Some fill their hands with business, to put convictions out of their head, as Cain, who fell to building a city. Some put them off with fair promises, as Felix did; some sport or sleep them away. And how can it be other wise? For it is the work of the Holy Spirit to subdue lusts, and burn up corruption. How then can he whose lusts are dear as his life fail of being an enemy to Him? "Lastly. Ye are enemies to the law of God. Though the matural man 'desires to be under the law,' as a covenant of works; yet as it is a rule of life, he 'is not subject to it, neither indeed can be.' For, (1.) Every natural man is wedded to some sin, which he cannot part with. And as he cannot bring up his inclinations to the law, he would fain bring down the law to his inclinations. And this is a plain, standing evidence of the enmity of his heart against it. (2.) The law, set home on the awakened conscience in its spirituality, irritates corruption. It is as oil to the fire, which, instead of quenching, makes it flame the more. "When the commandment comes, sin revives." What reason can be assigned for this, but the natural enmity of the heart against the holy law P.

"When the commandment comes, sin revives." What reason can be assigned for this, but the natural enmity of the heart against the holy law P. We conclude then, that the unregenerate are heart-enemies to God, his Son, his Spirit, and his law; that there is a natural contrariety, opposition, and enmity in the will of man, to God himself and his holy will. "Fifthly. The unrenewed will is wholly perverse, in refer ence to the end of man. Man is a merely dependent being; having no existence or goodness originally from himself; but all he has is from God, as the first cause and spring of all per fection, natural and moral. Dependence is woven into his very nature; so that, should God withdraw from him, he would sink into nothing. Since then whatever man is, he is of Him, surely whatever he is, he should be to Him; as the waters which came out of the sea return thither again. And thus man was cre ated looking directly to God, as his last end; but, falling into sin, he fell off from God, and turned into himself. Now, this infers a total apostasy and universal corruption in man; for where the last end is changed, there can be no real goodness. And this is the case of all men in their natural state: They seek not God, but themselves. Hence though many fair shreds of morality are among them, yet 'there is none that doeth good, no, not one. For though some of them "run well, they are still off the way; they never aim at the right mark. Whithersoever they move, they cannot move beyond the circle of self. They seek themselves, they act for themselves; their natural, civil, and religious actions, from whatever spring they come, do all run into, and meet in, this dead sea. "Most men are so far from making God their end in their natural and civil actions, that he is not in all their thoughts. They eat and drink for no higher end, than their own pleasure or necessity. Nor do the drops of sweetness God has put into the creatures raise their souls toward that ocean of delights that are in the Creator. And what are the natural man's civil actions, such as buying, selling, working, but fruit to himself?

And what are the natural man's civil actions, such as buying, selling, working, but fruit to himself? Yea, self is the highest end of unregenerate men, even in their religious actions. They perform duties for a name; for some worldly interest; or, at best, in order to escape from hell. They seek not God at all, but for their own interest. So that God is only the means, and self their end. "Thus have I given a rude draught of man's will in his natural state, drawn from Scripture and our own experience. Now, since all must be wrong where the understanding and will are so corrupt, I shall briefly despatch what remains. "3. The affections are corrupted; wholly disordered and dis tempered. They are like an unruly horse, that either will not receive, or violently runs away with, the rider. Man's heart is naturally a mother of abominations: "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness.' The natural man's affections are wholly misplaced; he is a spiritual monster. His heart is, where his feet should be, fixed on earth: His heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on: His face is toward hell, his back toward heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he should rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor. If his affections are set on lawful objects, they are either exces sive or defective. These objects have either too little of them, or too much. But spiritual things have always too little. "Here is "a threefold cord' against Heaven, not easily broken, a blind mind, a perverse will, disordered affections. The mind, swelled with pride, says, The man should not stoop; the will, opposite to the will of God, says, He will not; and the corrupt affections, rising against the Lord, in defence of the corrupt will, say, He shall not. And thus we stand out against God, till we are created anew in Christ Jesus. "4. The conscience is corrupt and defiled. It cannot do its work, but according to the light it hath to work by.

It cannot do its work, but according to the light it hath to work by. Wherefore, seeing 'the natural man discerneth not spiritual things,' his conscience is quite useless in that point. It may indeed check for grosser sins; but spiritual sins it discerns not. Thus it will fly in the face of many for drunkenness; who yet have a profound peace though they live in unbelief, and are utter strangers to spiritual worship and 'the life of faith.' And the light of his conscience being faint and languishing even in the things which it does reach, its incite ments to duty, and struggles against sin, are very remiss and easily got over. But there is also a false light in the dark mind, which often ' calls evil good, and good evil." And such a conscience is like a blind and furious horse, which violently runs down all that comes in his way. Indeed, whenever conscience is awakened by the spirit of conviction, it will rage and roar, and put the whole man in a consternation. It makes the stiff heart to tremble, and the knees to bow; sets the eyes a weeping, the tongue a confessing. But still it is an evil conscience, which naturally leads only to despair; and will do it effectually, unless either sin prevails over it to lull it asleep, as in the case of Felix, or the blood of Christ pre vail over it, sprinkling and 'purging it from dead works.' "Thus is man by nature wholly corrupted. But whence came this total corruption of our nature? That man's nature was corrupt, the very Heathens perceived; but how "sin entered' they could not tell. But the Scripture is very plain in the point: "By one man sin entered into the world." "By one man's disobedience many' (all) "were made sinners." Adam's sin corrupted man's nature, and leavened the whole lump of mankind. We putrefied in Adam as our root. The root was poisoned, and so the branches were envenomed. The vine turned 'the vine of Sodom,' and so the grapes became 'grapes of gall. Adam, by his sin, became not only guilty, but corrupt; and so transmits guilt and corruption to his posterity. By his sin he stripped himself of his original righteousness and corrupted himself.

By his sin he stripped himself of his original righteousness and corrupted himself. We were in him repre sentatively, as our moral head; we were in him seminally, as our natural head. Hence we fell in him; (as Levi 'paid tithes' when 'in the loins of Abraham;') "by his disobe dience' we 'were made sinners;' his first sin is imputed to us. And we are left without that original righteousness. which, being given to him as a common person, he cast off. And this is necessarily followed, in him and us, by the cor ruption of our whole nature; righteousness and corruption being two contraries, one of which must always be in man. And Adam, our common father, being corrupt, so are we;. for, 'who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?' "It remains only to apply this doctrine. And First, for information: Is man's nature wholly corrupted? Then, 1. No wonder the grave opens its devouring mouth for us as soon as the womb has cast us forth. For we are all, in a spiritual sense, dead-born; yea, and 'filthy,' (Psalm xiv. 3,) noisome, rank, and stinking, as a corrupt thing; so the word imports. Let us not complain of the miseries we are exposed to at our entrance, or during our continuance, in the world. Here is the venom that has poisoned all the springs of earthly enjoyments. It is the corruption of human nature, which brings forth all the miseries of life. "2. Behold here, as in a glass, the spring of all the wicked mess, profaneness, and formality in the world. Every thing acts agreeable to its own nature; and so corrupt man acts corruptly. You need not wonder at the sinfulness of your own heart and life, nor at the sinfulness and perverseness of others. If a man be crooked, he cannot but halt; and if the clock be set wrong, how can it point the hour right? "3. See here why sin is so pleasant, and religion such a bur den, to men: Sin is natural; holiness not so. Oxen cannot feed in the sea, nor fishes in the fruitful field. A swine brought into a palace would prefer the mire. And corrupt nature tends ever to impurity. "4. Learn from hence the nature and necessity of regene ration. (1.) The nature: It is not a partial, but a total, change.

(1.) The nature: It is not a partial, but a total, change. Thy whole nature is corrupted; therefore, the whole must be renewed. "All things' must "become new." If a man who had received many wounds were cured of all but one, he might still bleed to death. It is not a change made by human industry, but by the almighty Spirit of God. A man must be 'born of the Spirit.' Our nature is eorrupt, and none but the God of nature can change it. Man may pin a new life to an old heart, but he can never change the heart. (2.) The necessity: It is absolutely necessary in order to salvation. 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." No unclean thing can enter 'the new Jerusalem: But thou art by nature wholly unclean. Deceive not thyself: No mercy of God, no blood of Christ, will bring an unregenerate sinner to heaven. For God will never open a fountain of mercy to wash away his own holiness and truth: nor did Christ shed his precious blood to blot out the truths of God. Heaven! What would you do there, who are not born again? A holy Head, and corrupt members! A Head full of treasures of grace, members filled with treasures of wicked ness! Ye are no ways adapted to the society above, more than beasts to converse with men. Could the unrenewed man go to heaven, he would go to it no otherwise than now he comes to the duties of holiness, that is, leaving his heart behind him. "We may apply this doctrine, Secondly, for lamentation. Well may we lament thy case, O natural man; for it is the sad dest case one can be in out of hell. It is time to lament for thee; for thou art dead already, dead while thou livest. Thou carriest about a dead soul in a living body; and because thou art dead, canst not lament thy own case. Thou 'hast no good in thee; thy soul is a mass of darkness, rebellion, and vile ness, before God. Thou 'canst do no good;' thou canst do nothing but sin. For thou art 'the servant of sin, and, therefore, free from righteousness; thou dost not, canst not, meddle with it.

For thou art 'the servant of sin, and, therefore, free from righteousness; thou dost not, canst not, meddle with it. Thou art 'under the dominion of sin a dominion where righteousness can have no place. Thou art a child and a servant of the devil as long as thou artin a state of nature. But, to prevent any mistake, consider that Satan hath two kinds of servants. There are some employed, as it were, in coarser work. These bear the devil's mark in their foreheads; having no form of godliness; not so much as per forming the external duties of religion; but living apparently as sons of earth, only minding earthly things. Whereas, others are employed in more refined work, who carry his mark in their right hand, which they can and do hide, by a form of religion, from the view of the world. These sacrifice to the corrupt mind, as the other to the flesh. Pride, unbelief, self-pleasing, and the like spiritual sins, prey on their cor rupted, wholly corrupted, souls. Both are servants of the same house, equally void of righteousness. "Indeed, how is it possible thou shouldest be able to do any thing good, whose nature is wholly corrupt? 'Can an evil tree bring forth good fruit? Do men gather grapes of thorns?" If then thy nature be totally evil, all thou doest is certainly so too. "Hear, O sinner, what is thy case! Innumerable sins com pass thee about; floods of impurities overwhelm thee. Sins of all sorts roll up and down in the dead sea of thy soul; where no good can breathe, because of the corruption there. Thy lips are unclean; the opening of thy mouth is as the opening of a grave, full of stench and rottenness. Thy natural actions are sin; for 'when ye did eat, and when ye did drink, did not ye eat for yourselves and drink for yourselves?" (Zech. vii. 6.) Thy civil actions are sin: 'The ploughing of the wicked is sin." (Prov. xxi. 4.) Thy religious actions Poe sin: 'The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomina tion to the Lord. The thoughts and imaginations of thy heart are 'only evil continually. A deed may be soon done, a word soon spoken, a thought pass; but each of these is an item in thy accounts. O sad reckoning !

O sad reckoning ! As many thoughts, words, actions, so many sins; and the longer thou livest, thy accounts swell the more. Should a tear be dropped for every sin, thine eyes must be 'fountains of tears. For nothing but sin comes from thee; thy heart frames nothing but evil imaginations; there is nothing in thy life, but what is framed by thy heart; therefore, there is nothing in thy heart or life but evil. "And all thy religion, if thou hast any, is lost labour, if thou art not born again: Truly then thy duties are sins. Would not the best wine be loathsome in a foul vessel ? So is the religion of an unregenerate man. Thy duties cannot make thy corrupt soul holy; but thy corrupt heart makes them unclean. Thou wast wont to divide thy works into two sorts; to count some good, and some evil. But thou must count again, and put all under one head; for God writes on them all, 'Only evil." "And thou canst not help thyself. What canst thou do to take away thy sin, who art wholly corrupt? Will mud and filth wash our filthiness? And wilt thou purge out sin by sinning? Job took a potsherd to scrape himself, because his hands were as full of boils as his body. This is the case of thy corrupt soul, so long as thou art in a state of nature. Thou art poor indeed, extremely 'miserable and poor;" thou hast no shelter, but a refuge of lies; no garment for thy soul, but 'filthy rags;" nothing to nourish it, but husks that cannot satisfy. More than that, thou hast got such a bruise in the loins of Adam, that thou art "without strength,' unable to do anything. Nay, more than all this, thou canst not so much as seek aright, but liest helpless, as an infant exposed in the open field. "O that ye would believe this sad truth! How little is it believed in the world ! Few are concerned to have their evil lives reformed; but fewer far, to have their evil nature changed. Most men know not what they are; as the eye, which, seeing many things, never sees itself. But until ye know every one 'the plague of his own heart, there is no hope of your recovery.

But until ye know every one 'the plague of his own heart, there is no hope of your recovery. Why will ye not believe the plain testimony of Scripture? Alas! that is the nature of your disease. 'Thou knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. Lord, open their eyes, before they lift them up in hell, and see what they will not see now ! "Meantime, let us have a special eye upon the corruption and sin of our nature. What avails it to take notice of other sins, while this mother sin is unnoticed? This is a weighty point; in speaking to which, I shall, "1. Point at some evidences of men's overlooking the sin of their nature. As (1.) Men's being so confident of themselves, as if they were in no danger of gross sins. Many would take heinously such a caution as Christ gave his Apostles: 'Take heed of surfeiting and drunkenness.' They would be ready to cry out, 'Am I a dog?' It would raise the pride of their heart, not their fear and trembling. And all this is a proof that they know not the corruption of their own nature. (2.) Untender ness toward them that fall. Many, in this case, cast off all bowels of compassion; a plain proof that they do not know, or 'consider themselves, lest they also be tempted." Grace, indeed, does make men zealous against sin, in others as well as in them selves. But eyes turned inward to the corruption of nature, clothe them with pity and compassion, and fill them with thank fulness, that they were not the persons left to be such spectacles of human frailty. (3.) Men's venturing so boldly on temptation, in confidence of their coming off fairly. Were they sensible of the corruption of their nature, they would beware of entering on the devil's ground; as one girt about with bags of gunpowder would be loath to walk where sparks of fire were flying. "2. I shall mention a few things in which ye should have a special eye to the sin of your nature. (1) In your application to Christ. When you are with the Physician, O forget not this disease!

When you are with the Physician, O forget not this disease! They never yet knew their errand to Christ, who went not to Him for the sin of their nature; for his blood to take away the guilt and his Spirit to break the power of it. Though ye should lay before him a catalogue of sins, which might reach from earth to heaven, yet if you omit this, you have forgot the best part of the errand a poor sinner has to the Physician of souls. (2.) Have a special eye to it in your repentance. If you would repent indeed, let the streams lead you up to the fountain, and mourn over your corrupt nature, as the cause of all sin, in heart, word, and work. 'Against thee, thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (3.) Have a special eye to it in your mortification. "Crucify the flesh with its affections and desires.' It is the root of bitterness which must be struck at, else we labour in vain. In vain do we go about to purge the streams, if we are at no pains about the muddy fountain. (4.) Ye are to eye this in your daily walk. He that would walk uprightly, must have one eye upward to Jesus Christ, another inward to the cor ruption of his own nature. "3. I shall offer some reasons, why we should especially observe the sin of our nature. (1.) Because, of all sins, it is the most extensive and diffusive. It goes through the whole man, and spoils all. Other sins mar particular parts of the image of God; but this defaces the whole. It is the poison of the old serpent cast into the fountain, and so infects every action, every breathing of the soul. "(2.) It is the cause of all particular sins, both in our hearts and lives. 'Out of the heart of man proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, and all other abominations. It is the bitter foun tain; and particular lusts are but rivulets running from it, which bring forth into the life a part only, not the whole, of what is within. "(3.) It is virtually all sins; for it is the seed of all, which want but the occasion to set up their heads.

"(3.) It is virtually all sins; for it is the seed of all, which want but the occasion to set up their heads. Hence it is called, 'a body of death,' as consisting of the several members which constitute that "body of sins," (Col. ii. 11,) whose life lies in spiritual death. It is the cursed ground, fit to bring forth all manner of noxious weeds. Never did every sin appear in the conversation of the vilest wretch that ever lived. But look into thy nature, and thou mayest see all and every sin in the root thereof. There is a fulness of all unrighteousness there; Atheism, idolatry, adultery, murder. Perhaps none of these appear to thee in thy heart; but there is more in that unfathomable depth of wickedness than thou knowest. "(4.) The sin of our nature is of all sins the most fixed and abiding. Sinful actions are transient, though the guilt and stain of them may remain. But the corruption of nature passes not away. It remains in its full power, by night and by day, at all times, till nature is changed by converting grace. "You may observe three things in the corrupt heart: (i.) There is the corrupt nature, the evil bent of the heart, whereby men are unapt for all good, and fitted for all evil. (ii) There are particular lusts or dispositions of that corrupt nature, such as pride, passion, covetousness. (iii.) There is one of these stronger than all the rest,-'the sin which doth so easily beset us." So that the river divides into many streams, whereof one is greater than the rest. The corruption of nature is the river head, which has many particular lusts wherein it runs; but it mainly disburdensitself into that which we call the predominant sin. But as in some rivers the main stream runs not always in the same channel, so the besetting sin may change; as lust in youth may be succeeded by covetousness in old age. Now, what does it avail, to reform in other things, while the reigning sin retains its full power? What, if a particular sin be gone? If the sin of our nature keep the throne, it will set up another in its stead; as when a water-course is stopped in one place, it will break forth in another.

If the sin of our nature keep the throne, it will set up another in its stead; as when a water-course is stopped in one place, it will break forth in another. Thus some cast off their prodi gality; but covetousness comes in its stead. Some quit their profaneness; but the same stream runs in the other channel of self-righteousness.- "That you may have a full view of the sin of your nature, I would recommend to you three things:-1. Study to know the spirituality and the extent of the law of God; for that is the glass wherein you may see yourselves. 2. Observe your hearts at all times; but especially under temptation. Temptation is a fire that brings up the scum of the unregenerate heart. 3. Go to God through Jesus Christ, for illumination by his Spirit. Say unto him, 'What I know not, teach thou me!' and be willing to take in light from the word. It is by the word the Spirit teacheth; but unless he teach, all other teaching is to little pur pose. You will never see yourself aright, till he light his candle in your breast. Neither the fulness and glory of Christ, nor the corruption and vileness of our nature, ever were, or can be, rightly learned, but where the Spirit of Christ is the teacher. "To conclude: Let the consideration of what has been said commend Christ to you all. Ye that are brought out of your natural state, be humble; still coming to Christ, still cleaving to him, for the purging out what remains of your natural corrup tion. Ye that are yet in your natural state, what will ye do? Yemust die;yemust standatthejudgment-seat of God. Willyou lie down, and sleep another might at ease in this case! See ye do it not. Before another day youmaybe set before his dreadful tribunal, in the grave-clothes of your corrupt state, and your vile souls cast into the pit of destruction, to be forever buried out of God's sight: For I testify unto you, there is no peace with God, no pardon, no heaven for you in this state. There is but a step betwixt you and eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord.

There is but a step betwixt you and eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord. If the brittle thread of life, which may be broke with a touch in a moment, or everyou are aware, be broke while you are in this state, you are ruined forever, and withoutremedy. But come ye speedily to Jesus Christ. He hath cleansed as vile souls as yours. 'Confess your sins;' and he will both 'for give your sins, and cleanse you from all unrighteousness.'"