^'l ,'#
i
>«^'
^-•■<.'.
■Vr,A<^
'^-
'U
"' t;
^2Sat^.
w.
LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
PRINCETON, N. J.
Presented by
Division ^ . i.
Section 1.0 /O
^^v
f
■^m
f
^
VINDICATI\^oFPR„
OF THE Ncm^^
SCRIPTURE-DOCTRINE
OF
ORIGINAL SIN,
FROM
Mr. T AY L R\ free and candid
Examination of it.
To which are added.
Several DISCOURSES relative to the
fame Subject.
By the Revd. Mr. S A M U E lIH E B D E N.
LONDON:
Printed, and Dublin Re-printed, by Edw,
Bate in Geo?^^? s-lane^ Mdccxlvii.
[3]
THE
PREFACE.
TH E following Sheets pretend to no more than a
Vindication of the Scripture-Dodlrine of Original
Sin, from Mr. Taylor^s, Mifreprefcntations of it,
and his Objcdiions againft it \ and a Vindication of fcveral
Texts of Scripture, in which this Do6lrine is -contained,
from the forced and unnatural Senfes which, the Author
apprehends, Mr. Taylor hath put upon them, in favour
of his own Scheme. No further Explication and Proof
of this Do6trine is here attempted, than what was neceffa-
ry to thcfe Purpofes. The Writer mod fincercly joins
with Mr. Taylor^s hearty IVifh^ in his Preface, That we
may alljiudy the Scriptures hnpartially, peaceably^ and in the
Spirit of Love. It is hoped nothing will be found con-
trary to that Spirit in the enfuing Pages. Mr Taylor
would have us freely ufe our own Judgment, without any
Regard to his. And he dcclareth, If we are led into any
Error, by an implicit Faith in what he' faith, we ourfelves
fjjall be accountable for it. This Book is writ with a fin-
cere intention and Defire, that none may be accountable
for any fuch Error. If any Sentences fhould be thought
too fevere, the Writer hopes the candid Reader will con-
fider how difficult it is to read over a Book, wrote with
fo much Spirit and Warmth as that which this remarks
upon, without, now and then, catching a lictle of the
A 2 Author'^
4 'I'he PREFACE.
Author's Fire. He prefiimes, therefore, that the Admi-
rers of Mr. Taylor's Book cannot juftly find Fault with
this Performance, on that Account: He is rather apprc-
henfive oi the Cenfiires of Tome otliers, who, perhaps,
will not find their Indignation at Mr. Taylor's Book fuffi-
ciently exprefied in this. But, however that be, he is
fure, that he hath honejlly endeavoured to fet 'Ihings in a
juft Light, without aiming at gratifying any Party ; and
therefore hopes he fhall efcape the fevere Cenfures of all
true Lovers of Truth, and of the Word of God. He is
of Opinion with Solomon, that only by Pride cometh Con-
tmtlon \ and that if we all ftudied the Scriptures with a
more humble Mind, we fhould ftudy them more impar-
tially and peaceably; we fhould then form our Notions by
the plain exprefs Words of divine Revelation -, and not
labour to twift and diftort the facrcd Words and Phrafcs
into a Compliance with our own preconceived Schemes :
And then would all our Opinions be more confident with
Truth, and with one another, and our Love would abound
more and mare in Knowledge and in all Judgment.
A VIN-
[5]
VINDICATION
O F T H E
SCRIPTURE-DOCTRINE
O F
ORIGINAL SIN,
From Mr. T a y l o r's free and candid
Examination of it.
PART I. "
FREE a ad candid zxe very good Words, and Freedom
and Candour are excellent Things, to mix with all our
Enquiries afcer Truth, and in all our Controverfies, cf-
pecially about Matters of Religion. 'Tis pity fuch good
"Words (hould ever be abufed ; and it raifes a jult Indignation
when, at any time, we fee them put for Bigotry and Prejudice,
for Ignorance, Wrath, and Effrontery. What they really flani
for in the Title Page of the Performance now under Confidera-
tion, will appear from the Contents of it. The Doflrine here
propofcd to onx free and candid Examination, is The Scripture
Do£frine of Original Sin. The Author ftyles himfel.f a Minif-
ter of the Gofpel, and affures us he has made the Revelation of
God alone the Rule of his fudgrnent ; and alfo that he has laid
out a good deal of Pains upon the Scriptures, luith a particular Eye
to this Point. Thefe are inviting Confidcrationd to attend the
Progrefs and Refult of liis Encjuiries about this Matter. One
cannot but read liim with C:^ndour ; or if there be ?.v\y Danger
ef a JJiafs from Prejudicisr, it mufV }\i:z'h be in favour of his
A J , Scheme,
6 The Scripture-Do^rine of
Scheme, which fo apparently tends to flatter our natural Vanity,
and to give us a good Conceit of ourfelves. No Man, furely,
can be prejudiced againft his own Nature ; Men are generally
rather apt to be over charitable to themfelves. If this Author
then can fatisfy us, that the Notion of Original Sin which has
fo long and fo generally prevailed in the World, is nothing but
a vulgar Error ; That we have no Reafon to heforry^ or dread
the Wrath of God, for Adam's Sin * ; that we derive nothing
but Benefts from it '^ ; that we are born into the World under
the Smiles of Heaven, without any moral Corruption, or Pro-
penfity to Sin in our Nature =. That we are made in the fame Image
cf God that Adam was ^, and that to talk of our wanting that
Righteoufnefs in which Adam was created, is to talk of nothing
we want «. It is brave good News ; and if he can but prove it
is true, fo that we may fafely venture our Souls upon it, we
jnuft needs hold ourfelves very much obliged to him ; and we
will promife to transfer much of our thankful Regard from Chrifl-,
(whom we have ignorantly, it feems, looked upon as our Re-
deemer, and Saviour from the manifold Ruins of the Fall,) to
this worthy Minifler of the Gofpel. He offers to lead us by the
Hafld in this important Enquiry ; and I rejoice that I can fet out
with him in perfect Harmony, when he fays, Page 2, that all
Truth, necefjary to Salvation, is revealed in the holy Scriptures ;
and the Scriptures, not the Opinions of Men, no not of good Men, no
fiat of many learned and good Men, are the Rule of our Faith.
But it is the IVord and Revelation of God alone upon which my
Faith is founded. Let us then, by all means, open the Bible, as
our Author advifes, and keep a Jlriii Eye upon it, as we go a-
long.
This Writer finds hnt five Places, in all the Bible, w^ere the
Confequences of the firjl Sin are certainly and plainly fpoke of.
However, as he well adds, the Bible is open to every Body ; and
there, I make no doubt, but any unprejudiced Reader will find a
great many Places more, in which the firft Sin is certainly and
plainly referred to, and the Confequences of it certainly and
plainly defcribed ; but if Mr. T. will not allow that to be cer-
tainly and plainly fpcaking of them, I will not wrangle for a
Phrafe, nor difpute about Words. Pie fliail lead me by the
Hand in his own Way ; and difpofe the f/iany Places of Scripture,
tiiat fpeak of Original Sin, into what Clafles he pleafes.
The firft Place then is Gen. ii. 17. where God threatens
Adam with Death, in Cafe of his eating rhc forbidden Fruit. Up-
on which, though iicrc is not a Word faid relating to Ada?)i's
Poflerity, yet, our Author juflly obferves, if tlie Sentence had
been
» Page 14. .i«P. 2j, cP, 2-4, ,^4, iSj, 1P. 175 'P. 179.
Parti. OrigiHalSinvindiLaled. ..^ 7
been immediately executed upon him, all his PoJIefity mnji^ in
courfe, have been extin£i with hiin, p. 8. and fo deprived, even
of an Exiftence, which otherwife was defigned them. Mcthinks
this looks fomething hke Adorns being conftituted the foederal
Head of all his Pbfterity, that their Exiftence, or Nonexiftcnce,
is made to depend, (by the Original Law, or Covenant, which
God gave to Adam,) on his perfonal Obedience, or Difobedience,
to it.
The fecond Place of Scripture, which fpeaks certainly and
plainly of the Confequence of the firft Sin, is Gen, iii. 7-— 25.
which gives an Account of the Fear and Shame that feized our
firft Parents, immediately upon their Tranfgreflion ; their en-
deavouring to fly from the Prefence of God ; the judicial Sen-
tence which God pronounced upon Adam, and Eve, and the
Serpent ; and the Expulfion of our firft Parents out of Paradice,
and from the Tree of Life. Upon this Paflage Mr. T. difcants
largely, for feveral Pages ; but, as a great Part of what he
there offers, is quite befides the Purpofe of the Argument in De-
bate, I fliall only take Notice of his Remarks and Refledlions
lipon it. He obferves, that for any thing that appears in the
Text, the evil ASlion which Adam and Eve convnitted W€ts per-
fonal ; and that, jetting afide the Tempter, no body comm.itted that
finful d^ of Difobedience but they themfelves : This, he faith, is
manifef, p. 13. And if all his Obfervations were but as mani-
feft as this is, his Book would then be indeed, what I am told
it is boafted to be, vi%. an unanfwerable Performance. Vv ho
ever faid, or thought, that the finful A6t of our firft Parents
Difobedience was any body's A£l but their own ; or that any of
their Pofterity, a6lually and perfonally, committed that Sin ; that
is, eat the forbidden Fruit? If our Author means this wonderful
ObfervatioH, in oppofition to the Imputation of the Guilt of
Adam^% Sin to his Pofterity, it is as manifcft, as even this his
Obfervation is, that he does not at all undcrftand the Doftrine
v/hich he has undertaken to write againft. He (hould have
known, before he wrote on this Subje6l, that a^ual perfonal Sin,
and imputed Guilt, are quite two Things, which yet he perpetu-
' 'ly confounds, or makes them to be the fame, throughout his
Look : Thus, in the Paflage now before me, from the evil Ac-
tions being perfonal, which our firft Parents committed, and
done only by them, he argues, yo miifi alfo the real Guilt be per-
fonal, and belong only to theinfebies. Where, if by real Guilt
he means perfonal Guilt, as diftinguifhcJ from imputed Guilty I
do not know, nor fufpeil, that any body believes otherwife : But
if he means, (as one fhould rather guefs from what follows)
that, becaufe they only committed the finful A£lion, therefore
the penal Effects of it could extend to none but themfelves ; or,
A A which
8 fbe Scripure-DoSlrint of
which is the fame thing, that the Guilt of it, or kn Obligation
to fufFer Punifhment for it, could not, in Juftice and Equity,
be imputed to, or laid on, their Pofterity. I fhall take the Li-
berty to deny the Confequence, notwithftanding our Author has
fo abundantly proved it, by many repeated Affertions. He tells
us, indeed, that no other could, in the Eye of 'Jufl'tce and Equity
le punijh able for that Tranfgrejften, which was their (viz. our
iirft Parents) own A£l and Deed, and not the ASi and Deed of
any other Man, or IVomany in the World. And in the next
Page he fays, no other could beforryfor a thing in which they had
tie hand, which was done before they had a Being. Now if there
be any thing in this Argument, viz. that Adam^% Pofterity could
not, in the Eye of Juftice and Equity, be puniftiabie for his
Tranfgreifion, becaufe it was his perfonal A6t, and not theirs ;
1 conceive it muft prove univerfally, that it is unjuft and unequi-
table to punifh the Children and Poftefity of any Man, for his
perfonal Crimes, which they had no hand in committing, and
which it may be were committed before they had a Being: and
yet, moft certain it is, that God has, in other Cafes, adtually
puniftied the Crimes of Parents upon their Children and Pofte-
rity, and fometimes to far diftant Generations. Nay, and fuch
an Imputation of the Guilt of one Man's Crime, or an Obli-
gation to fufFer Puniftiment for it, upon his Children appears, in
fadl, to be agreeable to the Reafon of Mankind, and to the ap-
proved Rules of Juftice and Equity in all civilized Nations.
Thus Canaan, the Son of Ham, is curfed with Slavery for his
Father's Crime, and the Punifhment is entail'd on his Pofterity
after him, Gen. ix. 25, 27. Noah pronounced that Curfe under
a prophetic Afflatus, and God confirm'd it by his Providence.
And thus not only the Wives and Sons, but the little Children
of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, who cannot be fuppofed to
have had any hand in their Fathers aftual Rebellion, are yet
made to fhare in that exemplary Punifhment which was infli£led
upon them by the immediate Hand of God, Numb. xvi. 27, 33.
And when "Jojhua, and all Ifrael, had ftoncd Achan's whole
Family, and burned them with Fire, for Achan\ fmgle Crime,
we read, that upon this, the Lord turned from the Fiercenefs -£/"
his Anger ; which fhcws his Approbation of what was done,
fo/h. vii. 25, 26. Again the Punifhment of Gehazi's perfonal
Sins of Covetoufnefs and Falfhood is laid upon his Seed for ever,
2 Kings V. 27. Now will Mr. 7. fay, that the Pofierity of
Ham and of Gehazi, and the Children of Corah, znd of Achan
could not, in the Eye of Juftice and Equity, be puniflinble for
tlie Crimes of their Fathers, which they (their Children) had
not perfoiially committed, and which they could not poffibly
hclpi' Will he be bold to fay that, in thefe Cafes, the Judge of
9II
'Parti. Original Sin vindicated. g
all the Earth did not do right ? Yet fo much his Argument muft
prove, if it proves any Thing : and then might not his Terms of
highly prophant and impious.^ which he fo candidly applies, by
Cor^fequence, to the Do6trine of the Imputation of the Guilt
of JdatTi's Sin to his Poflerity, p. 14. be juftly retorted on his
own Argument ? Could not the Wives and Children of Corah
and of Achan be forry, for what theiV Hufbands and Fathers
had done ? And could not the Pofterity of Ham^ and the Seed
of Gehaziy be forry for their Fathers Crimes, which had entail'd
Slavery on the one, and Leprofy on the other ? No doubt but
they could be forry, and wore forry : and if Mr. T. is not for-
ry that our firft Pa;rents finned againft God, and brought fuch
wide, and lafting Ruin upon the World, I am very forry for it.
Or, whatever our Author will pleafe to make of thefe Old Tef-
tament Stories, I hope he will pay feme Regard to the modern
improved Wifdom of Mankind. Has he never then lieard,
that the Children of any Nobleman were punifhed with the Lofs
of Eftate, and of Titles, and Honours, which formerly belong-
ed to the Family, fot their Fathers Treafon ? or, it may be, it
was the treafonable Aft of their Great Grand-father, which he
comrpitted before they had a Beuig. And have they no Caufe
to be forry for what their Father or their Grandfather did, and
for which they are fufFering Beggary and Difgrace to this Day ?
Even the Heralds^ who are Gentlemen oft nice Honour, have
their Abatements in Coats of Arms, belonging to particular Fa-
milies, which denote feme difiionourable Adion, or Stain in
the Character of fome remote Anceftor ; and the Defcendants
are ftill obliged to bear the Difgrace of it. In fhort, this Au-
thor's Afl'ertion, that none can^ in the Eye of Jujlice and Equity.^
he punijliable for a TratfgreJJion that was not bis civn J£t and
Deed^ nor has any Reafon to be forry for it, flks moft direftly
in the Face, not only of the Juftice and Equity of God, but
of the common Senfe and Reafon of all Mankind.
Now if it were juft and equitable, that Children fhould bear
the Punifliment of their Fathers Crimes, in all or in atiy, of
the forementioned Cafes, our Author's fo often repeated Argu-
ment againft the Guilt of Adam's firft Sin being imputed to his
Pofterity, viz. becaufe he^ and not they, committed the finful
A6t, muft needs be good for nothing. Fafts are ftubbora
Things, which will yield and buckle to noArguments whatever.
And, if thefe Fafts are true, it is as certainly true, as that the
"fudge of all the Earth doth right, that, though no Man can be
confcious of his having committed a Crime, which not he, but
another Perfon committed, and though there can be no Confci-
cufricis of perfonal Guilt, but upon perfonal Tranfgreffion ; vet
it is not, in all Cafes, unjuft and unequitable to impute tht.
Guilt
10 ^^^ Scripture-DoSlrine of
Guilt of one Man's Sin, or the Obligation to fufFerPuniftmcflt for
it, to another Perfon. It is not always unjuft to punifh Children
for the Sins of their Parents j for this is no more than what
God has aftually done, very often, and what he does in the
Courfe of his Providence every Day ; and it is what the wifeft
and moft civilized Nations upon Earth continually pradife.
And why then fhould it be thought unjuft and unequitable,
for God fo to impute the Sin of Adam to all his Pofterity, as
to infli6l fome Punifliment upon them for it ? If the Reader de-
fircs to be further fatisfied of the Reafonablenefs and Equity of
this divine Procedure, I would refer him to a late Book, viz,
^he Ruin and Recovery of Mankind^ in which, I believe, he
will find the moft eafy, rational, and fcriptural account of the
Do6lrine of Original Sin that has yet been publiflied.
After all that Mr. T. has faid, to prove that the Guilt of our
iirft Parents Sin belonged wholly to themfelves, and that we,
their Pofterity, have nothing to do with it, nor any Reafon to
be forry for it ; he cannot but be fenfiblc of one notorious Fa<5t,
too glaring to be denied, that looks with a very malignant Afpeft
on his Scheme and Argument, vi%. 'That all Adam'^ Pojierity are,
infa^^fuhjeSied to the fame A ffli£iiom and Mortality here^bySentence
ivfiSied upon our frfi Parents ; and they defend to us in Confe-
quence of their Trangreffton^ p. 20. But yet our Author is very po-
sitive, that thefe ar^ net ii; filled upon us as Punijhments for their
Sin i we mayfufferfor that Sin and a dually do fujf erf or it ; but we
are not punijhed for their Sin ^ bccaifewe ere not guilty of it, ^. 21.
If Mr. T". would havcreafoned upon Faft. , inftead o|- indeavour-
ingto make Fafls buckle to hisSchcme,the Argument would natu-
rally have ftood thus ; We do, in facl, fuft'er for Adam's Sin, and
that too by Sentence inflicted on ourfirft Parents, we fuffer the
fame Mortality and Death which God puniftied them with, in
confequence of their TranfgrefTion, therefore we are, fome
Way, and in fome Senfe, guilty of their Sin ; for the Judge of
all the Earth doth rights and, therefore, will not make a Per-
fon fufFcr for a Sin which he is in no Serife guilty of. I would afk
here. What is Guilt, but an Obligation to fufFer PunifhmenC
for Sin ? Now fincc we fufler the hmc penal Evil, viz. Death
which God threatned to, and inflidcd upon Adam, for his Sin ;
andfioce, it is allowed, wc fufl^'cr this for Adatns Sin, and fince
alfo wc are obliged to undergo this Suffering by the Sentence of
God, who has appointed uiUo all Men once to die, becaufe
Adam hnncd ; is not the Coiulufion then moft plain and evident ?
ThereFore wc are all Tome Way guilty ot" Ada?n\ Sin. But our
Author has a quaint Conceit to lielp in this prefting Difficulty,
«/z. that the SulFcrings, Aftliclions, Mortality, and Death, which
came upon Adam, and which come upon us, for liis Sin, are
not
Part I. Original Sift vindicated. ii
not infliiSled under the Notion of a Curfe^ but they are given as
Benefits to Mankind. As to our firll Parents, he obferves, that
although (in the Sentence which God pronounced upon them)
they are manifejily fubjedted to Sorrow, Labour, and Death j
yet thefe are not inJliSled under the Notion of a Curfe, p. i^
This Gentleman fliould, by all means, have told us what a
Curfe is, or, -ather, in uhat new Senfe he underftands that
Word ; for without the help of fome new Meaning, I fufpecSfc
no Mortal will be able to diftinguiui betwixt a Gurfe, and thofe
Punifhments which God inflicted on our firft Parents for their
Sin. It is obfervahle, he tells us, that the Spirit of God wholly
abftains from the Ufc of that Word, viz. Cuife, even with regard
to their outward Condition \ and much more with regard to their
Souls. But, on the contrary, it is obfervable, the Sentence on
Adam begins with Curjed is the Ground for thy Sake, Thorns
and Thijlles friallit bring forth to thee. And if this Curfe does
not relate to Jdam^s outward Condition, what does it relate
to ? In what Senfe could the Ground be curfed, which had
neither fmned, nor was capable of being puniflied, but only in
regard to Adam's outward Condition ? It was Part of the Curfe
upon him, that the Ground was now made lefs fruitful than
before : fo that it would require his painful Labour to till and
cultivate it. Thus the Jews are threatned, in cafe of their
Difobedience, curfed JJoa II be the Fruit of thy Land, the Increafe
of thy Kine, and the Flocks of thy Sheep, Deut. xxviii. ig. Did
any Body ever conceit that this Curfe was threatned merely to
► the Fields, the Corn, and the Cattle, and not at all to the
ProiV'^^o^s ^"^ Owners of them. A Line in Milton., if our
Author had read it, might have prevented this egregious Blun-
der ; where the true State and Aieaning of the Curfe upon
the Grpund is expreffed with beautiful Propriety.
' "" On ?ne the Curfe aflope
«* Glanc d dn the Ground : IVith Labour I muji earn
" My Bread
As to US the Poftcrity of Adam, our Author will have the
Afflidlions and Death which wefuffer, in confequence of his Sin,
to be Benefits and Bleflings to us, inftead of Evils and Curfes. So
that it feems inftead ot being puniihed for the Sin of our firft Pa-
rents, we are gracioufly rewarded, and blcfled for ir. This is
turning the Tables to purpofe. But though the Scripture rcpre-
fents the fan£tified Afflidtions of good Man, as Means of their
fpiritual Improvement ; ihck Things Jlmll turn to their Salvation
through the Supply of the Spirit of Jejus Chrifl, Phil. i. ig. And
{^ the original Curfe is converted into a Blefllng to God's pe-
culiar People ; yet Mi. T. will find it hard to ihew huw tempo-
ral
12 The Scripture-Do^rine of
xal Affliilions, SufFerings, ^nd Death, are Benefits to Men in
the general ; or even to the bigger Part of Mankind 5 which,
if there be any Thing in his Argument, they muft be.
Another Text of Scripture, in which our Author allows the
Confequenccs of Adam'^ Sin are diredly fpoke of, is, i Cor.
XV. 21, 22. For ftnce by Man came Death y by Man alfo came
the RefurreSiion of the Dead. For as in Adam all die, even
Jo in Chriji Jhall all be made alive : Upon which Mr. T. ob-
ferves very truly, that the Apojile here fpeaks, manifejlly, of
that RefureSlion of Chrijiians^ which is oppofed to fleeping /«
Chrijfy or being dead, in a State of Relation to Qhrifi ; of that
RefurreHion, of which Chriji's rifing from the Dead, on the
third Day, was the firfi Fruits, the Pledge and Pattern. But
to me, it does, by no Means appear, equally clear and indifpu-
table, from this Text, that in Ohr'ijl all that die in Adam are
made alive, for then, how comes the Apoftle to make, them
that fleep in Jefus, to be the peculiar Defcription and Privilege
©f the dead Saints ? even thofe whom God will bring with him,
I Their, iv. 14. and by which they are diftinguiftied from thofe
others, concerning whom there is no Hope, vcr. 13. And elfe-
wbere I find Chrift called the firji born from the Dead, in rela-
tion to his Body the Church, Col. i. 18. but no where, that I
remember, in all the Scripture is the Refurredion of Chrift
reprefented as the Firft-fruits, the Pledge, and Pattern of the
llefurrefStion of all Mankind. It is not fo very certain,
as this Writer would have us think, that all who fhall be
raifed by Chrift's Power, fliall be made alive in Chriji, ac-
cording to the true Scripture- meaning of that Phrafe. The
Truth is, that in this i Cor. xv. the Apoftle is fpeaking of the
Refurredlion of the Saints only. He treats here of the Refur-
rcdlion, under the Notion of a Privilege j he defcribes the Re-
iurredtion-Bodies as vaftly improved, as being raifed m Incor-
raption and Power, and Glory. Now, does any one fuppofe
that the Refurredtion will be a Privilege to the ungodly; and
that this Defcription of the Refurredlion-Bodies will, in any
tolerable Senfe, agree to the raifed Bodies of wicked Men ? If
M V. T. will pleafe to open his Bible, and keep a JiriSi Eye
upon the whole Context, he will fee it is quite undeniable, that
x\\Q Apoftle is here fpeaking of the Refurredtion of true Believ-
ers in Chrift ; and that he confines his whole Difcourfe to their .
Cafe, and to theirs only : for the Perfons of whom, and of
whofe Refurre(Sion, he is here fpeaking, are fuch as zxt fallen
ajeep in ChriJ, ver. 18. they are thofe who have Hope in Chriji,
ver. ig. and of whofe Refurreition the Refurreftion of Chrift
was the Firji-fruits, which fuppofes their relation to him, as a
Redeemer and Saviour, ver. 20. As to the Wicked and Unbe-
livers.
Part I. Original Sin vindicated. ig
lievers, the Apoftle does not at all confider their Cafe in this
Argument, From this Place, therefore, we cannot conclude that
Chriji will deliver all Mankind from Death, which is the Con~
fequence of Adam^s firjl Sin, whatever that Death be. For what
the Apoftle here aflbrts is only,that as all thofe Perfons, of whom
he is now fpeaking, die in Adam, as well as other Men, fo they
(hall all be made alive in Chrijf. Behold here the Mifchicf of
Mens contenting themfelves luith Scraps and fmgle Sentences of
Scripture, which in Sound may feem to mean one Thing, but real'
ly have, taken with tuhat goes before, and what follows after, ei
quite different Signification ; which, as Mr. T. very juftly ob-
ferves, />. 3. is a very fallacious Way of proving Things from
Scripture.
We come now to that* which, in our Author's Apprehen-
fion. is the moft difficult Place of Scripture, that fpeaks of this
Point, viz. Rom. v. 12 19. and a moft difficult Place in-
deed it is, to be in any tolerable Senfe reconciled with his darl-
ing Scheme ; but otherwife I can fee no great Difficulty in
it.
The Apoftle having treated in the preceding Chapters of the
Caufe and Manner of the Sinner's Juftification before God, viz.
through the Rightcoufnefs of Chrift, and by Faith in his Blood 5
and having fpoke of feveralof the good Fruits and Confequen-
ces, of Juftification, in the former Part of this fifth Chapter ;
he proceeds, in the Verfes before us, further to illuftrate this
Point of Juftification and Salvation by Chrift, by comparing it
with, or rather fetting it in Oppofition to, the Caufe and Man-
ner of our Ruin by the Sin of our fijft Parents, as Oppofites
will often illuftrate one another. Ajid here any unprejudiced
Reader will fee that the Apoftle compares Adam and Chriji as
two foederal Heads ; and fliews how what wc loft in one, is re-
flored by the other, and that with abundant Advantage. He
makes Adam to be a Figure, or Type, of Chriji, ver. 14. and
he (hews the Similitude, or Refemblance, betwixt them ; not,
indeed, in refpedl to any thing that v»'as merely perfonal to ci-
ther of them, but with refpect to fuch Things, as by, and from
them, redound to others. He plainly confiders them both as
public Perfons, political Heads, and foederal Reprefentatives,
the One of all his natural Defcendants, the Other of all his fpi-
ritual Seed : or, agreeably to the Diftindion which the Apoftle
had laid down before, the One, even Adam, of the whole
World of Mankind, who are all become guilty before God; and
the Other, even Chriji, of all thofe who obtain the Righteouf-
nefs of God, which is by Faith of J ejus Chriji unto all, and up-
tn all them thai brlicv-', Chap. iii. 19, 22..
I moft
? 4 ^^^" Scr}plure-Do5lrine of
I moft heartily approve of our Author's Advice here, that we
jhould keep our Eye JriSfly upon the Texty as it lieth in the Bible.
And, by the way, I am very well fatisfied, that the ftrider
Eye we keep on the Bible, the lefs fhall we be in Danger of fal-
ling in with his Scheme. Let us now attend ftridlly to this
Text as it licth in the Bible, and fee what we can make of this
difficult Placg^ this jeemingly oh f cure Paragraph. I am in great
Hopes, if we do not I'ufFer ourfelves to be blinded by Prejudice,
in favour of any preconceived Scheme, it may not feem quite
fo obfcure as this Author intimates ; nor fhall we need fo much
Labour of Criticifm to make it intelligible, as he hath beftowed
upon it.
Concerning the Confcquence of Adavi^ Sin upon his Pofleri-
ty, we have here the following Particulars :
L That by one Man Sin entered into the World, viz. into the
World of Mankind : which will naturally lead us to conceive,
that the whole World is, fome Way, afFe£ted with, and con-
cerned in, Adam's Sin ; and this, indeed, is evident, bc-
caufe,
n. Death, which is the Wages of Sin, and which was the
very Punifhment that God threatened to Adem\ firfl Tranf-
greflion, is adlually inflidted on all Mankind ; Sin entered into
the World, and Death by Sin, andfo Death pajfed upon all Men,
vcr. 12. Upon which it is afTerted in the next Words,
in. That all have finned, y3 Death pajfcd upon all Men, for
that all have finned. It feems then that all Men are deemed
Sinners, or, as having finned, in the Eye of God, on account
of that one Sin, of which alone the Apoftle is here fpeaking,
"jtz. the firfl Sin, of that one Man which brought Death into
the World. And,
IV. Not only after, but before, and until the Law (given by
Mofes) Sin tvas in the JForld, and Men were deemed to be Sin-
ners, and were accordingly punirtied with Death, through many
Generations, while as yet God had given no other Law to Men
(at Laft, which v/as generally broken by them *) in which he
threatned the Punifhment of Death, befides that which was giv-
en to Adam ; and he is not fo uiijufl as to impute Sin to his
Creatures,
* We find but one pofuive Law, which God gave to Men, from
Jtdam to Mo fa, that made Death the Penalty of tranfgreffing it, tvc.
the Law Hgainil Murther ; Gen. ix. 6. Whofo Jheddelb Mani Blood,
by Mffn /hall his Blocd he fhed. But this Law was not given until
more than i6oo Years after the Creation ; and it is not probable
that, after it was given, many Perfons fufFered Death on that Ac-
fount. Yet all thofe Ages afforded but one fingle Inftance, 'vix,.
Enochs of an Exemption from Death in the whole World of Man-
kind.
Parti. Original Sin vindicated. 15
Creatures, and to punifh them, for tranfgrefling a Lav/ which
they are not under. Sin is net imputed where there is no Law,
neverthelefs Death reigned from Adam to Mofes, And it is fur-
ther manifeft, that this Punilhment was not then infli6Vcd upon
Mankind for any a6lual Sin of theirs, becaufe it was inflicted on.
a \d{\ Multitude of Infants, who had neither eaten of the for-
bif- icn Fruit, nor hved long enough to be capable of committing
anv actual Sin whatever ; and therefore had not ftnned in any
Senfc, after the Similitude of Adam^s TranfgreJJion, ver. 14.
Therefore,
V. It was through the Offence of one ^ or through the one Offence
of Adam, that many are dead, ver. 15. and by one Offence Death
reigned by one^ ver, 17, And fince the Sin of Jda?n is thus pu-
nilhed upon all his Pollenty ; it follows,
VI. That they were all involved in that Sentence of Con-
demnation, which God pafTed upon him for his Sin. And fo
the Apoftle faith, ver. 16. The Judgment was by one to Con-
demnation ; and ver, 18. by the Offence of one, judgment came
upon all Men to Condemnation. And finceit thus plainly appears,
that all Adam^s Pofferity are involved in his Condemnation, and
are actually punifhed for his Sin, it mufl needs follow, and it
may very properly be faid.
VII. That they all Sinned in Adam as their foederal Head, to
which purpofe the Apoftle writes, ver. 19, by one A4an's Difo-
hedience many were made Sinners, xec]iroi5Y,a-ae.y which Mr T.
very well tranflates were conjlltuted Sinners. They were fo
conftituted Sinners, by Adam^^ finning, as to become thereupon
liable to all the fame Punifliment which had been threatned to
his Tranfgrcflion.
From all which now, methinks, were I to borrow a little of
our Author's modefl Language, I might fay, it certainly, clearly,
and infallibly appears, that Adam flood in the relation of a foe-
deral Head to all liis Poftcrity j and it is, therefore, no impro-
per Language to fay, that they all ftnned in him, and fell with him
in his firfl Tranfgreffion.
Let us further attend to the Parallel which the Apoflle runs in
this paflage betwixt Adam and Chriji, the Type and the AniUypej
in the following Particulars.
I. Both have done fomething, by which, many others that
came after them, are affected, and vVith whom it fares, either
better, or worfe, for what they did. Through the Offence of cnt
many are dead, and the Gift of Grace , which is by one Man Je-
fusChrij}, hath abounded unto many, y^x. 15.
II. That which the firft Adam did, with which many (that
is, indeed, all Men, as having been reprefcnted by him,} are
affcdtcd, and frgm whence they receive Detriment, was Sin^
Offence.,
1 6 ^'he Scripture-T)o5lrine of
Offence i and Dlfcbedience to God. They all fufFer by ene that-
finned, ver. i6. by the Offence of one, by one Man*s Difohedience,
rer. i8, 19. That which Chrift, the fecond Adam, did, by
•which many (that is all to whom he is a foederal Head) are af-
fected, and from whence they receive Benefit, is Righteoufnefs
and Obedience. By the Righteoufnefs of one, by the Obedience of
one, ver. 18, 19.
III. The Detriment which thofe, whofe foederal Head Adam
was, receive through him is, their being made Sinners, that
fudgment is come upon them to Condemnation, and Death, which
is the Wages of bin, is, therefore, inflifted on every one of
them. On the other hand, the Benefits which thofe, whofe
foederal Head Chriji is, receive by, and through him, are Grace,
or the Favour of God, fufiification, Righteoufnefs, and eternal
Life. The Grace of God, and the Gift by Grace, which is by
one Man Jefus Chriji, hath abounded unto many. By the Righ-
teoufnefs of one, the free Gift came upon all Men to JuJiificatioH
cf Life. By the Obedience of one many are made righteous, ver.
15, 18, 19.
Thus the Apoftle fliews the Parity betwixt Adam and Chriji,
and betwixt the EiFedts of Adani's Sin and of Chriji'$ Righteouf-
nefs, all the Way ; only in two Inftanceshe argues with a Much
More, ver, 15, ^ 17. and ftiews that the EfFe6l of Chrifs
Righteoufnefs doth vaftly exceed the Effect of Adam's Tranf-
greflion ; as,
I. It removes many Sins, befides thatone Sinof Adam, which
involved all his Pofterity in the Guilt of it. If through the
Offence of one, {or through one Offence) many be dead ', MUCH
MORE the Grace of God, by fefus Chriji, hath abounded unta
luany. 1 he Judgment was by one to Condemnation ; but the
free Gift is of many Offences unto fufiification, ver. 15, 16.
II. Chrtji raifcs his People to a much happier Life than that
which Adam enjoyed in his earthly Paradife, and more firmly
fecures the Continuance of it to them. Much More they which
receive Abundance of Grace, and of the Gift of Righteoufnefs,
fljoll nign in Life, by one Jefus Chriji, ver, 17.
Thus we have gone throui^h this difficult Place of Scripture,
as Mr. T. calls it ; and I peifuade myfclf, if we may be al-
?owed to Cake tlie Words and Phrafes, which the Apoftle here
ufes, in tlic moft obvious and natural Senfe, we can have no
great Difficulty to undeiftand it, even without the Help of our
Author's Paraphrrife. And here I would afk, Suppofing the
Apoftle, or, raiher, the Spirit of God, did really intend to
teach us the Do£trine of the Imputation of the Guilt of Adam's
lirft Sin to all his Pofterity, and of both the firft and fecond
Adamh foederal Relations and Trapfai^iom, what plainer, ftrong-
er.
Parti. Originals invhulicaled ly
ger, and more expreffive Words and Phrafcs could he have ufed
to convey thofe Idtas to us, than thofe which are made ufeot in
this Chapter ? As it is, to be fure a very wrong and fallacious
Way of proving Things from Scripture^ to argue merely from
the Sound of Words, which may feem to mean one Things but
when taken with what goes before andafter, have quite a different
Signification; fo it is no Ids wrong and fallacious, to depart
from the moft obvious and natural Meaning of Words and Phra-
fes, unlefs there be an apparent Neccflity. But fuch it Teems
our Author thinks there is, in interpreting this FafTage of Scrip-
ture. Some Errors of tlie IVanflation muft: be amended ; and^
fome Phrafes muft needs be conftrued into a lefs common and
obvious Meaning. I will prefent the Reader with a few Speci-
mens of each Sort; by which he will be very well able to form a
Judgment of our Author's Admirable Abilities for writing a Pa-
raphraje upon the whole Epijile to the Romans^ which he has as
good as promifed us.
As for Words and Phrafes, which this Writer would, by no
means, have taken in the moft obvious and natural Senfe. One
is. Many were made Sinners, which he aftures us means, neither
more nor lefs, than, all Mankind tvere inade fuhjeSl to Deaths
p. 30. and this, he is pleafed to tell us afterwards, he has dc-
monjlratcd, p. ^3. By the Way I cannot help fufpetiing that,
DOtwithftanding our Author is (o great an admirer of Sir Ij'aac
Netuton^ and judges h,im to have been fo much wifer a Man
than ever A^lam was, f/). 228.) he is not much acquainted withSir
Ifaac% Demonftrations ; or he never would have talked of ha-
ving demonftiated, what in reality he has not produced any
common Evidence for. Again, to receive Abundance of Grace ^
ver. ly. is, with our Author, to improve the Abounding of
Grace ^ p. 47. and by the "Judgment which came upon all Alen to
Condemnation, he will have nothing more to be meant, than
meiely Mortality and neiural Death ; heftdes which, he tells us,
we find no other fiidgment to Condemnation, ivhich came upon all
Jl^citp in the whole Bible, p. 39. It is poffible he may have
foiaid no other j but, whoever will read Rom. iii. 19. without
a Biafs to any favourite Scheme, wijl certainly find there, fome
other and further Judgment to Condemnation, wnich came
upon all the W^orld, tia fTro^i^o? yei/rrai 'Tra; xoo-/>t©^ tu (p^£W that all
the JVorld may become guilty before God, or, as the Margin tran-
fl.::es it better, that all the JVorld may become fuhjeB to the fudg-
7nent of God. And docs this Judgment mean nothing but Mor-
tality, and natural Death ? Read the Account of the Bleflings
which are oppofed to this Judgment in the following Vcrfes, and
let any unprejudiced Pcrfon judge. Thcfe are Righteoufnefs
Jiiftificaiion, Redemption, and Remiffion of Sins, ver. 22, 24.,
B 2.-. The
1 8 ^he Scripture-Do5lnne of
25. T}?e Right eoufnefs of God which iSf by Faith ofjefus Chrijj^
unto all, and upon all, them that believe i being juji i fed freely by
his Grace, through the Redemption that is in fefus Chriji, whom
God hith fet forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood,
to de i.u ehis Right eoufnefs for the Remiffion of Sins that arepafty
throu^ r (? Forbearance of God. And does all this mean no more
than bare ' or Refurre£lion to Life, in oppofition to that Death
and Morr .iity which is cc imon to all Mankind ? Does all this
mean nothing but fuch a r Turreflion, and fo far only conlidered,
as will be common to the godly and to the ungodly. If that
be all the Apo{lle'i> Meaning, he iiad the worft Knack at ex-
prcifing his Meaning of any Writer I ever met with. Again,
accorJjng co our Author's argui. g, p. 47. by J ujiifieation of
Life, ver. 18. and by being made righteous^ ver. 19. we are to
underfland nothing but the Refurreffion. But can we believe
that the learned, the infpired St, Paul doQi rtzWy ufe fo many
differer t Words and Phrafcs, only to exprefs, what he might
have expreiTed fo much more clearly, by one fingle Word, viz.
RefurreSiion ; an.d that he ufes Words and Phrafes for the Re-
furre6lion, which had always been ufeJ to fignify quite another
Thing ; fo that if it had not been for our Author's uncommon
Sagacity, in clearing up the ApolUe's Senfe, we fhould never
have been able to come at his Meaning.
I fuppofel have given Inftances enough of this Writer's Ta-
lent, at conftruing the Scripture Words and Phrafes into any
Meaning that will fuit his own Scheme. At this rare one might
make any Thing of any Thing j and by the help of this Art
he might have built his Scheme on the Alcoran, as well as the
Bible.
An Inflance or two of this Author's critical fkill, which
he has moft learnedly difplay'd, in corredting the common
Tranflation, in order to clear up this obfcure Place of Scrip-
ture, fhall finifh our remarks upon it.
The firft that he prefents us with is to prove that Many fignifies
All, p. 26. For this he feems to think it fufficient, merely to
fet the Greek Words before our Eyes, l\. -rr^-Xoi which he ren-
ders, but without rendering any Reafon for it. The Many, or all
.Mankind. If he really meant any thing more than to impofe
his own Senfe, for Scripture, on fuch of his Readers as do not
nnderftand Greeks I guefs he muft imagine, that the Article ot
does fo very mucii enlarge and extend the Senfe of '7ro^^o^ as to
make it fignify All inflead of Many. But this will never pafs
with fuch as have any tolerable Knowledge of the Greek Lan-
guage. They well know that. this Article is frequently redun-
dant, fo as not at all to alter the Senfe of the Word it is join'd
v/ith. Does 01 TToT^xoi fignify all Mankind ? Ram. xii, 5. fVe be-
inr
Parti. Original Sin vindicated. 19
ing many {U ttoWoi) are one Body in Chri/i. Or does it fignify fo
much as all Chriftians, or even the Majority of them, 2 Cor.
ii. 17. IP^e are not as many (St 7ro^^ot) which corrupt the IPordof
God. Surely, this was not the Charader of all, or of the big-
ger part of Chriftians, even in the Apcftle's Days, when the
Church was in its infant Simplicity and Purity, that they were
Corrupters of God's Word. And why then muft o* ttoMoj ue-
ceflarily fignify all Mankind, when the Apoftle fpeaks of thofe
to whom the Grace of God abottnded by Chrijly and who were
made righteous by his Obedience ? The Truth is, It is no Part of
the Apoftlc's view in this Context to determine how many, whe-
ther if//, or Some only, of the human Race, are redeemed by
Chriji ; but only to explain the Occafion and Caufe both of the
Ruin and Recovery of Men, viz. of all that have been ruined
by Aiam, and of all who aie faved by Chriji ; or, of all who
were included in Adatn, as their fcrderal Head, (thefe are, in-
deed, all that defcend from him,) and all who are reprefented by
Chrift^ as their foedcral Head, in the New Covenant. But
how many, or how h^^ thcfe are, whether they are y///, or
only a Part of Mankind, is a Queftion which the Apoftb does
not once touch upon in this Paragraph. This muft be deter-
mined by other Places of Scripture which treat of that Subject.
Here, therefore, S» 7ro>.?vo», many., as well as Trai/ls?, <?//, ver. iS.
can fairly be underftood only of all who were reprefented by A~
dam., and all who are reprefented by ChriJl., as their feveral foe-
deral Heads, let the Number of them bs more or fewer. And
thus, not only oittoAaoi, but Trals;, alU 's "ot uncommonly ufed
in a reftrained Senfe, as Auls xxii. 15. Thoufljalt be his (Chrift's)
TVitnefs., 'jT^oi Travraj avS^'wroy?, Unto all /!/<•'« of what thou ha/ijeen
and heard ; wliich muft admit of a juft Reftri6tion ; for there
were manv Millions of Men to wl)om Paul never preached, and
■who never heard of what he teftified. So, when he fays, /
plea fe oil Men., in all things, vccpMirxuiv, I Cor. x. 33.it is cer-
tain he can mean no more, than that he picafed ail tiiofe Men
with whom he had any Converfe and Concern, in all tilings that
were lawful. And again, Luke vi. 28. JVo unto you when all
Men {jTia.<i-xic,h\a.'i^euita\.') Jhall fpeak well of you. I prefume no
Man, in his Senfes, will underftand by all Men ilierc, all the
Individuals of the Human Race. And thus when St. Prt-tt/fairli,
in the PafTage before us, that by the Rightenufnefs of one, the free
Gift c a we upon all Men te fuftif cation of Lif\ in oppofition to
Judgments coming upon all Men by the Offence of one, it is
mod: natural to underftand it, agreeably to the D ift of the
whole Context, onlv of all Men whofe fceJeral Hc:iJ
Chriji is, whatever Proportion the\ n-.nv bear to the wiiole
human Race. And yet certain it i>, that if our Autiior's Senfe
B 2 of
20 The Scripture-Do£lrine of
of Qi wo>.Xoi, viz. all Mankind, fliould fall to the Ground, not a few
of his clear ^ certain^ infallible^ demonflrative A} gumentSy which
are built on it, as their only Foundation, muft fall together
with it.
As fome other of our Author's Criticifms, by which he la-
bours to prove, what no body denies, feem to be intended
merely to difplay his Learning (a Point which I will by no Means
difpute with him) I pafs them over. There is only one more
that I Ihall take notice of in this firft Part of his Book, by which
he propofes to corredl and amend the prefent Tranflation. It
is upon Rom. v. 12. So Death pafl'cd upon all Men^ for that (up
«) all have finned : The marginal Tranflation reads it, in whom-,
but Mr T. obferves, that the Particle « refers according to the
Rules of Grammar, to Sajolo?, Death, as being the next Subflan-
iive going before that it can agree with ; therefore not to cf'^^ovoi;^
Jl<fafiy in the Beginning of the Verfe, as our marginal Tranfla-
tion refers it. I fhall have occafion to remind our Author of
this Part of the Criticifm hereafter ; let it pafs for the prefent.
The mod laboured and learned Part of his Critique on this 12th
Verfe is upon the Prepofition etti, which the Text, in our Ver-
fion, tranflatesy^r, and the Margin, by. But our learned Au-
thor finds, that in ieveral Greek Authors (as they are quoted in
Jiis S caputs Lexicon) this Propofition, when conjirued with a
Dative Cafe, as it is here, fignifies, among other things, to, and
unto; accordingly, what we render, for that all have finned,
Jhould rather have been, unto zuhich (Death) all have finned; or,
as far as zuhicb (Death) all haue fiwned : This, furely, is right,
faith our Author, p. 52. Now, by all Men have finned, he has
htioxe demorflrated, is meint, neither more nor lefs than, that
ihey are all ?nadefubjeSf to Death. Accordingly, the true Verfi-
bn of this Text muft, as this Gentleman has demonjirated, be
precifcly thus, and fo Death paffeth upon all Men, fo far, or as
far as ivhich, all are fubje^ed to Death this furely is right ; nay,
jt is fo exceedingly evident, that, methinks, our learned Author
need hardly have beflowed fo long, and laboured, a Criticifm
on this Text, in order to convince us of it. Such Criticifms as
thefe fufficiently fpeak their own Value. But if MrT". can help
liS to no better a Correction of our common Tranflation than
this, in my Opinion, we had e'en as good make lliift with the
o !d one. And, indeed, i(p' u Truvl^rii^a.^ov, does fo 'obvioufiy mean,
hecr.ufe all h^.ve finned, i. e. actually, or imputatively, that all
Diiliculty vanifiie?, if we willfubmit to plain Revelation. Upon
the ivhole, it feemeth to our Author, that he has got the true Senfe
of this Place of Scripture ; as well it mav, to a Man who deals
in iiothin : lefs than Demonfiration, and irfulUble Evidence, which
isfu:ely bc)ondall Doubt. Accordingly he gives us a large Pa-
raphrafe
Part I. Original Sin vindicated. 2 1
raphrafe of the wbole Paflage : But it it feemcth to m?, that he
has v/idely miftaken the Scale, from the Beginning to the End ;
and that the .ommon Senfe of our Divines and Commentators
gives a more natural, cafy, and jufl- Paraphrafe on thefe Verfes.
He tells us, he has explained them as plainly and as clearly as he
can. And fo, I believe, he has, in confiffence with the Scheme
which he feems to be refolved, at all Adventures, to fupport :
But having aflured himfelf, before-hand, that the common
Do£lrinc of Original Sin cannot be the fenfe of Scripture, he is
forced to put the moft unnatural Meaning on the Apoftle's Words
and Phrafes, to keep them, if poilible, from averting it. But,
is it poflible for a Man of common Understanding, who is not
ftrongly byafFed to a preconceived Scheme, to read this divine
Paflage, and find our Author's Senfe in it ? Credat Judausy Sec.
After all the learned Pains which Mr T. has beftowed on this
Paflage of Scripture, to reconcile it, if pofHble, with his favourite
Scheme, it is fl:ill too plain to be denied, that the zvhole of this'
Difcourfe plainly Jhewsy that the j^pojlle underftood and believed^
that Death came upon Mankind by Adam^s one Offence : not for
that they have all finned ferfonally., but they have finned and are
made Sin?iers^ through the one Offence of one Man^ P- Si- But
then to allow this, and yet to deny the Imputation of the Guilt
of Adam\ Sin to his Pofterity, is fo glaring an Abfurdity, that
our Author finds himfelf conftrained to try if he can get over it j
which, therefore he attempts in an Appendix to Part L
B X HaMARKS
f
[22 J
REMARKS
ON THE
APPENDIX to PART I.
IN the Appendix, our Author propofes Two Queftions :
One is, How it is confijient with 'Jujlice^ that a whole
Race Jhould be fubjeSied to Death ^ by the Difobedience of one
Man f The other is, How jhall we account for all Mankind's
being made righteous^ or rejhred to Life at the RefurreSIion, by
the Obedience of another Man, J^J^^ Chrifi ? So far as thefe
Queftions regard real Fads, the Reader may find an eafy, ra-
tional, as well as fcriptural Anfwer to both of them, in the
Book I referred to before, viz. The Ruin and Recovery of Man-
kind. But let us hear our Author's Aecount of thefe Matters.
As to the firft Queftion, he gets rid at once of all Difficulty that
may arife from the Confideration of God's Ju/iice, by afcribing
it wholly to his Goodnefs, that by the Offence of one, Judgment
a come upon all Men to Condemnation ; and that by one Man^s
Difobedience, many are made Sinners ; or, as he is pleafed to
exprefs it, that the whole Race of Adam are fubje£ied to Death
for his Sin ; for Death, he tells us, is upon the zvhole a Benefit ;
Txnd from thence we may account for all Mens being made Sufferers
by the Difobedience of Adatn. Suffering of Benefits is not very
common Language : But this Writer deals much in peculiar
Acceptations of common Words and Phrafes. All Words were
coined by fome Body ; and why may not he have the Liberty
of coining new Meanings to Words, when it will fuit his Pur-
pofe fo to do ? Well then, by fuffering, we are now to under-
fland receiving Benefits ; and by our fufFering on account of A-
datns Sin, we are to underftand our being gracioufly rewarded
f©r it, even with the Benefit of Death. But how is Death a
Benefit?
Part I. Remarks on the appendix. 23
Benefit? is a Queftion which our Author puts, p. 69. If the
Qiieftion were. How Death, which was originally a CuiTe up-
on Mankind, is now turned into a Benefit by the Gofpel, to
them that believe in Chriji ; or, rather, how they receive Be-
nefit by it ? a fatisfailory Anfwer might eafily be given : But
this Gentleman will have Death to be an original Benefit, and
that to all Mankind. He fuppofes it is in mere Mercy and
Goodnefs that all are made to fufFer this Benefit, viz.. to increafi
the Fanity of all earthly Things, and to abate their Force to tempt
and delude us ; and when Death, at near a Thoufand Tears dif-
tance, was not fufficient generally to gain thefe important Ends,
rGod was pleafed to Jhorten our Days, reducing them gradually to
feventy or eighty Tears. And, he adds, if the corrupt Af orals of
the Antediluvians was the Occafton of this Reduction of human
Life, (as feems mojl probable) then it will be true, that as
Death entered into the World by Adam'x Sin ; fo the hajiening of
Death, or Shortnefs of Life, entered into the World, and came
upon all Men, by tbe Sin of that vicious Generation ; and by
their Difobedience ive are all again, fo far, made Sinners, i. e.
we receive the Benefit of Death, according to this Author's
Senfe. And what Reafon have we then to be thankful for their
Wickednefs, and to honour the Memory of that vicious Gene-
ration, who were, by their Wickednefs, the Occalion of our
fufFcring fo important a Benefit, and of our receiving it fo much
fooner. Our Author goes on to difplay the Benefit of Death,
and of the fhortening of human Life to it's prefcnt Standard,
viz. that the wild Rage of Ambition and Lujl might be brought
into narrower Bounds, and that Death, being fet Jlill uearer to
our View, might be a potverful Motive to regard lefs the Things
of a tranfttory World, and to attend more to the Rules of Truth
i:nd Wifdom. And does this Author, indeed, believe, in good
earned, that Death is fuch a Benefit to Mankind, in the gene-
ral ? Does it appear, in fad:, that the fhortening of Life, and
the nearer View of Death, has a natural Tendency to produce
thefe good Effeds ? Is it, indeed, generally, a powerful Motive
with Men to regard lefs the Things of a tranfitory World; or
does not the common Obfervation and Experience of all Ages
plainly fiiew the contrary ? Has not Covetoufnefs been always
accounted the Vice of old Age ? As Death comes in a nearer
View, we plainly fee, that, generally, Men grow, in their Re-
gard to Things of a tranfitory World. We are fure, there-
fore, that Death is no fuch Benefit, as our Author defcribes, to
the generality of Mankind; no, but quite the contrary; it is
the King of Terrors to them, 'tis the Burden of their Lives,
and the Bane of all their Pieafures, To talk, therefore, of
B 4 Death's
24 Rimarks on the Appendix:.
Death's being a Benefit, an original Benefit, and that to all
Mankind, is to talk againft the common Senfe and Experience
of the whole Worl i. Or, if our Author fhould fuppcfe, that
God gave it originally for a Benefit, but Men pervert it, by
their own Faulty into a Curfe and Milery ;. how will he account
for the EfFedtS proving fo generally contrary to the original In-
tention, and 'latural Tendency of the Caufe, but by fome as
general and' uniform a Corruption of human Nature, which yet
(as we fhail iee afterwards) he will by no means allow of.
It is ftrange, 'tis very llrange that D'eath (hould be origi-
nally given by God as a Benefit to Men, and that the fhorten-
ing of Man's Life afterwards ftiould be defigned as a ftill fur-
ther Benefit j and yet, that in the Law which God gave to his
favourite IJ ael^ long Life fhould be promifed as the Reward of
Obedience, and Death fiiould be fo often threatened to punifh
DifoLiedienct. 'Tis ftrange, that the increafing Wickednefs of
Mankind fhould difpofe a juft and holy God to increafe, and
heap, his Favours and Benefits flill more and more upon them ;
and flrange, above all, is the Power of Bigotry and Prejudice^
hi favour of darling Schemes and Notions, to invent fuch wild
Hypothefes, and to fwallow down fuch monflrous Abfurdities,
rather than fuhmit to plain, rational, revealed Truth.
But our Author pleads Scripture on his Side; for^ in feveral
Places, the Scripture dire^ly affirms that JjfliSfion and Suffering
is the Chafiifement of our heavenly Father ; and particularly ap-
plies our common Mortality to the foremeniioned good Purpofes.
But d< es not even Chafi:ifement fuppofe a Fault ? that muft be a
cruel Father who will chaften his Children for no Fault at all.
if Mr. T. will then allow that our heavenly Father does but
chaften us for A(lim% Sin, he muft furely allow that the Fault
of it docs, fome Way, and in fome Senfe, lie upon us ; or elfe
he reprefents the blefl'ed God as a moft cruel Being, and his
Dealings with his Children as unrighteous and unreafonable.
I perfciily agree with our Author, as to other Benefits which
may be reaped by Death, p. 69. -y/z. To form a jujl Idea of
the odious and deftruSfive Nature of Sin, as Death fets before our
Eyes a flriking Demonfiration that Sin is infinitely hateful to
God, and the Corruption and Ruin of our Nature for
tvith Sin, Death, as it's deferved yittendant, entered into the
World. I only add, and fo it ftill continues, the deferved At-
tendant on Sin, and, therefore, on whomfoever Death is inflict-
ed, to them Sin is imputed, even to them tiho have not finned,
after the SitniHtude of Adain s Tranfgreffton ; for theJVagesofSin
is Death.
Thus
Part I. Remarks on the Appendix, 25
Thus our Author has {hewed, that while God, as a ffvereign
Lord, fubjeSfed Man to Death, he might, as a Father, do it
for Ends good, and kind, and beneficent. And yet he might, at
the fame time, inflict it upon them in the Nature of a Punifh-
ment 3 as a Father punifties his Child for a Fault, in order to re-
form him.
Tiie fecond Queftion propofcd in this Appendix is, Hotij we
{hall account for all Mankind'' s being made righteous, or rejhred
to Life at the Refurre£lion, by the Obedience of Jefus ChriJ} ?
To which I anfwer ; Let it firft be proved, that to be made
righteous, and to he rejiored to Life at the Refurre^lion^ mean
the fame thing ; and alfo, that all Mankind are made righteous
by the Obedience of ^Jefus Chrifl, before we give ourfclves the
Trouble to account for Fails, which, perhaps, are only imagi-
nary. However, as it is certain that fome Men are made righ-
teous by the Obedience of Chriji, and fhall obtain a glorious
Refurreition, in confequence of what he has done and fuffered
for them ; Let us fee how our Author accounts for this Matter-
I agree with him, that it is owing to the Worthinefs o( Chriji ^
but I can, by no means, afTent to the Account which he gives
of this h'lsfiiperior Worthinefs, his prevailiag Intereji inGod be-
yond all others. The Scripture evidently afcribes it to the Dig-
nity of his Perfon, and to the Merit of his Obedience and Suf-
ferings J but Mr T. confines it merely, to his being flain, and
redeeming us to God by his Blood, which he makes to fignify no
more than his Obedience to God, and his Good-will to Men ; or
his confianmaie Virtue, p. 72. And, in the next Page, he tells
us, that true Virtue, or the right Exercife of Reafon, is true
Worthy and the only valuable Conjideration, the only Power which
prevails tvith God. So that, according to this Author, Chriji^s
exercifmg his Reafon in a right Manner, which led him even
to facrifice his Life in the Caufe of Truth, in Obedience to God,
and out of Love to Mankind, is the true and precife Meaning;
of his being flain, and redeeming us to God tvith his Blood; of
his fuffering the ju/i for the unjuji., to bring us unto God i of
his fl)edding his Blood for the Remiffon cf Sins ; of his giving
his Life a Ranfom for many ; of his being made Sin for us, ivho
knew no Sin, that we might be made the Rightcoufnefs cf God in
him. And do all thefc, and many other fuch like Scripture Ex-
preffions, mean no more, than, that Chri/i exercifed his Reafon
in a right Manner, exhibiting an extraordinary Inftance of Vir-
tue, Obedience, and Goodnefs ; but without any regard to a
proper Atonement for Sin ? At this Rate, all the ConfefTors
and Martyr:^, who have rightly exercifed their Reafon in a due
Subiiiifllon to the Will of God, and in bcarijig the Sufferings
vviiictt,
25 Remarks on the Appendix.
which hfe laid upon them, have, in their Meafure the fame Sort
of Worthinefs that Chriil has ; and though he may be, in this
refpcdl, more worthy than any of them, yet I can fee no Rea-
fon why, upon this Scheme, their Worthinefs fhould not be alfo
a valuable Confideration ; and have Power to prevail with God
for the Pardon of fome Sins, and for the obtaining of fome Fa-
vours } and why Chriji alone muft ivin every Prize, and bear
away all the Honour from them.
Does our Author think, that >this poor jejune Account of
our Saviour's glorious Work of Redemption will pafs, with
any Perfons of common Senfe, who believe the Scriptures to
be given by Infpiration of God ? This is making the Scriptures
a meer Nofe of Wax ; and, at this Rate, inftead of their being
the Rule of our Faith, they would be no Rule at all. If we
may thus put Meanings to the Scripture Phrafes, which are
quite foreign to their obvious and natural Senfe, the Bible
might equally ferve to prove, or difprove, any Fhing ; and a
Syftem of Paganifm may as well be gathered from it, as the
Doctrines of Chriftianity.
The Author clofes his Appendix with fome Reflexions j of
which I have only this to fay, that they are perfedlly well-
becoming the Do6trme he has advanced, to the great Impovc-
rilhment and Difhonour of the whole Gofpel,
THE
" [27]
THE
SCRIPTURE-DOCTRINE
O F
ORIGINAL SIN
VINDICATED.
PART II. '
E proceed now to the fecond Part of this elaborate
and much applauded Work, in which the Author
propofes impart! aLy to' examine the principal Pajjhges
of Scripture^ that have not been confidered already^
which have by Divines been applied^ in fufport of the common
Scheme of Original Sin. And Ijecaufe it would ))e cndlefs to
collect all fuch PaiTag.s, he v^'ill confine himfelf to the Account
the JJJembly of Divines have given of it^ in their Catechifrns^
and the Texts they quote to inake good that Account. In this Part
tlie Author has given us large Specimens of his Impartiality and
Candour ; particularly in the honourable Mention he makes of
the AfTembly of Divines, p. 125. and the charitable Apology
he makes for their Weakncfs and Ignorance, in quoting fo many
Texts of Scripture, fo very impertinently, to fupport a Doclrine
which is no where in the Bible. He dehrcs that what he fays on
this Head may be obferved, and, therefore, I will tranfcribe it ;
/ defire it may he objerved., that I have no Dejign to afpcrfe the
Memory of the Affembly of Divines^ either here, or in any other
Part of the Book. 'Tis my Opinion they were a Body of Men
vot inferior either in XJnderJlonding^ or Integrity., to at.y in thofs
Days. They tvere not the Authors of the Docirine we are examin-
ing : No ', it had been profejfed and ejiablifixd in the Church of
Rom."
2 8 The Scripture-Do^irine cf
Roine many A^ei before the AJferhhly of Divines uoer' In being.
And the Proofs they ufe Were fuch as had been, ^ f'^Ppf-j ^^■''iifnon-
ly applied by learned Men to the fame Purpofe. I wonder what
this Author would have faid of the Afrenibly of Divines, if he
had really d Jlgned to afperfe their Memc v. If this be the
Language ot nis Candour and Charity, wliat \v.>uld the Lan-
guage of his Wrath have been. The AJfembly of Divines were
nst the Authors of this DoSfrine, 'Tis very true, for they found
it in the Bible, out of which our Author will never be able to
expunge \u They were as wife as their Neighbours ; but it
feems they, and their Neighbours, in thofe Days, were all Fools
alike. The moft learned Men of thofe Times took Things upon
Truft : They fwallowed down a Do6lrine which has no Foun-
dation of Truth J and quoted Texts of Scripture to prove it, as
they found them quoted by others, without ever examining into
the Meaning of them. But the Mafter-piece of our Author's
Ligenuity and Candour is the Account he gives us from whence
they received this Do£trine : It had been profeffed and ejlablijhed
in the Church ^Rome, ttiany Ages before the Affembly of Divines
vjere in being ; and I will be bold to add, in the Church of Chrifiy
fome Ages before the Church of Rome was fo corrupted. What
does our Author mean by this Do6lrine's having been profeffed
and eftablifhed in the Church of Rome ? if he means, that it is
properly a Popifti Do6trIne ; let him (hew what Connection it
has with any of the peculiar and diftinguifhing Doctrines of Po-
pery : Or, is it's having been profeffed and eftablifhed in the
Church of Rome, an Argument of its being falfe and unfcrip-
tural ? That would equally prove againft the Being of God, and
againft mofi: of the fundamental DotSlrines of Chriftianity. I
take no Delight in retorting our Author ill Language; but, fure-
\y his candid Terms of y^//^, unjuji, abfurd, and unreafonable^
which he fo plentifully beftows on the Dodrine of Original Sin,
were never more applicable to any Paffage, even in any contro-
verfial Writings, which are feldom wrote with the beft Temper,
than to this Paffage of our Author's*
Now, though I will affure this Gentleman, that ««///«j in
•verba is as much my Motto as it can be his : 'Tis not the Affem-
bly 's Catechifm, but the Bible, that is the Rule and Standard of
my Faith ; yet I look upon the Affembly's Catechifm to be, in
the general, as excellent a Siimmarv of the Chriftian Faith as
any tiiat is extant : I honour the Memory of thofe worthy
Divines, and, in particular, for the judicious Collection they
have given us of the l\xts of Scripture that either direSily prove,
or properly illuflrate, the Dodtrine of Original Sin. Befides the
Texts that dire6tly prove this Dodlrine, they have quoted fome
'n which the fad Effects of our originjl Ciuilt and Depravity
are
Part n. Original Sin vindicated. 2g
are defcribed, which are therefore very proper for the Illuftrati-
on of the Doiirine 5 and it is no fufficient Anfwer which Mr
T. gives to feveral of them, in order to fhew, that thev arc
quoted impertinently on die Side of the Do6trine of Original
Sin, that tney do notdiieclly fpcak of it. Howcvei tliere arq
fo many Texts in vv^hi.ch this Dc6trine is either dircdiy fpok? of,
or evidently implied, that our Author might well have fpared his
Obfervation \i\p. 50. viz. That the Scripture fpeaks very fpar-
ingly of the Conjeqiiences of Adam's Sin upon us^ becaufe^ as tbefe
are freely abjolved and reverjed to Mankind^ in Chrifi^ we are
not fo much concerned to biotv thctn^ 5{c. where the Fa^ which
he obferves, and the Reofon which he affigns for itj are equally
true.
Let us now fingle out fome of the Texts which are quoted by
the Aflembly to fupport, or iliuflrate the Doitrine of Oiiginal
Sm ; and attend to our Author's Remarks upon them.
The firft is Atls xvii. 26. God hath made of one Blood all Na-
tions of Men, for to dwell on the Face of the Earth, Sec. this
is quoted to prove, that all Manlyind defend from Adam. But
here our Author brings in his that is, (which yery often, in this
Book, ftands for that is not :) Made all Nations of Men of one
Blood, that is, God hath made all the federal Nations of ths
J'Vorld of one Species, or Kind, endowed zuith the fa?ne Faculties.
And fo they might have been if all Men had been created fingly
and fcparately, juil zs-Adam was ; but in no Propriety of Lan-
guage, or common Acceptation of Words, would they tlien
have been all of one Blood. Are Angels of one Blood, becaufe
they are of one Species, or Kind; and arc probably endowed
with the fame Faculties? But our Author has different Meanin^^s,
from other People, for Abundance of conimon Words andPhra-
fes. However, to the common Senfe of Men, this Text will
appear to be quoted very pertinently to prove what it is brought
for. He adds. If this Scripture is def.gned to prove that tls
Covenant zuas fo made zuith Adam, as a public k Perjon, not cnl^i
for himfelf, but for his Poflerity ; that he finning, they alfo Jhould
Sin in him ; I muft leave it to every Man to make it out as he can.
And whoever thought this Scripture was quoted to prove all that?
Such trifling as this deferves no Notice,
That God made a Covenant with Adam, as a public/: Perfcn^
including all his Pojierity ; and, confequently, that all Mankind
defending fro?n him, by ordinary Generation, finned in him, and
fell with him in his firf: Trnnfgrejfton, the Aflembly have prov-
ed very methodically and fubftantially : Firft, from Gen. ii. 16,
17, where Death is threatened to Adam, in cafe of his finning:
then UomRom. v. 12—20. and i Cor. xv. 21, 22. where we are
exprefly toldj that all Men die /;; Adam \ that by his Offiucejudg-
qo 5r^<? Scripture-'Do£}rine of
ment is come upon all Men to Condemnation ; and that by his Dif-
ehedience tnany are made Sinners. The plain and obvious Mean-
ing of which Texts has been already vindicated from the forced
and unnatural Senfes which this Author endeavours to impofe up-
on them. But ftili he will have it that it cannot be true, that
all Mankind finned in Adam when he finned ^ for then the 'Offence
would not have been the Offence of one, hut of Millions. But
cannot the aStual Sin of one be imputatively the Sin of Milli-
ons ? or, cannot the Obligation to fufFer Puniliiment for it be
transferr'd to Millions ? Tha" cerrainly can be, and it has been
in other Cafes befides this, which were mentioned befoie. Our
Author's continually confounding the Notion of a£iual2inA im-
puted ^m and Guilt, fhews how well he underftood the Doctrine
which he undertook to write againft.
The Affenililv quote Rom. iii. 23. For all have finned and
ccme foort of the Glory of God., for one Fext V^ i ove, that the
Fall brought Mankind into a State of Sin and Mifery. Mr T.
will have it that hv all^ the Apofth means only Men (that is
fomc) of all Nations. But, moft certain it is, that he means
all Men of alt Nations, or he mean:* nothing to the Purpofe of
his Conclufioii and his Inferences, ver. 19, 20, 21, 22. and
then, ver. 23. is as impertinently added by the Apoftle, as Mr
y. would have us believe it is quoted by tht Aflembly of Divines.
The Apoftle concludes, from the View which he had given be-
fore of the univerfal Corruption of Mankind, that every Mouth
7nuft be Jloppedt and all the World is become guilty before God,
ver. ig. From whence he draws thefe two Inferences ; i.
Therefore by the Deeds of the Law there Jhall no FleJJ) be jujlijied ;
and therefore, 2. The true Way of Juftification for all Smners
is one and the fame, vix. by the Righteonfnefs of God which
without the Law is manifejied, even that which is by Faith of Je-
fus Chrifi., unto all^ and upon all them that believe.) for there is
110 Difference., viz. as to the Way of Juftification, for all have
finned.) and come Jhort of the Glory of God. And, therefore,
whoever they are whom our Author will pleafe to exclude from
this All (all have fumed ^ he muft Ilkewife excufe from having
any need of Juftification by Chrijl, and leave them to bejufti-
iied fome other Way which the Gofpel gives us no Account of.
I hope our Author will confider this Pafl'ase a little better, be-
fore he favours the World with his intended Paraphrafe on the
whole Eptjlle to the Romans.
Here it may be proper to take Notice of another of our
Author's Remarks, upon the Afiembly's quotin;; fome preceding
Verfes o^\ this Chapter, Rom. iii. 10 — 20. in onier to prove
and illuftrate an tmiverfiil Depravity and Corruption of human
Nature. F^r it is vjritt^n, there is none righfesusy no not one ;
there
PartIL Original Sm vindicated. 3r
there is none that underjlandeth, &c. Thefe Texts are coIIe6led
by the Apoftle out of the Old Teftament, moft of them from
the Pfalms^ one from Proverbs^ and one from Ifaiah ; and they
are brought to prove that both Jews and Gentles are all under
Sin; ver. (j. TFe have, before proved both feius and Gentiles that
they are all under Sin. And, for a further Teftimony to this
Truth, healledges the following Accounts of the univefal Cor*
ruption and Wickednefs of Mankind, from the Old Teftament
Scriptures. TheConclufion he draws from hence is, that, all
the World is become guilty, or fubjeSi to the "Judgment of God,
ver. 19. and the Defign of all is, to fliew, that all Men ftand
in need of that Righteoufnefs of God, which is by Faith of Je-
fus Chrift, for their Juftification, ver. 21, 22. oi the Redemp'
iion that is in Chrijl, ver. 24- of his Propitiation for the Re-
mijfton of their Sins, ver. 25. And, in (hort, it is to prove that
all Men, who are juftified in the Sight of God, are jujlified by
Faith without the Deedr of the Law, ver. 28. But our Author
is very pofitive, that the Apcjlle is not, in this whole Paragraph^
fpeaking of all Mankind, but of a very fmall Part of Mankind,
viz. the yews, p. I02. no, nor of all the Jcivs neither, not of
every Individual, p. 104.- but only of fome very wicked Pcrfons
amongft them, fome Malecontents under Z)<si'/Ws Government.
He has faid a great deal to fupport this Notion, but not a Word
that can vindicate St. Paul's Rcafoning from being trifling and
falfe, as it mufts needs be according to the Senfe which Mr T".
puts upon this PafTage. There is no Neceffity of fuppofing that
the Defcription, in every Verfe winch St. Paul quotes, was,
in all refpedh applicable to every individual Perfon. 'Tis e-
nough that every Verfe may be iitly applied to fome or other ;
fo that the whole is a juft Defcription of the univerfal Depravi-
ty and Corruption of Men. 'Tis granted there is a Difficulty
fometimes, in fhcwing the Force of St Paul's Proofs from the
Old Teftament ; but that is no Difficulty with us, in the pre-
fent Argument. Whether he cites David, and Solomon, and
Ifaiah, in the primary Senfe of thofe divine Writers, is not the
Queftion j but if St Paul is not allowed to mean here a De-
fcription of the univerfal Depravity and Corruption of Men,
including all the Individuals of the liuman Race, his Argument
is quite ruined. B'or to prove that there were fome wicked Men
among the Jews, fv.'hich is all that pur Author will allow to
be intended by thefe Quotations) would, by no A4eans, anfwer
/his Defign; nor make the Salvation of Chriji neceflary to all the
Jews, and much lefstoallthe Gentiles. I conclude, therefore,
that if the Apojlle argues zuifely and fairly, as I am well perfuaded
he doth, fuch (I general Corruption, as admits of no Exception, is
necejfary to his Argument in the Place under Confderation. And,
tharefoies
3 2 ^he Scyipture-Do^r'ine of
therefore, this Place is very properly and judicially quoted hythc
Affembly of Divines, to prove and illuftrate the Corruption of
human Nature in all the Pofterity of Adam.
Our author finds his Scheme confiderably embarrafled by a
Text which the Affembly quote from Ephef. ii. 3. and fpends
many Pages in endeavouring to relieve it. The Text is, Among
whom (viz. the Children of Difobedienee) we all had our Con-
•nerfatlon in Time paji^ in the Lujl of the Flejh^ fulfilling the de-
fires of the Flejh and of the Mindy and were by Nature Crildren
of TVrath, £ven as others. Mr T. tells us, that the Apojile's
true Intent was to convince the Ephefians, who zuere Gentiles con-
verted to the Faith of the Gofpely that they vjere Children of
Wrath through the Trefpajfes and Sins in which they hadwalked^
p. 108, 110. But the Apoftle moft evidently fpeaks here of the
fews too, whom he pronounces Children of Wrath by Nature,
and of himfelf among thern, as well as of the Gentiles. It is
jiotyc as in the two Verfes before, but alfo We all were by Na-
ture Children of Wrath. With what Front does this Man fay,
that the Apoftle fpcaks here only of the Epheftan Gentiles., and
is here defcribing their wretched aud deplorable State while they
zverein Gentile Darknefs, p. 108. Again, the Apofllefays, that
They, and Himfelf, and all others, are by Nature Children of
Wrath; but our Author affi;ms. He is not here [peaking of their
Nature^ but of the vicious Courfe of Life they had led among the
Gentiles^ p. iii. With juft as good a (jrace might he have de-
fied that the Apoitle is here fpeaking of the Ephefans, or of any
body ; or that there are any fuch Words in the Bible as thefe
which the Affi;mbly hav? quoted. Bnt let him but put his own
Sonfe on the Apoflle's Words, and he will allow, them to be
SVr'ipture : For Inftance, We all mufl: mean 7e only ; and by
Nature muft mean nothing but really and truly, as Mens na-
tural Children are really and truly their Children in diftin6tion
from adopted Children ; who, by the Way, are as really and
truly their adopted Children, as the others are their natural
Children. And though our Author does not pretend, nor, in»
deed, is it poilible for him, to quote one fingle Text where by
Nature, (pvasi , Dears any thing like the Senfe which he would im-
pofe upon it here; yet, for the Ufe of the Englijh Reader, h?
quotes a Text, in which quite a different Greek Word is ufed,
to prove that by Nature fignifies truly. It is i Tim- i. 2. wher?
St. Paul calls Timothy his own Son, -yvYicnov tewov. It is not worth
while, in the prefent Argument, to difpnte the Senfe which our
Author puts on that Text, becaufe the G;v^i Word there is quite
different from that which is very juftly tranfiated fyy Nature in
tliis other Text ; and therefore his quoting it in order to fupport
|iis Senfe of this Text is altogether iijipertinent.
But
Part II. Original Sin 'vhidicated. 31
But why mufl- we take the Word Nature in fuch a flrained
metaphorical Senfe, a Scnfe in which it is never uferj, when the
natural obvious Senfe is fo eafy, underdanding it of Ivatuie as it
is corrupted by Adam? Becaufe, faith our Author, it is infiiitely
ahfurd (b to under (lan.d it, therefore the Jpo/ile cannot mean they
were liable to divine Wrath or Punijhmcnt by that Nature zuhich
they brought into the World at their Birth. Methinks then !: was
not a little abfurd for thisApoftle, who was fo great a Mafler of
Language, both by Learning and Infpiration, to make ufe of a
Word which, in its nioft obvious Senfe, mult needs convey fuch
an abfurd Notion to his Readers, when there were other plain
Woids enough by which he might have expreflcd his Meaniiig,
fo that no Body, hardly even our Author himfelF, could poflibly
mifunderftand lii(n. But where lie? the infinite Abfurdity of that
Doctrine which the Apoftle's own Word fo plainly teaches ; viz,
that we all are, by Nature, Children of Wrath f Why, becaufe,
faith our Author, this Nature, whatever Infirmities it may be
attended with, is no other than God's oiun Work and Gift ; and
to fay the Nature he gives us is the hateful ObjeB of his Wrath, is
little lefs than Blafphemy againfi our good and bowitiful Creator^
p. 110. If our Nature was (till juft as God originally made it,
and as v/hen he ordained the Propagation of it by a prolific Order,
in the Days of Innocence, this might be true; but the Truth i.^,
this Nature is fo vitiated by the firft Man's finning, that it ex-
pofeth us to the Wrath of God : And this I take to be fo far from
an infinite Abfurdity, that it is a reafonable and divine Truth,
and an infinite Number of hard Words of Abfurdity, Blafphemy,
&c. will never make it falfe. Thus fefus himfelf was called a
Blafphemer, znd mad, when he f poke divine Truths, Our Na-
ture, fays this Author, is no other than God's own Work and
Gift, for his Hands have fafoioned and formed us, every one of us.
Sure he doth not mean, that God has made and falhioned every
one of us in the fame immediate Manner as he created Adam.
And if he only means, v^hat is the Truth of the Cafe, that God
is the Author of our Nature, as he created Man at firit with a
Capacity of propagating his Species, and ordered and edabliOied
the Law of fucceffive Propagation through a long Series of Ages
and Generations ; to which we mufl, no doubt, add the conti-
nual concurring Influence of his Power to render this Law cf-
fe6tual ; how will it follow, that becaufe, God is thus the Crea-
tor and Former of every one of us, therefore it is infinitely abfuhJ
tofuppofe, that we are by Nature Children of his Wrath ; or,
that our Nature has not, by imie Means or other, been fo vi-
tiated fince the original Law of its Propagation was eftablifii^d,
as that it is now become difpleafing and hateful to God ? W::3
(jod obliged to cancel, or to alter, the Law which he had e-
C tahliil^td
*4. The Scripture- DoSirine of
tablifhed for the "Propagation of Mankind, bccaufe the firft Man
had defiled his Nature, and muft neceflarily, therefore, propagate
a defiled Nature to all his Children and Pofterity ? And can the
Blame of their Defilement, with any Sort of Juftice, be charged
on God ? becaufe he only concurs, by his almighty Power, to
matncain his original Law of Creation and Propagation. If our
Author's Way of arguing, viz. That we cannot derive a cor-
rupt Nature from Jdam, becaufe it is God who hath formed and
fafbioned every one of us, proves any Thing, I apprehend it
would prove that none of the Children of Men can derive either
any bodily Diftempers, or evil Paflions and Difpofitions of Mind
from their immediate Parents. And yet that Multitudes really
do fo, is as notorious a Fa6l as almoft any in the World. Hovr
often, and how manifeftly, do the Vices of lewd Parents taint
the Bodies of their children with evil and painful Difeafes, and en-
tail Miferies even on their remote Defcendants ? And thus we of-
ten fee it that the God of Nature and Providence doth vijit the
Iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children ts the third and fourth
Generation. Is any thing more certain than llntLeproufy^ Gout,
and King''s'Evil, nay, and Frenzy too, which is a Diforder of
the Mind as well as of the Body, run in the Blood from Parents
to Children, through a long Succeffion ? And how often do we
as evidently trace the Father's evil Temper, his Pride, his Paffion,
and his malicious Spirit, in the Temper of his Son, as we trace
the Features of his Face in the Features of his Offspring. And
yet, mod true it is, that God's Hands have formed and fafhioned
every one of them, the Son as well as the Father, the Defcend-
ants as well as the more remote Progenitors. But now, as we
fee with our own Eyes, that this does not hinder Childrens de-
riving evil Habits of Body, and evil Difpofitions of Mind from
their Parents and Progenitors, where then is the infinite Ahfur-
dity of fuppofmg, that all the natural Defcendants of Adatn have
derived from him defiled and corrupted Natures ; though God,
by his firft enacting, and ftill continuing the eftabliflied Law of
Propagation, may very truly be called the Maker and Former
of every one of them ? Will our Author fay, that all the evil
Infirmities of Body and Mind which many Children, fo apparent-
ly, derive from their Parents, are no ether than God's own JVork
andGift? And is their Nature now no other ; or is it as God
made it? moft certainly it is jiot. And if the Infirmities which we
have derived from Adam^ and which now attend our Nature,
are really finful ones, as for Inftance, a prevailing Inclination to
Sin and Difinciination to Holinefs and Goodnefs ; fuch a cor-
rupted finful Nature muft, of Ncceffity, be hateful to an infi-
nitely holy God. So that after all our Author's Outcry of infi-
nite Abfurdity and Blafphemy, it remains a moft rational as well
as
Part II. Original Sin vindicated. 35
as fcriptural Truth that TVe all^ that all the Pofterity of Adam^
are by Nature Children of God's fVrath. And this Text is very
properly quoted by the Afiembly to prove, that human Nature
is corrupted ; yea, fo corrupted as to be indifpofed and difincllned^
or made oppofite to all that is fpiritually good, and inclined to all
Evil.
Our Author argues from Rom. ii. 14, 15. Th Gentiles
which have not the Law, do by Nature the Things contained in
the Law, he. This, fluth he, clearly ji'ppojeth, that the Gen'
tiles might have done the Things contained in the Law by Nature^
or their natural Powers ; hut th.y vjho do the Things contained in
the Low, are not the Obje£ls of God's Wrath, p. iii. And
what is this to the purp(j:e ? The Apoftle does not fay, that any
of the Gentiles did adualiy and compleatly fulfil the Lavv^ of
God : But the whole Drift of his Difcourfe, in this and the
preceding Chapter, (hews quite the contrary. When he fpcaka
of their doing, by Nature, the Ihings contained in the Law, he
moft evidently means, they are by Confcience excited to do
them as their Duty, not that any of them did adually fulfil this
Law of Confcience. But they might have done them, faith our
Author, otherwife they would not have been without Excufe for
not glorifying God, as the Apoftle fays they were, Rom. i.
19, 20, 21. But, if therefore they did not glorify God be~
caufe their Nature was corrupted in Adam, they would have
had not only a fair Excufe, but a jufi Reafon, for not glori-
fying God, feeing they tvould have been utterly incapable through
no Fault of their own, p. ir2. As this Author perpetually
confounds aSfual Sin with imputed Guilt in the firft Part of his
Book J fo he as conftantly confounds natural and moral Impo-
tency in this fecond Part ; whether this proceeds from Igno-
rance, or Defign, is not for me to determine : Charity obliges
me to hope it is the former. But he fliould have learned, and
known, before he took upon him to write on tliis Subject, that
Propenftty and Necefftty, Difmclination and Incapacity, are very
different Things. An utter Incapacity in Man to do his Duty,
for want of natural Powers, is what no- body aflerts, that I
know of; nor does a moral Impotency, or a prevailing Propen-
fity to Sin, and Difinclination to Holincfs, and Obedience to
God, at all imply it. Men may be utterly indifpofed, and, in
that Senfc, difabled, and made oppofite to all that is fpiritually
good, and yet not be uttcrlv, nor at all, incapable of it if they
were but difpofed and inclined to do it. And yet fuch a pre-
vailing Indifpofition does, to all Intents and Purpofes, amount
to a real Impotency; and fo the Scripture reprefents it, as Gen^
xxxvii. 4. Jofeph's Brethren hated him, and could not fpeak
peaceably to him. They could not, not becaufe they wanted the
C 2 natural
36 T^c Scripture-BoEJrine of
natural Faculty of Speech, but becaufc they hated \\\vn, and
thereby their Hearts were made oppofite to their Brother. But
was this their moral Iiiipotency, this tould not, a fair Excufe and
a juft Reafon for their ill Ufage of him? No more is the Cor-
ruption of human Nature, whereby Men are utterly indifpofed,
and, in that rcipetSl, difabled, and made oppofite^ to all that is
fpiritually good, any fair Excufe or juft Reafon for their not
doing the Good which they have natural Powers for, and which
it is their Duty to do. Thus alfo Men may be prevailingly,
and even wholly inclined to all Evil, and fo far Sin is natural to
them i yet that docs, by no moans, make their finning necefTa-
fv Such a corrupt Biafs and Bent of the Will is, indeed, na-
tural to all Men, fince the Fall; but their adual Sins are, ne-
verthelefs, chargeable on their own Choice. I could name a
Gentleman who has derived from his Mother a more than or-
dinary natural Relifli for a particular! Sort of Food, which at
fome Seafons of the Year is exceedingly dear and fcarce. This
natural Inclination and Appetite to that Food often puts him
to a large Expcnce in furnifhing his Table. Were he a poor
Man, very poffibly, it might occafion his Ruin. He fays he
cannot refrain from it; and yet, were he to indulge his Appe-
tite, with this moll: grateful Food, at an Expence which his
Circumftances would not bear, he would certainly be to blame.
It is plain he could live very well without it, for fo he muft ne-
ceirarily do through the bigger Part of the Year. Our Author
faiih, TVhat is natural to us we can by no means help and hinder^
p. 125. But the bad EfFedts of natural evil Inclinations may
be helped and hindered ; and if we indulge them to adtual Sin,
it is our own Fault. 'Tis a frequent Turn with this Author
thus to confound natural znd necejj'aryy which I hope is no more
than a Miftake.
The next Proof, which our Autlior fpends fome Pages in en-
deavouring to evade, is Rom. v. 6. For when we tvere yet with-
out Strength, in due Time Chriji died for the Ungodly. Here a
little Change of TFe into Ye may be of fome Service to his
Caufe. He tells us, th«refore, that the Apojlle /peaks here only,
to th3 Gentile:, and not to them neither pcrfonally, but in a Bo-
dy as di/linguijhed from the Body or Nation of the fetus. But
as he iias not been pleafcd to inform us who told him fo, nor
given us any Thing like a fufficlent Reafon to believe it, we
muft e'en let the Text ftand as it is ; and for what it is, viz.
one confiderable Proof, among many others, of the natural
• Weaknefs and Ungoiinnefs of Men, even of all for whom Chri/i
died : For which purpofc the AlTembiy quote it.
Oiir Aiitlinr is fo good as, of his own Accord, to give us one
T>;.\t, which fccms to fpeak the AfTembly's Senfe of the Corrup-
tion
Part II. Original Sin vindicated. 37
tion of human Nature, but which they have omitted. For,
indeed, it was not pofliblc for them to produce all the Texts of
Scripture, which give Teftimony to this Dodtrine, in fo narrow
a Room as they thought it neceflary to confine themfclves to.
The Text is Gen. viii. 21. I will not again curfe the Ground
for Man s fake ; for the Imagination of Man's Heart is evil from
his Youth. This Text gives our Author forne Opportunity of
difplaying his Skill in Criticifm 5 v/hich, perhaps, might be one
Reafon of his producing it ; for, otliewife, it would have been
altogether as prudent not to hav^ put his Readers in mind of it.
He has difcovered, it feems, that the Hebrew Particle »3 which
is tranflated for in this Text, does fometimes fignify although^
though for is undoubtedly the more common Meaning of it.
And then, by his ufual Dexterity in fhuflling and changing
Words and Phrafes, he turns for the Imagination of Man s
Heart is evil from his Youth ^ into although he Jhould fall into
the lajl Degree of Corruption. But alter all the learned Labour
which he has laid out on this Text, to make it fuit his own
Scheme, how plain and obvious is the natural Meaning of it,
t'/z. I will not curfe the Ground again for Man^ s fake., for Man is
not to be cured that Way, he is fo naturally bent to Evil, f:,r
the Imagination of M'ln^s Heart is evil from his Youth.
After all, if thcfc Scripture-Proofs cannot be evaded, accord-
ing to the moft obvious and natural Meaning of the Words, >
yet our Author is very fore that the Doflrins of the Corruption
of human Nature, wl.ich the Aflembly quote them to prove,
cannot be true, and that for two very fuhlfantial Reafons : One
is, that, according to this Doctrine, Men are no moral //gents.^
not capable of performing Duty^ nor of regulati-ag their Aciions
by a Latv commanding Good., and forbidding Evil. p. 225. In
another Place he fays, that if all Men arc by Nature utterly in~
difpojedy difabled, and oppofte to all fpiritiial Good., and wholly
inclined to all Evil contif.ua lly, they can be in no Capacity of uftng
Means cf Amendment nor is any Man., except Adam^
blameable for ivhatevcr JVickednfs is in the IVorld.^ feeing it
proceeds from a Caufe fubfijting in natural Necejftty^ p. 167. I
have faid enough before, concerning natural and moral Impo-
tency, to (hew the Weaknefs and Abfurdity of thcfs Inferences.
Becaufe we have now no natural Difpofition to fpiritual Good,
but are difibled or made oppofite to it by the prevailing corrupt
Biafs of our own Wills, therefore we are not capable of it,
even though we were willing and inclined to it. And bccaufr,
by the fame corrupt Biafs, we are inclined to Evil, therefore we
arc not blameable for any Evil we do. lliis is olainly the
Amount of our Author's Reafoning on this Head ; I prcfume 1
may fafely venture to let it pafs withokt any Anfwcr.
C 3 Another
2 8 '^^s Scripture- Do^rine of
Another weighty Reafon for which this Author will not fcruple
to fay, that the A[Jemhl'f s Propofition concerning the Corruption
of human Nature is falfe is, that^ according to this DoSfrincy
Sin mufl he natural to ns^ and if natural^ then Keceffury. This
is a favourite Turn of our Author's, which he has repeated
abundance of times in his Book ; but were he to repeat it a
thoufand times more, I fhall not fcruple to fay, that a thoufand
Repetitions would not make Truth and Reafon of it. If by
Sin he means here the corrupt Biafs of our Wills, that, indeed,
is natural to us, as our Nature is corrupted by the Fall; but it
was not fo originally, as our Nature came out of the Hand of
God : And therefore it is very improperly and unjuftly compar-
ed by our Author to the natural Paflions of Hunger and Thirft,
which God himfelf put into human Nature. This corrupt Biafs
of the Will is certainly evil and fmful, and hateful to God,
whether v/e have contracted it ourfelves, or whether we derive
it from Adam^ that makes no Difference. A proud and paffio-
nate Temper is evil, whether a Man has contradled it himfelf,
or whether (as is often moft apparently the Cafe) he has derived
it from his Parents. But if by Sin which Mr T. fays muft,
according to the Affembly, he natural to us; and if natural ,
then neceffary ; and if necejfary, then no Sin ; he means finful
Anions which flow from, and are occafioned by, this corrupt
Biafs of the Will ; it remains for him to prove, that a corrupt
Biafs of the Will makes the A<5lions nece/Tary, and, confequent-
ly, not fmful. If a corrupt Biafs makes Sin to be neceflary,
and, confequently, to be no Sin, then the more any Man is in-
clined to Sin, the lets Sin can he commit : And, as the corrupt
Biafs of his Heart grows {Ironger, his a£tual finning becomes
more necefTary i and fo the Man, inftead of growing more
wicked, grows more innocent. Then Lufl, when it hath 'con-
ceivedy that is, as our Author explains it, when it is come to full
Purpofe, Power, and Maturity in the Heart, inftead of bring-
ing forth Sin, as St, James aflerts, would, according to this
Author, bring forth puie Innocence ; and the Man would be
very unjuftly puniflied with Death and Deftrudtion for doing
what was now become neceflary, and which he coyld not help.
This is very weak and wild talking; and yet thus much our Au-
thor's arguing proves, if it proves any thing.
He argues further, p. 128. that if all aiiual Tranfgrefftons
proceed frcm Adam' J firji Sin, then, in effect, Adam finned all
the Sin that hath been, is, or JJyall be in the fVorld ; and he is
the only guilty Per fen that ever lived in it. For if our Sins pro-
teed from his, his Sin is the Caufe of ours ; and the Caufe of
every Ejfeil is alone chargeable with the Eff'eSi it produceth, or
yroceeddh from it. But who fays that Adam'^ Sin is th,e alone
and
part II. Original Sin vindicated. ^g
and only Caufe of all adual TranfgrefTions ? The corrupt Biafs
which all Men derive from him may be, and is, further heigh-
tened by Men themfelves. The natural Propenfity to Sin
grows by Indulgence and by Cuftom in finning: Hereby it is
raifed to its full Power and Maturity in the Hearty and pro-
duces acSlual Tranfgreilions. So, 'tis the Sinner's own Fault
that he fufFers himfelf to be drav.'n away and enticed into the
adtual Commillion of Sin, by thofe Lulls which he derives in a
corrupt Nature from Adam ; and it is his further Fault, that he
has heightened thofe co rupt Propenfities of his Nature into more
fettled and confirmed Habits by his own wilful Indulgence of
them, and by a Continuance in the Practice of Sin and Wick-
ednefs. As to our Author's faying, that if our Sins proceed
from Adzm's^ his Sin is the Caufe of ours^ &c. 'Tis pity he
had not learjied before he wrote on this Subject, to diftinguifli
upon that old School Axiom, Caufa Caufce efl Caufa caifati :
he fliould have known that this holds only where the immediate
Caufe is effentially fubordina;e to the remoterCaufe, not otherwifc.
But whoever thought that the aftual Choice of our ov/n Will,
which is the immediate Caufe of our adtual finning, is eiTential-
ly fubordinate to Jdam's Sin; or that it neceffarily follows from
that corrupt Biafs which we derive from him. The immediate
Caufe of a Stone's Weight in falling, is the Pi inciplc or Power
of Gravitation^ wliich God has put into it. Suppofe the re-
moter Caufe of a Stone's falling on my Head, and doing me a
Mifchief, fhould be fome Man's purpofcly letting it fall upon
me from the Top of a Houfe or Tower; in this Cafe the im-
mediate Caufe is neceflarily fubordinate to the more remote
Caufe, by an eftablirtied Law of Natuie; therefore the Man is
chargeable with doing the Mifchief, not the Stone nor Gravi-
ty. But fuppofe fome Perfon has told this Man a falfe Story
of me, by which he has fet him againfl me, or made his Heart
oppofite to me ; the Man's malicious Action may be confi-
dered as the more immediate Caufe of the Mifchief, the other
Perfon's Lye as the remoterCaufe, or the Caufe of the Man'i,
Action. In this Cafe, though the other Perfon would begtjilty
•f a Lye, yet the Guilt of the malicious Action would lie
wholly on him that did the Mifchief. And were this Man ta
be tried for it, in any Court of Juftice, it would be a vain
Thing to plead in his Juftification, that the other Perfon was
the Caufe of it, not he. So Jdarris Sin is the Caufe of the cor-
rupt Biafs of our Wills ; but it is our own wilful indulging to
this corrupt Biafs that is the Caufe of our aftual finning. There-
fore ihe Caufe of our Sin is the Choice of our own Will ; or
our Sin proceedcth immediately from our own Choice ; But it
by no means follows, as our Author would have it, th;\t ihcre-
C 4 foje
40 The Scripture-Do^rine of
fore it proceedeth not alfo from Adam\ Tranfgreflion ; any
more than, in the Cafe beiore fuppofed, that the Man's mali-
cious A(Stion does not proceed from the other Perfon's Lye.
Upon the whole then, it is no palpable nor dangerous Error,
nor any Error at all, to affirm, that the Wickcdnefs of the
World proceeds from Adam's firft Tranfgreffion ; in as much
as that gave an Evil Bent and Biafs to all his Pofterity. This is
no palpable and dangerous Error ; but on the other Hand, it is
a moft obvious Truth that our Author talks very weakly and
ignorantly on this Subject.
I am afraid of quite tiring my Reader with fuch Kind of Ar-
guments and Criticifms as we have hitherto met with in the
Book before u? ; and I cannot promife him that thofe which are
yet to come are any thing belter. I will only beg his Pa-
tience while I remark upon a few more, and that as briefly as
may be.
The AfTembly quotes Pfal. li. 5. Behold, I ivas Jhapen in
Iniquity^ and in Sm did my Mother conceive me, for one Proof,
among others, that Original Sin is conveyed, from our firft Pa-
rents to their Pofterity, by natural Generation ; fo as that all
vho proceed from them, in that Way, are conceived and
born in Sin. Upon this Text our Author takes Occafion to
difplay much of his critical Skill and Learning : He makes the
Word which our. Tranflators have rendered Jhapen to fignify
brought forth, or born. I will not ftand to difpute with him for
a few Months ; e'en let it fignily as he would have it, / was
brought forth, or horn in Iniquity. As for the Word tranflated
conceiije in this Text ; after this reverend Divine has taken much
learned Pains, for about a Page and half, to clear it from an ob-
icene Senfe which fcarce any Body would have thought of, if
lie had not fuggefted ir, he makes it to fignify made hot, or
warmed : And fo one would naturally fuppofe the Senfe fhould
be /;; Sin did my Illotber vjarm tne, ox gave me the firft vital
Heat. It ("ee:ns then our Author's Criticifm will not yet help
his Caufe. But he is obliged to have recourfe to his ufual Slight
Qi Jhujjiivg Words, and putting one for another. By this Art
he has prefently turatJ warmed \x\x.o cherified or nurfed ; in Sin
did my Mother nurfe me. But ftili this will not do, without
fome further Help j for it is not to be fuppofed that David
here charges his Mother, whom he elfewhere calls the Hand
Maid of the Lord., with nurfing him in Sin, or giving him a
bad Education : Befuies, the Word nurfed naturally refers to
the State of Infancy, wlien according to our Author, David
himfelf had no Sin of any Sort ; and as for his Mother's Sin
he had no need to be forry for it. Therefore a little further
jCaft of this Writer's Skill is iiecciTary to make this ftubborn
■ Te.x^
Part II. Original Sin vindicated. 41
Text buckle to his Scheme. And by and by he has turned, in
Sin did my Mother nurfe 7ne^ into / am a great Sinner j and fo
by all thefe Shiftings and Changings, of one Word for ano-
ther, and that for another, &c. he has at length pretty well
managed and fubdued this Text. But is this leading us by the
Hand into the mod fruitful and pleafant Garden of God, his
holy Word? as he had promifed us, p. 4. No furely, but it is
leading of us quite out of it, into the Wildernefs of his own
Fancy. Is this agreeable to that Rule which he hath given us
for interpreting Scripture ? p. 3. nji-z. We muji not allow eur-
fehes to feign any Thing ; hut miijl attend to the true, JiriSl^
and proper Senfe of every Place, without daring to add or dimi-
niflj by our own Imaginations. And has our Author, indeed,
given us the ftridt and proper Senfe of this Place ? No ; and
to do him Juftice, he does not pretend that he has : And he
gives us three Reafons why this Text cannot be taken in the
literal Senfe.
1. In the whole Pfalm there is not a Word, nor Hint, about
Adam, or the EffeSfs of his Sin upon us. I anfwer, that this
fifth Verfe of the Pfalm ii more than a Hint about the EfFe6ts
of Adam\ Sin upon us,
2. It is plain beyond all Doubt, that the Pfalmift is charging
himfelf with his own Sin, confe[fing and lamenting his own per-
fonal Wickednefs. And it is plain beyond all Doubt, that in this
Verfe of the Pfalm, he is humbling himfelf before God upon
the Confideration of his natural Corruption and Sinfulnefs.
3. If we take the Words in the literal Senfe of our Verfion,
then it is manifeji that he chargeth not himfelf with his Sin and
Wickednefs, hut fome other P erf on : and who fees nSt that he
throws the whoU Load of his Iniquity and Sin from off himfelf
upon another, iiu: v/ho fees not, with half an Eye, that this
is very abfuru Rcafoning ? For a Biafs toward Sin in Davidy
given him in his Conception, did not make his Sin neceflary :
Nor does it at all follow, as our Author would make it, that if
David was (liapen in Iniquity, then God was the Author of his
Iniquity, becaufe God fliaped and formed him ; for God a<Sls
in Providence, as an univerfal Agent, according to his own
original Law of Propagation, whether Adam and his Pofterity
be innocent or fmful, pure or defiled ; and fo is not charge-
able with particular Events. But, this Matter has been fuffici-
ently confidered before.
At the Clofe of this Sedtion our Author runs a wild and moft
unjuft Comparifon betwixt the common Dodtrine of Original
Sin and Tranfutjftantiation. After all, fays he, if you will ad-
here to the literal Senfe of this lext, for the common Do^rine of
Original Sin j Jhav mc any goad Re a fun why you ought not to
admit
42 7bi Scripture-DoSfrlne cf
admit the literal Senfe of that Text, This is my "QoAy forTrari'
hhftantiation. That may very eafily be done, w'z. becaufe the
literal Senfe of the former Text is perfectly agreeable to the
common Senfe, and Reafon, and Experience of Mankind, in,
a Multitude of other Cafes ; and there is no Evidence either of
Reafon or Scripture againft it. Whereas, the literal Senfe of
the latter Text is contrary to the moft plain and certain Evidence
both of Senfe and Reafon.
Our Author's Charge upon theDodlrineof Original Sin, that
jV is hurtful to Piety ^ and apparently leaning to all Manner of Ini-
quity, is moft apparently owing to his own Mifapprebenfion
of the Do6lrine which he undertakes to refute ; and to his con-
founding natural and neceffary, and Caufes and EffeSls, as he
continually does.
fob. xiv. 4. is quoted by the Affembly as a further Teftimony
to the Propagation of Original Sin, Who can bring a cleanThing
out of an unclean? not one. Where by clean our Author is pleafed
to underftand immortal}, and by unclean^ mortal : For he makes
the Senfe to be, We fpring from a mortal Stock, and therefore
are fail and mortal, p. 140. But to me it feemeth evident,
that, as fob fpeaks of his being brought into Judgment with
God, in the Words immediately before, fo he fpeaks here of
fome Sin, or fome Defilement, as the Caufe of his Mortality,
which he expatiates upon in the following Verfes. I fhall
only leave with the Reader what I apprehend to be the obvious
Senfe of the third and fourth Verfes, which he may compare
with our Author's Objections, p. 141, vix.. Why doji thou pafs
an uncommon Judgement of Affiidions on me,fmce all are unclean,
or defiled from their Original f
Thus alfo I will venture all that our Author has faid to evade
the Teftimony of the next Text, viz. Job xv, 14.. with the
Judgment of any unprejudiced Reader ; for I do not find that
any thing is here oft'ered, to the purpofe of the Argument, that
has not been fufficiently anfwered before.
Another Text which the Aftembly quote upon this Head,
and which our Author has difcreetly flipped over with a few
Words, (for it would not have been prudent to keep his Rea-
der's Attention long upon it, J is John iii, 6. That which is born
of the Flejh is FleJI) ; and that which is born of the Spirit is
Spirit. Here, by FleJI:>, Mr T. is pleafed to underftand nothing
clfe but the mere Parts and Powers of Man ; and to be born of
the Flejh, is according to him, to be born of a JVoman by natu'
ral Defcent and Propagation, and fo to become a Man, cen-
Jijting of Body and Soul, or the mere Cenjiitut'ton and Powers- of
•s. Man in their natural State. Now kt us fuppofc, with our
Author, th«r hujnan Nature is not at all corrupted -, that there
is
Part II. Original Sin vindicated, 43
is no Evil Biafs in our Nature ; no fuch Thing as a Propenfit/
to Sin and Difinclination to Holinefs and Goodnefs ; and let
us try what Senfe we can make of other Texts of Scripture,
where the Word Flejh is ufed in Oppofition to Spirit, as it is
here ; as Rom. viii. i. There is noiv no Condemnation to them
that are in Chrift Jefus., who walk not after the Flejh, but af-
ter the Spirit ; that is, not after the pure and uncorrupted
Conftitution and Powers of Man. Again, wr. 8. They that
are in the Flefo cannot pleafe God y that is, no Man, who has
the Conftitution, Parts, and Powers of a Man, can pleafe God.
Again, ver. 13. If ye live after the Flejh ye Jhall die -, that is, if
ye live fuitably to the pure and uncorrupted Conftitution and
Powers of human Nature, ye (hall die, and fall under the
Wrath of God. And inwliat Senfe we can underftand it, that
the Flejh lujteth againft the Spirit^ and the Spirit againft the
Flejh^ and thefe are oontrary the one to the other ^ Gal. v. i^. if
Flefh means nothing but the pure and uncorrupted Conftitution
and Powers of human Nature ? Nay, how (hall we underftand
even our Author's Account of being horn of the Spirit^ in op-
pofition to being born of the Flcjh^ and what Senfe can we make
of it } viz. that it is to be born of God into a divine and fpiritual
Life-, into the right life and Application of the natural Powers .y
if there be no original Biafs in our Nature, and if thefe natural
Powers are pure and uncorrupted in the firft or natural Birth.
Why is not Man born in the right Ufe of his natural Powers
at iirft^ if he has no natural Pravity, if his Nature that comes
into the World is no other than God's own Work and Gift, that
is, as pure and undefiled as God made it : And we are fure that
an infinitely holy God would make nothing but what is pure
and undefiled.
In oppofition to the Doiftrine of the original Corruption of
human Nature, our Author affirms, that, on the contrary, (this
Text, viz. John iii. 6.) fuppofeth that zve have a Nature fuf-
ceptible of the bcfl Kind of Habits, and capable of being born of
the Spirit, p. 145. . And who ever denied it ? This Writer has
a fingular Talent at making Contradictions of Confiftencies, and
Confiftencies of Contradidf ions. 'Tis a Difcovery of his own,
no doubt, that an Indifpofition to do a Thing renders us inca-
pable of doing it, even when that Indifpofition is removed ; and
that fuch a corrupt Biaft. of the Will, as doth in efFe(5t at prefent
difable us for fpiritual Gocd, renders us alfo incapable of beino:
born of the Spirit, or of having that evil Biafs corrected by his
almighty Influence.
Well, but, after all, if the Teftimony of this Text againft
our Author's Scheme cannot be fairly evaded, yet he is veryr
fure that his Scheme is right j and either this Text muft have
fome
44 ^^^ Scripture-DoBrine of
fome latent Meaning, or none at all. For if natural Generation
is the Means of conveying Original Sin from our firji Parents to
tis their Poflerity^ then it would follow, that natural Generation
imijl itfelfbe a ftnful and unlawful Thing, which yet he has pro-
ved, from another Text, it is not, />. 145. Here our Author's
own Simile, for the Illuftration, of this Point, might, if he had
well confidered it, have prevented his abfurd Conclufion, viz,.
So far as we eat and drink in Sin, it is a Sin to eat and drink j
end fo far as we are generated in Sin, it muft be a Sin to be gene-
rated. I fuppofe he means it mufl be a Sin to generate : So far-
as we eat and drink fmfully, that is, againft the Law of Sobrie-
ty and Temperance, it is a Sin to eat and drink. But daes our
Author mean, that it is a Sin for a wicked Man, who lives in
Sin, (over whom Sin has Dominion, in whofe Body it reigneth,
tand he obeys it in the Lufis thereof, who therefore does nothing
but in Sin,) does he mean it is a Sin for fuch a Man to
eat and drink, and that it would be more virtuous for him to
Itarve himfelf to Death by total Abftinence ? I prefume this is
not his Meaning ; though I will not be fo vain as to to fay, that
I can certainly find out what his A'leaning is. Thus, fo far as
any Perfons generate finfuUy, that is againft the Law of Chaf-
tity, they commit a fmfuland unlawful Thing ; but while they
keep within the Bounds and Rules which God has prefcribed, in
this Cafe, they do nothing that is fmful ; nor are they anfwera^
bic for that natural Pravity which will be neceiFarily propagated
to their Offspring, independently on the Choice and Confent, of
their own Wills. Our Author's Illuftration here is not amifs,
'ui%. that Men produce one another as the Oak produces the Acorn.
To which let me add, that if the Oak be corrupted, the Acorn
may necefTarily be fo too ; and fo if human Nature be corrupted
in the Parent, it will necefTarily be fo in the Offspring. A cor-
rupt Stock will, by Virtue of God's vegetating Lifluence which he
exerts according to his eftablifhed Lav,r of Vegetation, produce
a corrupt Branch ; and fo will corrupt human Parents propagate
a corrupt Offspring, by Virtue of that Influence which God ex-
erts according to his original eftablifhed Law of Propagation.
But neither do human Parents commit Sin in propagating their
Nature, (whether it be pure or corrupted is what no waysaffe6ts
the Lawfulnefs of their A61:ion) neither does God aifl unworthy
of his Holinefs in continuing his propagating Influence on the
human Race, according to his eftablilheJ Law of Nature ; and
not working Miracles every Day, and every Moment, to prevent
the Propagation of that Corruption with which the whole humaa
Nature
Part II. Original Sin vindicated. 45
Nature Is now infefled. In fhort God's vegetating Influence in
Plants, and his propagating Influence in Animals is uniform and
blamelefs, whether the Stock be good or bad.
In p. 148. our Author fpeaks out his Meaning more plainly than
he has done before, vi%. Allwelojl in Adam was that Life which
c£afeth when we leave this World ; and all that God's Grace doth
for us in Chrift, to repair that Lofs^ is raifuig us up at the lafl
Day. To which I will only fay, let any Man of common Senfe,
who is not under the Influence of violent Prejudice to a pre-
conceived Scheme, read the New Teftament and the Accounts
which are there given of our Redemption by fefus Chriji^ and
the various Benefits that flow from it j and let him believe our
Author's Scheme to be fcriptural and true if he can.
The Aflcmbly afl'ert, that the Fall brought upon Mankind God^s
Difpleafure and Curfe, fo as we are by Nature the Children of
tVrath\ to prove which they, very properly, quote Eph. ii. 2,
3. a Text that has been confidered before. Our Author will be
bold to fay, that neither from this Text nor from any other Scrip-
ture, can this propofition he proved, p. 151. and I am as bold to
fay it can be proved, and has been proved already.
It is further afl'erted by the Affembly, that we are by Nature
Bond-Slaves to Satan ; to prove which they quote iTim. ii. 26.
And that they may recover theTnfelves out of the Snari of the De-
vil, who were taken Captive by him at his Will. Here our Au-
thor has fomewhat improved upon a whimt'ical Senfe, that was
anciently given by TheophylaSl of this Text, and has adopted it
for his own : It affx)rds him a glorious Opportunity of difplaying
his profound Skill in Criticifm ; and by the help of that Art he
gives this Turn to the Text that they may recover themfelves out
of the Snare of the Devil, being caught to Life by him, viz. the
Servant of God mentioned at the Beginning of ver. 24. to the
Obedience of God's Will. I promifed our Author to remind him
ol: his Critique on Rom. v. 12. />. 51. and now is a proper Time
for it. There he ini'ifls upon it that the Particle J which is
tranflated that, and in the Margin zvhom, cannot refer to ca^^o-
wc-;, Muu,\u the Beginning of the Vcrfe, as the marginal Verfion
refers it, becaule Sawrf^ Death, is the next Sub/iantive going
before, to ivhich, therefore, according to the Rules of Grammar^
it miifi refer ; and yet in the Text, now under Confideration,
he wdl have uvrovhim, refer, not to oia.^ooAoy, the Devil, which is
the next Stibjiantive going before, with zvhich, according to the
Rtdes of Grammar, it can agree, but \Ooov\w, Servay.t, at the
Difl:ance of almoft three Verfts. Wliat wretched Shifts is this
Man
46 J'he Scripture-'DDBrins of
Man put to, to fupport his Scheme, or rather to keep the Scrip-
tures from teftifyingagainft it ? And yet all will not do.
His Criticifm on ihe Word s^wy^n/^Ewt taicen Captive.^ is ftill
more extraordinary- He tells you^ that any, Greek Scholar,
that can only look into his Lexicon tvill Jatisfy you that the Word
Zuy^iu never fignifieth to take captive^ or catch either Men or
Beajis to kill and defiroy ihem^ but it always fignifieth to revive^
to bring to Life^ to rejlore ; and when applied to War, or Hun-
*^^Si f^nifieth to take with a Defign to preferve and keep alive ;
not as Emmies taken for Bonds, or for Death, but as Captures re*
deemed for Life and Liberty. One would think our Author was
juft fuch a Greek Scholar as he has here defcribed, and that the
Lexicon he has looked into is but a very forry one. It is ftranger
that the Word Zs;y^Ew, which is commonly applied to hunting
fliould never fignify to catch Beafts to kill and deftroy them.
Not many Beafts are hunted and catched with a Defign to be pre-
ferved and kept alive, befides Squirrels and Monkeys. When
this Word is applied to War, i'. is ufed, indeed, for taking Cap-
tives alive; but itby no Means determines what is tobedonewith
them afterwards whether they are to be releafed again, or made
Slaves of. Thus, in the Scptuagiiit, it is ufed for fAv\x\gRahab 2i-
live, when the Defign was to give her her Freedom, Jo/h. vi.
25. and it is ufed for faving the Giheonites alive, when the Defign
was to make Slaves of them, fo/h. ix. 20. Therefore our Au-
thor's learned Criticifm on this Text is falfe, and fo we difmifs
it, with all that he has built upon it.
/ have no Inclination to exfoje the frightful Confequences of our
Author's Scheme *. How highly injurious it is to the Scriptures
any one may fee. But give me leave, before I difmifs this Part of
the Book, to ccmmiferate the Cafe of thofe mijiaken Perfons who
I hope, are not majiy, jvith vjhomfvch an extravagant Scheme, fo
contrary to the whole Current of Scripture, and to the common
* The Author's Words referred to in this Paragraph are thefe :
T have no Inclination to expofe it {the Do£i)tne of Original Sin) in
all its frightful Confequences. How highly injurious it is to Divine
Juftice any one may lee. But give me leave to commiferate the
mifiaken Many, with whom fuch Points as thefe pafs for Articles of
the Chriftian Faith. Their Eyes are covered with a thick Cloud
of Error^ and the All-pert'e^ GooJnefs of God, which {hould he
their Joy and Life, is thereby intercepted from their View ; or ap»
peareth quite deformed : and they fit artonilhed in the gloomy cave
of Superftition, haunted with cauCelefs Fear, Terror, and Defpair ;
and refounding with the horrible Murmur of Blafphemy.
Senfe
M
Part II. Original Sin vindicated, j^y
Senfe and Experience of Mankind, can pafs for rational and fcrip-
tural Divinity. Their Eyes are covered with a thick Cloud of Bi-
gotry, Prejudice, and Error ; whereby that greateft Inftance of
God's Goodnefs^ which Jhould he their Joy and Life ^evcu his giving
his Son to be a Sacrifice for our Sins, and to fave us from the
manifold Ruins of our Fall, is intercepted from their View
whereby the whole Gofpel is moft wretchedly impoverifhed and
deformed^ and almoft all the Glory of it quite darkened. May
God give them Repentance to the Acknowledgment of the
Truth, leaft their caufelefs difhonouring of Chriji, and his Gof-
pel, fhould prove a Prelude to thofe Blafphemies which refound
in that gloomy Prifon, where all the Defpifers of Chrift fhall
luonder and perijh.
THE
( 48 )
THE
SCRIPTURE-DOCTRINE
O F
ORIGINAL SIN,
VINDICATED.
PART IIL
IT is Time now to take a little Notice of the third Part
of this Book, in which the Author undertakes to anfwer
Objedlions againft his Scheme.
The Firji, which he puts in the Form of a Query, is. Are
•we not in warfe moral Circumjiances than Adam was ?
To which I anfwer, that this is mere trifling, if not worfe,
to frame an Objedlion in fuch Words as makes the Cafe all con-
fufed, and affords Matter for flourifhing and expatiating in many
Anfwers. But let the Objeftion be put thus : Are we not more
inclined to Sin than Adam was by Nature ? And then let this
Author anfwer roundly, according to his own Scheme, that we
are not ; and let him prove it if he can.
It is with him a very material Obje<£lion againft the common
received Do£lrine of Original Sin, that, according to that
Scheme, a corrupt Nature wilU to the End of the World, re-
main in every Man [o long as he liveth, p. 167, and fo it will
remain in fome Degree : and what then ? Does it therefore
follow, that the Reformation of Mankind muji be impraSiicable
with regard to the impure Spring of all Wickednefs ? For as this
natural
Part III. . Original Sin vindicated 49
natural corrupt Biafs may be greatly heiglitncd and fircngthned,
ib, on the other hand, it may be greatiy weakned and diniinifh-
ed, as it really is in all good Men : Does it follow, that there-
fore Men are in no Capacity of iftng the Means of Amendment^
and that no Man is obliged to attempt the Preformation of the
TV^orld, iwr any^ except Adam, blameable for zvhatevcr IVicked-
ncfs is in it ? Nothing need be faid to Ihew the unrealbnablC'
Alifurdity of thefe Inferences to any common Reader.
Our Author takes occafion, under this Head, to expatiate
largely on Adani% Folly. He can find no Traces of fuperior
Wifdom in him, even before his Fall, to the Bulk of his Pof-
terity ; and upon comparing the Ads which Adam performed
in his State of Innocence, with what Men have fince been ca-
pable of, he doth not find that he was a whit vv^ifer than they
are. Now, though I have a much better Opinion of our firfl
Parent's natural Capacity and Genius than, it feems, Mr T. has ;
yet I will not ftand to difpute this Matter with him at prefent ;
becaufe it is quite. foreign to the Argument about Original Sin.
The Queflion is not about natural Capacity and Genius, but
about ynoral Circumftances ; therefore it is not, Whether Adam
was wifer than we are ? but. Whether we are not more inclined
to Sin than Adam, was ? So that all our Author hath faid upon this
Matter, for about fix Pages, is mere trifling in the Argument, and
as fuch I fhall pafs it all over.
But from >f^«//z's complying with the Temptation, to eat the
forbidden Fruit, he gathers that Jofeph and Daniel and the three
young Men who refifedto wor-^^ip'NehuchzdneT.zzT's golden Image,
were far fuperior in Virtue to Adam, even in his mofl perfcSf
State^ p. 172. But, he adds, fome ivill fay^ the Grace of God
Jlrenthened and ajjified thefe Men : To which our Author replies,
that all the Faculties and Helps that Adam had^ and that w.-; havgy
are wholly from the Grace or Goodnefs of God ; fo that he had no
Powers nor Advantages from hinfelf any more than we. But he
has quite forgot one very material Difference betwixt Adam and
us, viz. that thefe Powers belonged to his Nature, but they
do not to ours ; wliichj with his good leave, does very much
alter the State of the Argument.
A J'econd OhjcdiiCn which our Author is aware may lie sgainft
his Scheme is, tliat Adam was created after God's oivn Image ;
and ivill you fay., that his Pcfieriiy are made in the fame Image of
Gad^ This, it fcen^.s, Mr T. will I'ay, and does roundly fay it,
p. 175. and proves tliat Man was made in the Image of f.iod
after the Fall, as well ss before it ; becaufe it is given as a Rca-
fon for puniftiing Murther, with the Death of theMunhcier, in
JSsab'i 'Fime, for in the hncge cf God made hs Adan^ Geia. xi. 6.
' ]) But
5© The Scripttire-BoSlrine of
But though It may follow from hence, that Men, in }^oah*i
t)ays, were truly made in the Image of God, as well as Adam ;
yet it will by no means follow, thai Men were made in Noah*j
Dayst and were to be made to the End of the Worlds in thefamt
Image of God., or in his Image in all the fame Refpedts that Adam
was. Adam was made in the Image of God in the Spirituality
and Immortality of his Nature, which I apprehend is the Image
of God fpoke of Gen. ix. 6. and thus far all Men arc made in
the fame Image of God. Adam was made in the Image of God
in refpeit to Dominion over the Creatures j vfhich political Image,
as we may call it, was forfeited by Adam., but was gracioufly re-
ftored in fome Meafure to Man in NoaV% Time. But Man was
alfo made in the moral Image of God's Holinefs j which Image
was loft by Adam., and is reftored, only in fome Part, to pious Men
while they arc in this World. To prove that Man was original-
ly made in the moral Image of God, the Affcmbly quote Col. iii.
10,. And have put on the new Man^ which is renewed in Know-
ledge after the Image of him that created him : And Epk. iv. 24-
And that ye put on the new Man., which ^ after God, is created in
Righteoujnefs and true Holinefs. It feems they thought the
Apoflle alludeth in thefe Texts to Adam'j being made in the Imagt
vf God, and taketh his Manner of Expreffionfrom thence. And
oar Author allows, Vtm., probably, he does fo. Methinks then,
it is more than probable, that Knowledge, Righteoufnefs, and
true Holinefs, belonged to that Image of God, in which Adam
was created, and which is here faid to be renewed in thofe who
kre created in Chrift Jefus. It is manifeft that theNewTefta-
mcnt does, in feveral Places, run a Parallel betwixt Ada7Ti and
Chrift ; and betwixt our Fall and Ruin by the former, and
our Recovery and Rcftoration by the latter. Thus Adam is faid
to be the Figure or Type of Chrift; and Chrift is called thefe-
cond Man, and the laft Adam. As Adam was God's more
immediate Workmanfhip than any other Man, being im-
mediately created, by his Power ; fo, (to carry on the Allufion,)
thofe whom Chrift reftores by the Power of his Grace from the
Ruins of the Fail, are faid to be his Workmanfhip created in
Chrift Jefus. Eph. i'l. 10. And as the firft Man was created
in the Image of God ; fo the new Man, whom Chrift reftores,
is faid alio to be created after God, and renewed after God, and
renewed after his Image : And here the Apoftle mentions three
Particulars of that Image of God ; Knowledge, Righteoufnefs, and
trueHolinefs, Now if thefe Things made no Part of the Image of
God, in which Adam was created ; where is the Parallel and
Refcmblance betwixt the firft Man^ and the new Man ? be-
twixt
',/*•
part III. Original Sin "vindicated. 5 1
twixt the Creation of Adam, and this new Creation in Qhrift
Jefus f And befides, with what Propriety can Men be faid to
be renewed after an Image that never belonged to their Nature,
and which they never, in any Senfe, either had or loft ? Thefe
Texts, therefore, muft, according to their obvious Senfe, lead
us to conclude that Knowledge^ Righteoufnefs^ and Holinefsy did
really belong to that Image of God in which the firft Man
was created. Let us fee now how our Author fhifts off the
Evidence of thefe Texts againft his darling Scheme. Here he
has recourfe to his ufual Slight of Jhuffiing Words and Phrafes,
and fubftituting others, that are more convenient for his Purpofe,
in the Room of thofe which the Spirit of God makes ufe of.
Thus, renewed in Knowledge^ that is, fays our Author, in th»
Acknowledgment of the Truth. He makes the new Man to iig-
nify nothing but a Life of Truths Righteoufnefsy and Holinefs :
And, after the Image of God^ is agreeable to his Nature, as
thofe who walk in Righteoufnefs and Holinefs are like unto him.
But ftili the Turn which he gives to thefe Texts is apparently
fo forced and unnatural, that it may be feared few will cm-
brace it, in preference to the natural and obvious Senfe of the
Words, unlcfs there be fome urgent Neccffity to depart from
the obvious Senfe j which, therefore, our Author labours, with
his ufual Strength of Reafoning, to prove that there is. He
tells us, it will notf nay, he had almojl. faid it cannety follow
from thefe Texts, that Adam was originally created in this
Image of God, for a very good Reafon ; becaufe this Image, or
the Habits of Virtue and Holinefs, cannot be created in the
fame Manner as eur natural Faculties, vi». by an ASi of God's
ahfolute Power without our Knowledge, Concurrence, or Confent ;
---for Holinefs mufi neceffartly be the Choice of our own Minds —
// muji be our awn ASfand Deed— therefore Adam could nat be ori-
ginally created in Righteoufnefs and true Holinefs, becaufe he mu/i
choofe tobe righteous before he could be righteous, andtheref ore he mufi
exifl, he mufi be created before he was righteous. According to this
Way of Reafoning, Chrift cou\6 not be holy at the Time of his
Birth ; and the Angel was miftaken, when he faid to the Virgin
Mary, That Holy Thing that Jh all be born of thee. Nay, God could
not be righteous and holy from Eternity, becaufe he muft exift
before he was righteous and holy. But might not a Quality
or Principle of Holinefs, /'. e. an Inclination and Propenfity ta
it^ be concreated with Adam without his actual Confent ? Molt
certainly it might, notwithftanding our Author's cannot. Can
he form no Notion of habitual Holinefs, or Propenfity to Good,
diftintt from virtuous Actions ? Does not the Scripture defcribc
D 2. a good
52 Th Scripiure-Docfrine of
a good Man ?.s being ever merciful^ or merciful all the Day^ at
the Margin renders it more clofely to the Original, Pf. xxxvii.
26. that is, he is always of a merciful Difpofition. And will
our Author fay, that he is never merciful but, it may be, once
or twice in a Day or in a Week, when he is a6lually performing
"^Vorks of Mercy ; and yet, with jufl: as good Reafon, may he
ixy fo, as that Adam could not be holy before he had performed
fome holy Adiion. What Reafoning is here againft a Habit or
Principle of Holinefs ! And yet, this Stuff Our Author calls De-
'^mDnfirathn.
'' He concludes this Paragraph with an Inference, in which I
■perfedily agree with him, vi-z. If the foregoing Reafoning and
Arguments be good. Original Kighteouficfs is jufi as far from
Truth as Original Sin, p. 179. But if his Arguments are good
for. nothing, his Conclufion is worth nothing, and fo we difmifs
■■it : And we muft Itill prefer the Account which God gives us
•in his ov/n Word of that Image of himfelf, in which he created
Man, to Mr T's Demonftration againfl it.
' Our Author has framed a third Objeftion againft his own
Scheme in thefe Words : But we derive from Adam a moral
Taivt and Infe^ion, vohereby we have a natural Propenfity to Sin^
p. 184. As to this, he very honeftly confefTes in the next Page,
that he doth not underjland what is meant by it ; and I moft
firiniy believe him. He has giyen fuch abundantly convincing
Evidences of this Truth, that one cannot doubt of it; one may
clearly fee it, in almoit every Page of his Book, that he is ar-
guing againft that which he doth not underftand. One glaring
Evidence of this Sort I have lately turned over in p. 181. where,
-after he has defcanted on Rom. ii. 14., 15, and proved by it,
what no Body denies, viz. that the Light of A^ature, common
Reafon, and Underflanding, is a Lazu, a Rule of right ASiion to
-fill Mankind \ that all Men ought to follow it; and that if they
do not they are anfwerable to God', he infers, therefore this^ext
is fo far from [ervir^p the Purpofe for which it is br ought, ^that it
overihroivs the whole Scheme of Original Sin, as taught by the Af~
fembly of Divines. As if a moral Taint, or native evil Biafs,
upon the Will of Man, (which is all that the Aflembly teaches,)
were any Way inconfiftent with tj^ Obligation which all Men
are under to follow the Rule, whether of natural Reafon or of
Revelation, which God has given them. Did any Mortal be-
fore Mr T. ever imagine, that a Difmclination to Duty (v«he-
ther natural or acquired makes no dilFcrence in this Cafe) would
fet a Man free from all Obligation to perform the Duty ; or,
that an Inclination to any Sin wouM make it to be no Sin, in
the Man that commits it. It is evident, imleed, and we ftiould
certainly have known it if our Author had not told us, that he
doth
Part III. Original Sin vi'ddicated, 55
dath not undtrf} and what a moral Taint means. Again, p. 184.
By a natural Propmfity to Sin, he prefutnes, is meant a necejfary
Inclination to Sin; or, that wc are necejfarily finful from the o-i
riginal Befit and Biafs of our natural Powers, which, he fays,
miijl be falfe ; for then we Jhould not be fmful at all, hecaufe that
which is neceffary, or which we cannot help, is not Sin. Here
again it is moft evident that our Author does not underftand
what a moral Taint dcriv'd from Adam, or a native Propenfity
to Sin, means : for if he had, he would not furely have argued
at this monftrous Rate ; and inferred that a Propenuty or Incli-
nation to Sin lays Men under a neceflity of a<Slual finning.
It is Pity this Writer did not take feme Pains to underftand To
plain a Notion, which I can hardly think is above the Capacity
of a Child, before he gave himfelf the Trouble to write fo largo
a Book againfl it.
He doth not knoiv that we derive any thing at all from Adam,
but by the Will and Operation of God, no more than the Acorn
deriveth from the Oak, p. 185. And what then ? May not an
acorn, partly corrupted, produce a corrupt Oak, under the
general and blamelels Influence of the God of Nature. Our
Auchor doth not feem to know much of the Miitter: However,
though he docs not underftand vjhat a moral Taint can mean, hq
roundly pronounces it impojfible and abfurd. i\.nd juft fo, and
with equal Truth and Reafon, might a Man, who doth not un-
derftand Sir Ifaac Nezvton's Philcfophy, pronounce him a Block-
head ; and prove it too, by as vehement Afteitions as thofe
wherewith thib Author has fo clearly proved and cftablifhcd his
Point.
T'hQ fourth Objeciicn which Mr T. Is aware of, runs thus :
But it hath been often obferved, that the Vices of Parents do in-
fe£l the Blood of their Children, and communicate to them bodily
Di/iempers, yea, and the Vices themfehes ; zvhat Abfurdity then
is it to admit we derive a •vicious Taint fom AdMn. To which
he anfwers. It is not poj/ible that Parents Jhould, by Propagation,
comfnunicate Vice ; which is always the faulty Choice of a Perfon's-
twnWill, p. 188. I prefume hemcaiis aAual Vice or Sin, if
he means any thing, But what does this prove againft their
communicating vicious Inclinations, which is all that the Aflem-
bly, and the Divines of their Sramp, do in tliis Cafe contend
for ? Indeed, juft nothino; at' all. From whence it is further
manifdft that our Author doth not unlerftand what he is writing
agfinft. He allows a Man may pojfibly have Paffions and Appe-
ties of the fame Degree or ^lality with thofe of his Progenitors ;
but this, be faith, can trtdy be afigned to no other Caufe befides
theWill of God, p. 189. Bur, nitthinks, after his honcft Pro-
fCiTion of his Ignorance in this Matter, his Modcfty iliould only
D 7 have
54. ^^^ Scripture-DoSfrine of
have faid, / can affign ti9 other Caufe^ &c. and not thus have
made his own Underftanding the fupreme Meafure of what can
be done.
As for bodily Diftempers, which many Children derive from
the Vices of their Parents, our Author apprehends, that
fuch Changes which happen in their Conjiitutions are manifejlly
for the better, and arc appointed favourably to them : that is,
it is manifcftly for the better for a Child to inherit the King*S'
Evil^ or Foul Difeaje, and drag on five or ten Years of Mifery,
and then die of it. I will net ufe our Author's Language of
Popedom and Infallibility, and fay, furely, evidently, and beyond
all Doubt, it cannot be for the better ; but I mufl honeftly con-
fefs, that it is not manifeft to me that it is for the better ; nor
doth any thing that he hath wrote on this Head at all perfuade
me that it is fo.
It may be objeded to our Author's Scheme fifthly. That ChiU
dren begin very foon to fin ', and how can this be accounted for but
$tpon the Scher. ' of Original Sin j namely, that it is infufed into
9ur Nature. Mr T. accounts for it by the neglcft of Parents
to endeavour to bring up their Children in the Way of Virtue,
and to correct: their Appetites with proper Difcipline and the
Rod. But how Children who are perfe^ly pure and Innocent,
even as Jdam was when he firft came out of the Hand of a pure
and holy God, fhould fo generally want the Rod, is not eafy to
conceive. I look upon Solomon's Account of this Matter to be
really better than our Author's, viz. that Foolijhnefs is bound
in the Heart of a Child. Mr T. tells us, that if Parents firjl
learned true Wifdom for themfelves, and then endeavoured to bring
up their Children in the Way of Virtue, there would be lefs
IVickednefs in the World, and the UntraSlablenefs of Children lefs
vifible. But would there then be no Wickednefs in the World ?
Would Children grow up in perfedl Innocence? And is it found,
in hdi, that the Virtue or Wickednefs of Children, their Trac-
tablenefs or Untraflablenefs, is always in proportion to the Wif-
dom and Endeavours of their Parents, to bring them up in the
Way of Virtue ? Wo, Mr T. acknowledges, that after all.
Children may he drawn away and enticed into Wickednefs when
Parents have done their beji, p. 192. But can it reafonably be
fuppofed that this would be fo univcrfally the C^fe, as in fa<3: it
is found to be, if all Children were perfedlly pure and innocent
by Nature.
A fixth Obje(5tion which our Author obviates, is taken frcmi
Rom. vii. 23, 24. There is a Law in our Members which war-
reth againji the Law of our Minds., bringing us into Captivity to
the Law of Sin and Death ; and the holy ApojUe, with Sorrow,
ecknowledgeth this tvas his oivn Ccife : And doth not this prove
that
Part III. Original Sin vindicated. 5^
that this is the Cafe of all Men, even good and holy Men while
they are in this IVorld', and confequently^ that we came into the
World infe£ied and depraved with thefe finful Difpofitions ?
To this Objedlion our Author, in the firji Place oppofes his
fenfelefs Argument, which he has fo often repeated, vi-z.. That
if we came into the World infected and depraved with fjnful Dif-
foftions^ then Sin muji be natural to us ; and if natural^ then
neceffaryy and if neceffary, then no Sin. Tliis has been abun-
dantly anfwered before; and lean hardly fuppofe my Reader to
be fo fenfelefs as that he needs to be again reminded of fo obvious
a Truth, viz. th^t natural evil Inclinations do not make any
Sin necefTary, as to the a6lual Commiflion of it.
Secondly^ Mr T. aflures us, that the Apofile doth not here
fpeak of himfelfy or of any other Man., as he cometh into the Worlds
' but as he is afterwards depraved by his own Choice. This is beg-
Ping the Queftion. And, as he has not favoured us vv^ith any
roof of this his Aflertion, we are not bound to believe it.
Thirdly., He aflerts further, that the Apojlk doth -'ot here fpeak
cf himfelf, or of any Man^ in a regenerate State ; but defcribetb
the unhappy Condition of a Jew-% in the FUjh, under the Power
cf Siny and under a Law which condemneth him to Death for it.
For this, I am fure, he ought to bring moft apparent Proof,
fmce the Text doth, by no means, lead us to fuch a Tranfition:
from Paul's fpealcing in his own Name, to his fpeaking in ano-
ther's Name. That the h^oiWefpeaks of a Jew under the Pew*
ir of Sin, ver. 5. For when we were in the Flejh.., the Motions
cf Sin, which were by the Laiu wrought in our Members to bring
forth Fruit unto Death ; that he here fpealcs of a Jew, that is,
of himfelf when he was a Jqvj, 1 readily grant. But, that St
Paul doth not /peak of himjelf our Author thinks is manifejl e-
nough ; for the P-erfon, or Per fans., of whom hefpeaks, were be-
fore the Commandment came, once without Law., ver. 9. but the
Apojlle was born and continued under the Law till he was a Chrir;
Jlian ; and, therefore, it cannot be true ihat he was ever without
the Law, p. 194. No more can it be true tliat any other Jews
wqrc ever without the Law, in tl)e Senfe \\^b our Author puts
on that Expreffion, lince ^o/fj's "rime, ^ut how eafy is the
Senfe in which this Text is more commonly underftood, with*
cut the Law, i. e. without any intvurd Senfe of the. Law working
upon Coifcience. Before he applied the Law to his Confcience he
was not fenfible of the working; of Sin, nor of his State oi Death
b«ufe of Sin ; ^o he was aihe without the La%u. But when
the Commandment came, i> e. when ii w. is fee home with Pow-
er on his Confcience by the Spirit of G>d, Sin revived in the,
Senfe of it, and he died as to the Opinion which he iiad of him-
D4 fvlf
(
5 5 Ihe Scripture-I)o5frine of
felf. He now faw hlmfelf to be a dead Sinner, juftly condemn-
ed to Death by the righteous Law of God.
But our Author's main Argument to prove, that St Paul
does not here fpeak of himfelf, is taken from fome Expreilions
in the Defcriprion of the Perfon here fpoke of, which are fup-
pofed to be inconfiftent with the Charadlerpf a truly good Man,
as well as with the Account which this Apoflle does elfewhere
give of himfelf; as particularly ver. 14. / am carnal, fold undet
Sin. I grant this expreffion founds harfli and fevere to be appli-
ed to the holy Apoftle, and it is, indeed, almoft the only Dif-
ficulty in the Application of all that is here faid to him- But
might not a very huiiil;le good Man, when complaining with the
utmoft Dcteftation of that Principle of Sin v/hich he fometimes
found working in him, make ufe of fuch a flrong Expreffion as
this, which yet need not be taken in its utmoft and moft feverd
Senfe. Doth not David in his Humiliation fay, L am a JVorm,
and no Man, Pf. xxii. 6. And what if Paul, in his deep Hu-
miliation, fhould have faid, 1 am a Sinner, and no Saint ', might
not fuch an Expreffion have been allov/ed in fuch a Cafe ? Nay,
doth he not fay of himfelf, I am lefs than the leaji of all Saints,
Eph. iii. 8. (£A««irsIs§®-) and will our Author fay, this Expreffi-
on muil needs be taken in its utmoft and moft fevere Senfe ?
As for that other Expreffion which Mr T. hinges on, ver.
Qj^. O ivretched Man that I am, who Jhall deliver me from the
"Body cf this Death, which, he fays, plainly fiippofes, that the
Perfon- here fpoke of is not delivered from the Slavery of Sin, and
fi'ctn Death, the Condemnation of the Law, I cannot fee, that
this is fuppofed here plainly, or at all ; for he might very well
cry ou't, who Jlmll diliver 7ne from the inward Working of this
Body 0/" Sin, or Death ; though he knew himfelf to be freed
from its condemning Power.
It is a weaker Argument ftill, by which our A.uthor endea-
vours to prove, that this Chapter does not fpeak of any regene-
rate Perfon whatfoever, hecaufe it is the conftant htJ}ru£fion of
the Gofpel that wejmrtify the Deeds of the Flejh ; and the cer-
tain Rule of the (^^l, that all who are born of God, and art
inChriJI, have already 7n'irtifed' the Flejh with the Lu/ls. For
the Perfon, who here fpsaks, might be conflantly employed in
mortifying Sin, and he might really have mortified it, in a good
nieafure ; and yet have Reafon to complain bitterly of its in-
ward working Hi!!.
But allovving there may be fome Difficulty in applying^e
or two Expreilions in this Chapter to the Chara£ler of a good
Mui ; yet I apprehend there is much more Difficulty in apply-
ing feveral other Exprcfficns to th.e Character and Condition of
a 'Jew in the Flejh j an ur.regenerate Man who is under the Power
"f
Part III. Original Sin indicated. c,y
of Si?i ; of one cnjlaved to Sin without Help, and fuhje£ied to .
"Death voithout Pardon : viz. That he confents unto the Law that
it is good i that he delights in the Law of God after the inward
J\4an : that he would do good ; that to tvill is prefent with him ;,
or, that his Will is brought over to an Approbation and Choice
of Holinefs and Obedience to the Liiw oF God ; and when at
any time he fails of his Duty,' and commits Sin, he doth what-
he allows not, what hewouMnot: That Sin is the Burden of his
Soul, he earnel^ly defues to be delivered from it, and cries our,'
O wretched Man that I am, who /hall deliver me from this Body-
<of Death ? Are thefe the Delcriptions and Chara(S1:ers of an im-
regenerate Man ; of one luho is not dclrjcred from the Slavery of
Sin, hut is in Bondage and Siibje^ion to it ? Might I not an-
fwer in our Author's modefl Language, p. 214. Surely they^
are not, it is evident beyond all Doubt, certainly the Ai'-oflle is
here defcribing a good Pv^Ian ; ht freaks infallibly of a regenerate
Perfon ; he undeniably fpeaks of himfelf m his own proper Pcr-
fon. He cannot be fuppofed, by fo good a CharaSler, to defcribe
the State of an unregcnerate Man, who is under the Power of
Sin ; unlel's he can be fuppofed to reorefent the Lovers of Sin
and the Lovers of Holinefs under the fame Character, and in the
fame State. But it is not v/orth while topurfue this Argument
any further at prefent, becaufe it is quite foreign to the Purpofe
in hand ; and for what Reafon our Author has filled* up fo many
Pages with it, unlefs it were to fvvell the Bulk of his Book, is
not eafy to fay. Whether St Paul fpeaks here of himfelf, or
of fomc other Perfon ; of a natural, or of a regenerate Man,
'tis all one to the Dodlrine of Original Sin. If you fuppofe the
Apoftle is fpeaking of a good Man, this-.Paffige cf Scripture
Ihews that there is a corrupt Biafs upon the Hearts of Men in-
clining them to Sin, and indifpofmg them to Duty and Holinefs,
"which it is exceeding difficult for Realon, and even for Grace,
compleatly to conquer. Or, if you under(i:and the Apoitle as
fpeaking of an unregenerate Man, a carnal ]gw, it will be ex-
ceeding difHcult to account for fuch a cori^t Biafs upon all the
carnal Jews, if it did not proceed from ^ff\e common Caufe ;
if tiiev had not all derived it from fome one corrupt Fountain.
This PafTage further proves, that fuch a corrupt Biafs upon the
Heart does not make Sin ncceffary ; for the Peifon who does
here acknov^ledge and complain of fuch an evil Biafs, is very far
from excufing himfelf on that Account : He owns himfelf to be
3^inner, and calls himfelf a wretched A4an. On tiiat Account,
therefore, it by no means follow?, as our Author will have it
again, p. 222. that anr coming into the J'Vorld infcded and de-
praved, tvith finful Difpoftions conveyed down to us fronrAddin,
ffiakes any Man fm necejj'.irily-i through the //i<iligi:a>it hfinence of
feme
I
58 5"^^ Scripture-Do5Irine of
fome Princlplt which It was never in his Power to command, for
then he would he no Sinner at all. This ridiculous Argument,
this Crambe repetita, has been fo often repeated, that it is now
grown quite naufeous.
Our Author has himfelf favoured us with a Defcription and
Character of a good Man, which is fomewhat different, indeed,
from the Character which St Paul gives us, but not quite fo
confiftent: For Inflance, he tells us, p. 22o- It is the real
Character of every true Chrijiian ; not that he feels he hath a
corrupt and wicked Heart, hut that he crucifieth the Fle/h with
the JffeSiions and Lujls. But how he crucifieth thisFlefh, thi^
finful Principle working in him, without feeling it, I muil leave
our Author to explain ; which, I am perfuaded, no Man of in-
ferior Abilities to himfelf can do.
We are obliged to Mr 7. for his charitable Concern to free
vs from a dangerous Snate into which ^ he fears, many have
fallen, from a falfe Perfuafion that St Paul defcribes a good
Man, and is fpeaking of himfelf in Rom. vii. which, he faith,
^ath a manifefi Tendency to give us too favourable an Opinion of
the Workings of criminal Affe£lions \ to make us remifs in morti'
fying them ; to encourage us to venture too far in fenfual Indul-
gences ; and to lull Conjcience afleep when we are fallen under the
Dominion of them, p. 223. But how this Perfualion, v/'z. That
a truly good Man is grieved, above all Things, at the working
of his criminal AffecSlions, fhould make any Perfon favourable
to them, and remifs in mortifying them, is not eafy to com-
prehend. That this CharaiSter of a good Man, i>/z. that hi
would do good\ that he confents to the Law of God, and delights
in it, and mofl earncftly defires us to be delivered from all
Workings of Sin, fhould encourage any to venture too far in
fenfual Indulgences, is very furprizing. That this Defcription,
of a renewed Confcience, viz. That it is moil tenderly fenfiblc
of the working of Sin, even in the Heart, as well as in the
outward Praitic^, fiiould tend to lull Confcience afleep: Thefe
are My Series whicl^)ur Author only can explain.
Thus Mr T. halBt i" l^is Way, anfwcred all Objedlions a-
gainft his Scheme, and prefumes we are fatisfied with his An-
fwers : Yet he fuppofes, that, perhaps, we may be inclined to
^dery.
I . Is rot the Do^rine cf Original Sin necefjary to account for
the Being of Sin in the World ? How comes it to pafs there is fo
iruch Wickedmfs in the World, if our Nature be not fmfi^
To which he anfwers ; Adam'j Nuture^ it is alloiucd, was very
far from being finful, and yet he finned ; and, therefore, the
common Doctrine of Original Sin is no more necfffary to account for
the
Part III.' Original Sin vindicated, 59
the Sin that hath heen, or is, in the Worlds than it is to accgnnt
for AdamV Sin. If Men were never drawn into Sin any other
Ways than as Adam was, viz. by Temptations offered from
without themfelvcs, there might be fomething in what our
Author faith : But there are Inftances, numberlefs Inftances,
moft undoubtedly there are, of Men finning without any
Temptation offered them from without. It is nccefTary, there-
fore," fome other Account fhould be given of their finning than
of Adam's. And how to account for the univerfal Spread of
Sin over the whole World of Mankind, without one Excep-
tion, if there were no Corruption in their common Root and
Head, ftill remains a Difficulty, which our Author's Scheme
doth, by no means, furmount.
2. A fecond Query is. How then are we horn into the World,
and what Ideas ought we to have of our Being ? Here our Author
takes Occafion to difplay the Excellency and Ufe of our natu-
ral Appetites and Paffions j but quite forgets to mention the only
Thing that is of any Confideration in the prefent Argument,
vi%. The apparent and very fenfible Irregularity of them. He
hath given us no manner of Solution of this grand Difficulty,
How, and from whence, it comes to pafs that thofc Appetites
and Paffions, which, no doubt, were at firfl wifely and kindly
implanted in our Natures by a holy God, are now fo irregular
and ftrong, as that not one Pcrfon has rcfifled them, fo as to
keep himfelf pure and innocent. Nor can this Difficulty be
folvcd upon our Auuthor's Scheme.
3. The next Query is. How far is our prefent State the
fame with that o/'Adam in Paradifel As to menral Capacities,
as far as I can find, this Writer hath as good an Opinion of his
twn as of Adam's. He imagines Sir JJaac Netvton to have
been a much wifer Man than ever Adam was. Whether he was
fo, or no, is nothing to the prefent Argument, about moral
Depravity and Corruption. However, I ought not to conceal,
that he has fo much Complaifance to our common Father as
to allow that, probably, many of his Pollcrity may be fillier
than he was ; in which Oafs, I prefume I ina^ take it for grant-
ed, he ranks the AfTembly of Divines, and all who are weak
enough to believe the Doctrine of Original Sin. Under this
Head the Author runs a Comparifon betwixt the innocent Adam
and his Pofterity in fevcral Particulars ; One is. Many Men are
overcome by Temptation^ and fo was Atiam. But fiill he forgets
onq|very material Circumftance, vi-z.. that many Men are over-
come by the Corruption of their own Hcaits, with(>ut : iiy
Temptation from without 3 but fo was not Adam , 'till alter iiis
Fall.
He
r
60 ^^f Scripturi-Do£frine of
He allows, that cur Temptations are mare than Adam'j. He
fhould have confidered alfo. It is by the Appointment of God
that every Infant is now brought into the World under thefe
fuperior Temptations, and in the midft of this Deluge of Ini-
quity. And would a juft and kind Creator do this if there were
»o original Conftitution, whereby original Degeneracy has over-
fpread all Mankind ?
Our Author fuppofes, that if we had come into the IVorld
with our prejent Nature^ in an Age and Nation "where Vict had
been bani/hed., Virtue of all Kinds univerfally praSiifed^ and the
Grace of God, ss at prefent, revealed, and had grown up under
gU the Advantages thence ariftng, we Jhould have come into Being
under Circumjlances much more advantageous for Virtue and Pie-
ty, and for perfevering in it than Adam, p. 229. This is all
laid upon the Suppofition, that our prefent Nature is not deprav-
ed and corrupted ; and upon that Suppofition he hath made a
wonderful Difcovery, ^'/z. That if we had no Temptations ta
Sin, and better Advantages for perfevering than Adam had, we
ihould be under Circumftances more advantageous for perfever-
ing than Adam was. This is fomewhat more evident than our
Author's favourite Argument, w'z. If Sin be natural, it is ne-
ceffary. But what ridiculous Trifling is it to argue upon a Sup-
pofition of what never was in any Age or Nation fmce the Fall
ci Adam? And what, upon the Principle which he is arguing
againft, never will be. If this Author would fay any Thing to
the Purpofe, he fhould argue upon the Circumftances which
Mankind are actually in ; and not upon a Suppofition of Cir-
cumftances which never were, nor ever will be.
4 The hft Queftion our Author ftarts is, How is it confifient
with the fujlice of God, that we [uff'er at all upon Accomit of
Adam'x Sin? For an Anfwer to this he refers back to his Ap-
pendix to Part I. I would alfo refer back ro my Remarks on
that Appendix,-: and let the Reader judge freely for himfelf.
And now, tiiough Mr T. has proved his Scheme certainly, to
Demon jlration, bey and all Doubt, and infallibly, he honeftly de-
clares he is not infMible. I make no Doubt but the Reader hath
found that out before now.
He tells us, he hath declared his Sentiments honejlly and im-
partially. I believe he has, /. e. his own Sentiments, or his
own darling Scheme. But (to boiiow a few more of his can-
did Words, p. 181.) one cannot forbear obferving, upon the
whole, what ferious Regard hath been paid to'the true Sen^ of
Scripture, and how careful he hath been to e/iablijh his Do^frine
■^pon a jufl and firm Foundation in the J Vord of God, when he
could io wretchedly pervert fo many 'I>xts of Scripture £i:ora
their
Part III. Original Sin vindicated. Ci
their natural and obvious Meaning, which manifejlly and iinde-
7itably afirm the Dodlrine of Original Sin ; rather than fubmit
to the plain Senfe ©f Revelation againft his own preconceived
favourite Scheme. The brighte/i Revelation thus ivretchedly ap-
plied^ muji be worfe than the Dar'knefs of mere Ignorance : It
will not only not difcover the Truth, but vindicate the greatejl
Error.
It is not yet enough to our Author's Purpofe, that he hath
explained away the Scripture-Dcdlrine of Original Sinj for
there are other Do£lrines that ftand fo nearly related to it, and
are fo evidently connedled with it, that, if poffible, he mult
explain away thefe too, or he does nothing. He propofcs, there-
fore, to try what he can do with thofe two principal Articles y
Redemption and Regeneration.
As to the Dodrine of Redemption by Jefus Chriji, this Au-
thor hath, in a good meafure, given us his own Sentiment le-
.fore, p. 148, viz. that as all we lojl in Adam was the Life
. which ceafeth when we leave this World j fo all that God' s Grace
.doth for us in Chrift, to repair that Lofs., is raiftng us up at the
la/i Day. But over and above this he now alfo allows, that the
Reafon and End of Redemption in Chiift was the ereSling and fur-
nifning a Difpcnfation of Grace., for the more certain and effeSiual
SanSiifcation of Mankind into the Imagi' of God ; the delivering
them from the Sin and Wickednefs into which they might fall., or
were already fallen \ to redeem them from all Iniquity i and ta
bring them to the Knowledge and Obedience of God, p. 232. And
this, as far as I can find, is all this Author underftandech by Re-
demption. Here is not a Word of the Atonement of Chrift's
Death ; of his fuffering for our Sins, the fuji for the UujuJI,
and redeeming us from the Curfe of the Lavj, being made a Curfe
for us \ of his reconciling us to God by the Crofs ; of his giving
himfelf for us, an Offering and a Sacrifice to God; of his bear-
ing our Sins in his own Body on the Tree, the Lord hailing laid
on him the Iniquity of us all. If our Author had been pleak-d to
prefent us with a Catalogue of thefe, and Hiany other Texts,
that fpeak nearly the fame Language, as he hnth done of the
Texts that relate to Original Sin, what a World of critical
Learning would he have difplayed, in order to clear ud the
Senfe of them ; and to prove it muit be fuch as the Unlearned
(for wliofe Ufe the Scriptuies were written as much as for the
Leaned) could not, with the Help of the mod literal Trnnfla- .*.?'f
tion, pofTibly underhand them in. What demonllra'tive Argu-
ments, and infallible Proofs fhould we have had, that not one
of thefe Texts means any thing like the '^iw^z which the'Worui
import.
Ho'.vcvcr,
62 'I'he Scripture-Do5irine of
However, let Redemption mean what it will, this Author
findsj that it refers only to the a£iual Wickednefs of Mankind
wherewith they have corrupted themfelves ; and not, as Rom. v.
12, ijfc. and i Cor. xv. 2i» 22. exprefly refer it, to our being
made Sinners in Adam, and our being brought under a Sentence
of Condemnation and Death for his Tranfgreflion, To prove
this, he thinks it Jufficient to put us in mind^ that when the
Apoftle^ Rom. i. 16, 17. is profeffedly demonjirating the Excel-
lency and NeceJJity of Go/pel Grace (which, faith he, is the farfie
Thing as the Redemption in Chrift) for the Salvation of the
World \ he proveth it, not from the Ejiate of Sin and Mifery in-
to which they were brought by Adam'^ Fall, but from the Sin
end Mifery which they had brought upon themfelves, by their own
wicked departing fr 9m God, vcr- 21, ^c. 'Tis true Sti. Paul
begins his Difcourfc on the Guiltinefs and Sinfulnefsof Men, in
order to fbew their Need of Redemption and Juftification by
Chrijf, with an Account of the a<5tual Tranfgreflions of the ido-
latrous Gentiles ; afterwards. Chap. iii. he treats of the univer-
fal Depravity and Corruption of all Mankind 3 and then pro-
ceeds, Chap. V* to fhew, that we are all made Sinners in Adam^
and that by his Offence, fudgment is come upon all Men to Con-
demnation. The Apoftle's Method is clear and natural. He
begins with that which was moft obvious^ even adlual Sin ; and
then pri>ceeds to fpeak of Original Sin as another, and more re-
mote, Caufe of the Neceflity of Redemption for all Men, for
Jews as well as Gentiles, But to infer, that becaufe he begiiis
with the Mention of adtual Sins, in order to demonftratc thcNe*-
ceffity of Redemption, therefore he wholly excludes Original
Sin out of the Account, though he fo exprefly fpeaks of that
too afterwards in it's proper Place ; this is fuitable only to our
Author's Way of Reafoning ; and I verily believe the Thought
vas originally his own.
He often furprifeth us with extraordinary Arguments j but he
would have us furprifed with what has nothing at all won-
derful in it, viz. That Chrift faith nothing, in the four Gofpelsy
cf redeeming us from the Sinfulnefs and Corruption of Nature
derived from Adam, p. 135- And feeing he fpake exaSily accord-
ing to the Commiffton which the Father gave him, may we not
fafely conclude, it zvas no Part of his Comrniffion to preach the
common Dc£lrinc of Original Sin F p. 236. With juft as much
Reafon may we as fafely conclude, that the fnany Things wjjhich
Chrijl had to fay to his Difciples, which they could not bear
during the Time of his perfonal Miniftry, John xvi. 12. but
which, according to his Promife, ver. 13. he afterwards taught
them by his Spirit, and by them to the World, juft as well may
we conclude that none of thefe Things were in Chrijl'% Com-
miilion
Part III. Original Sin vindicated > 6j
miflioh to teach and make known o I^Ien. It makes no rea-
fotiable DifFerence, as to the Ground of our Faith, whether a
Dodrine was dehvercd by Chriji in Perfon, or by his Apoftles
under the Infpiration of his Spirit. 'Tis the fame Thing whe-
ther it be written in any of the four Gofpels, or in any of the
divine Epiftles : One is as truly the Word of Chriji as the otlier :
There is only this DifFerence, the Epifl^les were wrote, and the
Matters contained in them were delivered, after the Refurrcc-
tion and Afcenfion of C/^r//? ; therefore after the Commence-
ment of the Gofpel Difpenfation : Whereas, all the Difcourfes
of Chriji, which are recorded in the four Gofpels, were deli-
vered by him while as yet the Kingdom of God was only at hand^
and before the Gofpel Difpenfation was adlually begun* It is
natural, therefore, to look for the peculiar Dodrines of the
Gofpel rather in the Epiftles, than in any of the four Hiftories
of Chriji^ Life and perfonal Miniftry. However, this Dodrine
of Original Sin was not peculiar to the Gofpel Difpenfation*
Chriji fpake of it, and referred to it once and again during his
perfonal Miniftry ; as, for Inftance, in his Difcourfe to Nicode-
rnus, John iii. 6. That which is horn of the Flejh is Flejh, Sec.
But it is not at all furprizing that he did not fpeak fo largely and
fully of redeeming us from Sin, whether original or adtual, by
the Price of his Blood, before that Price was adually paid, as
his Apoftles do afterwards. Befides, it appears the Difciples
were in a very weak State of Knowledge, and ftrangcly over-
run with yewiJJj Prejudices, during the Life of Chriji. They
had fct their Hearts, and their whole Hopes, in a manner, on
temporal Redemption from outward Calamities; they could not
yet bear to be told that their Hopes, as to this Matter, muft be
Utterly difappointed ; and that the Redemption which Chriji
would obtain for them was merely a fpiritual Redemption, from
the Guilt of Sin both original and adlual, and from that Sin-
fulnefs and Corruption of Nature which they derived from Adam*
So that we can fuppofe a very juji Ground upon w^ich it was not
ft tiiat Chriji ihould fpeak more plainly than he did to his Dif-
ciples about redeeming them from the Sinfulnefs and Corruption
if Nature. . Chrift himfelf gave a fubftantial Reaft>n for it, viz,
becaule this was one of thofe Tubings which he had to fay to
them, but as yet they could not bear it. Therefore, we have
no Caufe to be furprifcd that no more is faid about this Dodrine,
in thofe Difcourfes which Chrift delivered before his Death. But
to Us he has told it plainly, and IVe do find the Dodtrines of
Original Sin and Redemption from it by Jefus Chrift^ diftin-
guijhed emphatically in aimoft every Page of the divine
Epiftles,
Mrr.
r
6 4. *TI>e Scripture- DoSIrme of
I^/Ir T, fays, It hath been delivered as a fundamental Truthy
That no Man will come to Chrift, the feco-id Adam, who is not
■firfi thoroughly convinced of the fever al Things he loji in the firji
Aoam. If fi then fur ely our Saviour, in his Minijiry^. would
have laboured above alllhingsto explain and inculcate the Pravity
and Dfflement of Nature we derive from Adam, andthe eternal
Dajnnaiion due to all Men m that Account, p. 236. As to this^
I need only add to what I have faid in the laft Paragraph, that a
Sinner's SenCe of his many Wants is neceffary to his coming to
■Chriji ; though he may not at firft know much about Adam^
And this Senfe of his Wants is very much inculcated by Chriji
in hisperfonal Miniftry, as well as by his Apoftles afterwards.
In the next Page our Author proves, with his ufual Strength
of Argument, That Original Sin, as it is Guilt, imputed, is no
ObjeSt of Redemption ; becaufe imputed Guilt is only imaginary
Guilt — —for I am not guilty of a Sin I never cotnjyiitted. This Ar-
gument hath been confidered and anfwered before. I would,
only now afk again, W hen Poverty and Diftrefs come upon the
•Pofterity of a Traitor, for his treafonable Acl, is it only imagi-
nary Guilt that lies upon them, and for which they fufFer ? And
when the King by a gracioi^s A61 of Pardon, reftores the Eftate
and Honours to the Children, is itfuppofed that the Children ne-
ver had the Guilt of Treafon imputed to them ?
Another Scripture-Dodrine which our Author muft try to ex-
plain away, as ftanding in oppoiition to his Scheme, is Rege-
neration; by which lie underltands, our gaining the Habits
sf Virtue and Holtnefs, f. 247. Ke owns, indeed, that, in
explaining this Dodtrine, he does iiot Jland upon the Scripture Senfe
of Terms, p. 11,C). which is very true : and he might with e-
qual Truth have laid the fame concerning the Explication he has
given us of Original Sm, and of Redemption. He doth not
-Jt and upon the Scripture Set fe of Terrns, for he finds, it fecms,
.that the facred Writers have u(ed very improper Teims, whereby
they have wretchedly confounded and cbfcured the Do^lrine of
-E.egcnerat.ion ; cur Author, therefore, takes ihe Liberty to fub-
ilitute Letter Teinis in the Room of their?. They talk of being
born again, born of the Spirit, and renewed in the Spirit of the
Mind, of Mens bciiommg neiv Creatures, in \Nh\ch old things
■arc paffed aivay, and ail Things are become new. They exprcfs
P^egeneratian by Mens being neiu created in Chriit Jefus, by
their rifeng tvith Qhuikfrom Death toNewnefs of Life; by pod^s
opening their Eyes and turning them from Darknefs to Light, and
fran the Fewer of Satan to God, by his giving thein a ntw Heart,
and a mw Spirit, 6zQ. If this Writer had /iood upon the Scrip-
ture Senfe of Terms ; or if he had fuppofed tiiat thcfe Scripture
Terms huve, really, any Senfe and Meaning in ihem, he could
not
Part III, Original Sin vindixated. 65
not furely have given us fo pitiful an Account of Regeneration as
he does. He takes it, to be born again, or of God, is no other than
to attain thofe Habits of Virtue and Relig ion, which give us the
realCharaSfer of the Children of God, p. 239. It feems, how-
ver, by his own Account, there are fuch things as Habits of
Virtue and Rehgion ; and if fo, where is the Impropriety of fup-
pofing, that God may infufc thofe Habits at once into the Soul
in feme Degree ? which is the very thing the Scripture Terra*
do fo naturally import : And why then muft we ftot Hand upon
the Scripture Senfeof thefc Terms ? What need have we to de-
part from their plain and obvious Meaning ? Whatever good
Habits are not impofTible to our Nature, but which Men can be
fuppofed to gain by their own Induftry and Exercifcj God could,
no doubt, concreate with us; or his almighty Power can infufe
them immediately into us whenever he pleafeth. Cannot God
make us as good as we can make ourfelves ? and cannot he do
that in a Moment which we can do in any length of Time * I
Nay, do not we know that, in other Cafes, God hath actually,
and at once, infufed fuch Habits into fome Men, as others have
not been able to gain without Years of diligent Application and
Labour. The Habit of underftanding and fpeaking divers Lan-
guages, which he infufed into the Apoftles, is an undeniable In-
ftance of this Sort* And there is nothing more irrational in
fuppofing, that God doth immediately infufe the Habits of Vir-
tue and Holinefs into thofe Souls of Men whom he regenerates j
and if we will adhere to the Scripture Senfe of Terms, it is as
undeniable that he really doth this. So that after all, thefc
Scripture Terms, born of God, renewed in the Spirit of the Mind^
&c. give us a much better and clearer Account of Regeneration,
than thofe other Terms, which Mr T. has been pleafed to fub-
ftitute in the Room of them.
He acknowledges, that //; order to Acceptance with God, an^
an /Admittance into his peculiar Kingdom, it is not enough for an
intelligent Being to exifl j but, moreover, it is abfolutely ntceffary
that it learn to employ and exercife its Powers fuit ably to the Na-
ture atid Ends of them, that it be created anew, p. 24.4.. But
* N. B. I only fuppofe here for Argument's Sake, that Men might
in Time gain the Habits of Virtue aud Holinefs by their own Power,
not that 1 can believe that any Men rcaily do fo ; for We are not fuffi-
eknt, of OMrfelves, to think any thing as of ourfelves^ 2 Car. iii 5. it
is God nvbicb njuorketh iv us, both to <vjill and to do of his good Pleafure,
Phil. ii. 14. Ax\di zWlhoic avbo become the Sons of God, arc born not of
Blood, nor of the IViil of the Flejb, nor of the Will of Man, but cfGod,
John i. I3»
\ what
£5 ^^- Scriptitre-Dormnc of
what need there can be for an intelligent Bains:, fuch as Man, to
he created anew^ if h6 had not loft his orig'nal Righteoufnefs, is
tjuiie above my Comprehennon. - Bu: ,this hn'diQr doth notjiand
On the Scripture Senfe of Terms^ but takes the Liberty to put what
Senfe he pleafes on them. At this Race the Scriptures would
equally lerve to eftablifii any Truth, or any Error ; and inftead
of their ht'ing profitable for In/lruiiion^ they would be good for
iJiothing.
The Account which JVIr T. hath given us of his Do&ine of
l^zgentx^iUon vj ill explain to lis ^ as he tells us, the Dijpenfation
our fir Jl Parents tvere wider before the .Fall ; and this alfo gives
us a true Idea of the Fall^ which was_ not jurely^ as it hath been
commonly reprejhited, a falling jrom a Ztate of pcrfe£i Holinefs.,
hiit^ indeed^ a faUiug fijort of fuel? a Etate. For if Adam had
.been originally perfSl in the Habits of Holuufs, then what oc-
cafion was there for any further Trial a)id Proof of his Holinefs ^^.
^45. I would hope his changing the Phrafe perfeSl Holinefs in one
Part of the Sentence iv.to pcrfeSf in the Habits of Holinefs in
■the other Part, is nothing but a Miitake, and not a diflionefl
Artifice to deceive the Reader. Any body cnn conceive that
■ Ada?}j misfit, have a Principle of Holiucl's, which had no Mixture
of propenfuy to Sin, and fo might be in a State of perfect Holi"
tiefs 5 and yet tiicre might be much Occafion tor hrs further
Trial of adlual Obedience, in order to confirm the Habits of
Holinefs^ and raife them to higher Perfection, as well as for o-
ther divine Purpofcs.
As for this Autiior's Argument to prove that, according to the
.common Dodtrine of Origiiud Sin, it caiinut be our Duty to be
jborn again, and, confequently, it cannot be our Fault if we arc
not bccaitfe zvc are t:tt^rly difabled to all that is fpiritually Goodi
and tvhofly inclined to Evil : That is, by a corrupt Biafs on the
'Will. It has been repeated and anfwered coo often already, un-
jefs there were more Senle in it.
He haiii now, as he would perfuade us, fully explain'd what
15 mcajit by being born of the Spirit. But, perhaps, fome of
his Readers mny a little wonder that he hath taken no manner of-
Notice or any Ager.cy of the Spirit in all th.is Account. He
hinifelf feems fcnfible that he had almoit overlooked it ; a:, iii*^
CiCfi^}, he eafily might do, when his Scheme has no need oi it.
Hewever, that he 7nay not jcem wholly to overlook the DoBrine of
the Spirit^ s Ajiyiance^ lie will give us a rricf Account of it, p.
1i^~f. He bthcves //6^ Communication and Iifiuence of the Spirit
of God in all .>fges to ajfijl our ftncere Endea'vours after IFifdom,
ay.d the liaiits of Virtue .^ is a Blfjfing Jpoke of and prom fed in
the
Part III. Original Sin •vmdicated. Cy
the Gpfpel, hut never as fuppofing any natural Corruption or Innate
Pravliy of our Minds. But certain it h, that Chrijl oppofeth
•our being horn of the Spirit, to our being born of the Fle/h^ John
iii. 6. That vuhich is born of the Flejh is Flefo, and that which
is horn of the Spirit is Spirit j therefore, the promifcd Influ-
ence of the Spirit in Regeneration fuppofcih fomething that we
arc born with, which makes fuch an Influence neceflary to our
being horn again ; and if that be not natural Corruption or in-
nate Pravityif the Mind^ let our Author tell us what it is. It
is plain it is not any Habit of Sin acquired in after Life, that is
there referred to, for it is fomething we are born with : and if to
be born of the Flejh means nothing but to have the mere Parts
and Powers of a Maa^ as our Author has before explained this
Text, p. 144. And if, according to his Scheme, thcfe Parts
and Powers are all pure and uncorruptcd, I know of no need we
fhould have of any fuch Influence of the Spirit to be fuper-added
to our natural Powers, to affifi us in our fmcere Endeavours after
TVifdom, and the Habits of Virtue ; and then the Promife of it
is as impertinent, as our Author's Account of it is trifling, which
it is not worth while to detain the Reader with one Moment.
We haften, therefore, to the
Condifion of the Book in which there are abundant Speci-
mens of this Author's Candour and Fairnefs, appearing in the
Infinuations he makes, and the Confequences he is pleafed to
fallen on the Do6lrines which he has been oppofing.
He tells us, thefc Do6trincs reprefent the divine Difpenfitions
asunjufi, cruel, and tyrannical, p. 249. As the /r?t'^ and only
Anlwer which this defervcs, would not be quite civil for me to
return to a Scholar and a Gentleman, I choofe to trufl it to the
Reader's Judgment, without any Anfwer at all.
He thinks common Experience will make it good t^^^^t t^>c more
_ . ^nje^tu ... __ _ -
fatisfied, common Experiennce- will make it good, that without
fome ferious Thoughts and Meditations on thefe Points, fcnrce
any will be truly humble and poor in Spiiir, and depend on the
Riches of divine Grace in Chrift.
HeafKS, Hath not the Dcarinc o'i Original Sin a Tendency to.
chill and benumb our Spirits, to cool our Lwe, to dainp our holy
Joy ahdPraifc? I anfwer, No; hvX quite the contrary, ^/i:;.
to inflame our Hearts with Love, and to exalt our Praifc to God.
our Redecm.er and Saviour from the nr.ir.ifold Riu"ns of tiie Fall.
He goes on, Do vje thus requite cur Father by running daun and
leffcninghisBenrfcence? I anfwcr, Wedonat iiithe?ea;i ichVii
E 2 God's
6 8 'The Scripture-Bo^rine of
God's Beneficence by owning the Guilt and Mifery that Man has
brought on his own Nat\ire and Condition. He ftill proceeds in; '
the fame Strain, Doth not the Do£lnne of Original Sin teach y6U^
to transfer ycur l^ickcdnefs and Sin to a vjtong Caufe ? I anfwer
No ; but to the ttue Caufc, But then, faith our Author, If the
Corruption cf ycur Nature he the Caufe, you mu[l he necejfarily
vicious. If he had not repeated this fcnfeicfs Fallhood fo often,
if might, with more Charity, have been imputed to mere Igno-
rance and Thoughtleflhefs : But if this be his beft EfTort and his
dernier Rrfort, we may pronounce his Strength to be Weaknefs;
ahd his ficquent Repetition of it (hews his Poverty of Argu-
ment, as well as his EfFrontery.
To the Belief of this Doctrine he imputes it, that the genera-
lity of Chrijiians have been the moft wicked^ lewd, bloody^ and
treacherous of all Mankind, p. 252. He might have known,
that the generality of lewd, bloody, and treacherous Chriftians,
areChriUians only in Name, as dwelling in Chriftian Nations ;
but not one in a hundred of them either properly believes, or
difbelieves this Dodlrine, or has ever confidercd any thing about
it. He might have known too, that the beft of Chriftians in ,
many Ages have firmly believed this Do6lrine j and that it is
fully believed by fome of the moft holy Men we now know. In
fhort, he calls this divine Truth, which is fo firmly eftablifhcd
by Reafon and Scripture, a Majlcr-fiece of the old Serpent^ s Sub- _
tility, p. 253. This is decent and candid indeed.
He w\\]\r^\cihefe Dcflrines to Jet Religion in direSi Oppofition
to Reafon and comtnon Senfe, and fo to render our rational Powers
quite ufelefsto us, a;id confequently Religion too. Were I inclined
to retort his Slander, it would be eafy to fix it on his own Scheme,
which ftands in direct Oppofition to Scripture and Rearon, and
the Experience of all Mankind, whether Heathens, Jews, or
Chriftians, in all Ages ; and it renders the glorious Gofpel, the
Atonement of Chrifl, and the Influences of his Spirit, in a
manner, ufclefs : And then it is no Wonder that, in Proportion,
as this Scheme prevails, Infidelity abounds ; as is moft appa-
rently the Cafe. This Author would blind our Senfes, as, well
as our Reafon, when he would have us believe, that the Doftrine
of Original Sin hath filed our Land with Infidels. He afketh
again. Which Notions are mcft likely to operate heft upon Parents
Minds., and moji proper to be injlilled into a Child? So would I
a(k too, Which Notions are beft, the true or the falfe ? Here
he makes the Do6lrine of Original Sin to fay, that Children
come into the World in the worft and mo/I deplorable State of Cor-
rvption, p. 254. Nonefay, the woiil: and moft deplorable, be-
fidcs
Part III. Original Sin vindicated^ &c. 69
iidcs our Author. Their State is bad, yet, no doubt, it might
be much worfe. He afketh again. If' hat Encouragemmt Parents
have to bring their Children up in the Nurture and Almonition of
the Lor^, if they think they are under the certain Curfe of God
to et/^nal Damnation. But who aflerts this ? If no body, let
\ki/% Writer be accountable for his own Slanders.
Now we come to the Clofe of all. And I rejoice, that as
I fet out at firft, with this Author, ir) perfeil Harmony, lO^
though we have happened to differ by the Way, we are like
to conclude in the fame Harmony ; and part, as I hope, good
Friends. For I moft heartily agree to what he writes, p. 258-
As for me I am a weak and imperfe^ Man, and may have j aid
Jeveral weak and imperfe^f Things. Nay, if his Modefty had
even added, feveral falfe, flanderous, fpiteful, and malicious
Things, I fhould not be (o uncivil as to contradict him.
We have met with many wondrous Things in rliis Book ;
and it is to me a greater Wonder than almoll any of them, that
this Book hath been received with fuch uncommon Applaufe
by many of the declared Enemies of Bigotry, and Pretenders to
rational Religion. What St. Paul obferves concerning the Pre-
tenders to Religion in his Time, viz. that all Men have not
Faith, 2. ThefT iii. 2. may lurely, with a little Variation, be
applyed to the Pretenders to Re.. fon in our Day, viz. that all
Men have not Senfe. Al.iy tve be delivered from fuch (alaTrot)
abfurd Men, who (as Dr Delrnne very jufliy obicrves in his
Sermon onOrigin;<l Sin ) do, before they are aiuaie, confirm the
Truth in ^iejlion by jo unrenf.nably oppofing it ; by this Means
difcovering then fives to be very apparent Monuments of the Ruin
of human Namrc.
man's Original Right eoiifny s '^\r^\^ (y ig^
AND
%
•OG/CAL$t^?i
C D^s Covenant with Adam, as a puhlick Perfon ;
ajferted and plainly proved from the Scripture^ as the
Bajis of the true Doftrine ^/Ohiginal Sin.
IN TWO
K
WITH AN
A P P
Relating to a B o o k lately publiflied
B Y T H E
Reverend ^Mr J. TAYLOR,
OF
N R IV I C H,
Againft the Doctrine of
ORIGINAL SI N.
By Samuel "Hebden.
L O N D G N:
Printed, r.nd D u E l i n Reprinted, by E D W". B A T E la
Gecrge's-iane^ M d c c ;: l v ii .
[31
SERMON I
E c c L E s. VIJ. 29.
Lo, this only have I fou7id^ that God fnada
Man upright ; but they have fought out
many Inventions,
IN this Text the Wife Man invites our ferious Obfervatioa
of the woful Corruption and Degeneracy of Mankind, as
departed very far from the original Reditude of human Na-
ture, and adchdled to many foolifh, hurtful, finful Ways.
This general Corruption he had pointed at before, ver. 28,
where he declares, as to the Men and Women he had obfervcd,
and had been converfant with, that he could find but a very fmall
Number of Wife good Men^ and rather fewer prudent, virtuouj;,
religious Women. But then, left any fhould blame the Providence
of G o D for this^ he further Obferves, that thefe corrupt, vi-
cious Perfons of both Sexes, were greatly altered from what
God made Man at firft;and their being what they wait; were,
was the Effe(3: of a wretched Apoftacy from God. Loy this
only have I founds that God made Man upright ; but they^ &c.
Lo, this only have I found : The original Words ftand in this
Order, Only, fee thou, (or obferve thou) / have found.
Only. This Word is rendered apart, Zech. xii. 12, and be-
fides, in many other Places. Here it feems to fet a Mark on
what it is prefixed to, and to diftinguifh it from many other
things, (attended with Difficulties, and not fo evident) as a
Truth of very great Importance and Certainty.' ■>■! « .See tbeu
or
4 Man^s OfiginalRighteoufaefs
or obferve thou ; he fpeaks to every one in particular, every
Header and Hearer, You, me, and others, vi^hom he invites to
obferve, to confider, what he was about to ofFer. I have
found., I have difcovered this Truth, and aflert on the cleareft
and fulleft Evidence, What ? that God made Man upright j but
they have fought out many Inventions.
For Man the original Word is, Adam., which Name is vari-
oufly applied in the Scripture. To the firft Man j to both our
firft Parents, Gen. i. 26, 27. Chap. v. 2 > to Mankind in c6m-
moa ; and to any one of jdam^s Defcendants ; (not to add that
with the diftinguiftiing Epithet of lafl, or fecond^ it is one of
the Names of our Lord Jesus Christ, and it is the Name
of a City not far from Jordan., Jofh. iii. 16 *).
God made Man upright ; The QLieftion is, Does this relate to
the firfl of Mankind only? or to Mankind in every Age ? That
it relates to the frj} oi Mankind, all grant : There is no Diffe-
rence of Opinions as to that : But fome will have it, that it e-
qurlly refers to the natural State of Mankind in every Age'.
Whether this be true or no, we ihall hear prefently, when wc
have fettled the true meaning of this Term, upright. , Now the
Hebrew Word *^{^» ^ jafmr, which we render upright., in the
proper native Signification of it, is oppofcd to, crooked irregu-
jar, perverfc, iJc. Not to mention the feveral Things it is ap-
plied to «= to fignify their being flraight, agreeable to Rule, b'r.
v/efind this Character given to God and Man, w\\.\\x.he Words
aiid Works of both. As applied to God, the Ways of God,
the Word of God, it is joined with Good, Pfal. xxv. 8- with
Righteous, Pfal. cxix. 137. with true and good, "Nehcm. ix. 13.
where Mention is made of right Judgments, true Laws, good
Statutes. The Uprightnefs, or as it is in thePIebrew Uprightnef-
fcs '^, in, or with, which God is faid to minifter Judgment to
the
^ See my Sermon for Mri S. Harptr. on Job. xiv. 1,2, pag. 5. 6.
*> From this fome derive fejhurun, v/hich Name is given to the Ifi-
raelites, to fignify the Uprightnefs that ought to be found in them, at
the Defcendants of good old "Jacob, or Ifmel.
c It may be applied to 0/ fublime as Ox-jV calls it, the ered Poflure
by which the Body of Man is diftinguifhed, and thi , fay fome, may
bcconfidered as defigned for an external R.eprefentationof the Upright-
neft of the Soul.
* Ihis, as afcribed to God, might feem to denote the mod perfeB
Uprightnefs, was not the lame plural Noun, which indeed v/ant? a fin-
gular, applied to Creatures, as Cant. i. 4. ivtiere what wc render, the
Upright love thee, is in the Uebrt-^'j Melharjm Ahebuka, Uprighturffes,
for, the Upright hi-f ihee, or, they isve thee in Uprightnefei, or up-
rightly.
aj[erted,and proved. q
the Peoole e anfwers to Righteoufnefs. In one WorJ, God'x
Upri;^t:iH!jfs is the moral Reftitude oF his Nature, by which he
is iiivaiiably difpofcd, and determined to a<Si-, in ail his Dealings
with his Creatures, agreeably to the Standard of Lis own infinite
Perfet'i^ions, or in fuch a Manner, as it becomes an infinitely
wife, gocu, juft, and in all rerpects, m.ofl perfecSl: Being to do.
Again, The Uprightncfs cf Man is his Conformity of Heart and
Manners, to the Rule he is under, which is the Law, or Will
of God, feme way or other fignified to him. Accordingly we
read of Uprightnefs of Hearty Pfal. xxxvi. lo. Job. xxxiii. 3.
and Uprightnefs of Iray^ or Converfation, Pfa!. xxxvji, 14,.
and often elfe where. The Upright Man^ throughout the Scrip-
ture, is a truly good Man, a righteous Man, a Man of Integrity,
a holy Perfon. In Job. i. i. 8- chap. 2. 3. Upright is the fame
•W\\.\\ perfeSf f, and is explained by, one who feareth God, an.d
efcheweth Evil. In fob. viii. 6. it is joined, and the fame with
fure. Befides thefe, let me jufl point at a few of the many o-
ther Pafiagcs, which warrant our Explication of this Word, Up-
right, in the Text, Prov. x. 29. " The Way of the Lord is
Strength to the Upright, but Deftrudtion (hall be to the Work-
ers of Iniquity," where the Upright, and Workers of Iniquity ,
are pppofed to each other. Chap. xi. 3. There, Integrity as af-
cribed to the Upright, [jejharir?^) and thefe are oppofcd to Tranf-
grejfors. Ver. 6- Righteoufnefs is afcribcd to the fame Perfons,
"who again are, ver. 11. oppoled to wicked Perfons, Chap. xv. 3,
** The Sacrificeicf the Wicked, is an Abomination to the Lord,
*' but the Prayer of the Upright, {jefiarim') is his Delight".
Chap. xxi. 18. the Righteous -dX^A the Upright are tiie fame, and
Perfons of thefe Chara£lers are oppofed to the Wicked and Tranf-
greffors, ver. 29. A wicked Man hardneth his Face, but as for
the upright, he diredteth his Way." In Pro-y. xxviii. 10. Our
Tranflators render jejharim by jujt, as the fame with perfedl,
Tamitn, vhich, or Temimim, in feveral other Places they ren-
der upright. Let any now, if they can, confront thefe Texts
(befides which, many more might be produced from the Writ-
ings of Solomon., and other Parts of Scripture) v/ith other Paf-
fages forbidding us to afTcrt, as v/e confidently do, that Upright-
nefs, as applied to Men, is always the fame with Righteoufneft,
Goodnefs, Integrity, &c. When therefore the Wife-Man tells
us, that God made Man upright, the evident undeniable Mean-
ing of it is, that God at firfl, formed Man, righteous, holy., Szc.
or put into him a Propcnfity to acl in Conformity to Truth-,
Ihat
« Pfal. ix. 8.
,f So in Pfal. xxxvi. 37. and other Places. Vox perfe£l in ourTranf-
lation, the Iklreiv has foinctimes lam, and fomecimes JaJJjar.
6 ManU Original Righteoufnefs
That the Heart and Life of Man, in his original State, were
perfectly regular : I fay, in his original State ; for, if Upright-
Titfs is the fame with Righteoufnefs^ as undeniably it is, it can rcr
fcr, only to what Man was originally^ fince all grant, (and com-
mon eafy Obfervation confirms it, as well as the Scripture) that
Mankind notv, are not born, and made righteous or holy. Yet,
fays the Wife-Man, God made Alan upright^ or righteous, /. e.
he made him fo, atfirji\ but they have fouglit out many Inven-
tions. They, this refeis to Adam, which is both a lingular and
plural Noun ; They^ i. e. Mankind, our firfl- Parents, and with
them their Pofterity, have fought cut many Inventions, many
Contrivances to offend God, and injure themfelves. Thefe
many Inventions, are oppofed to the Upright nefs afore-mentioned,
the Simplicity of Heart, the Plain-heartednefs, Integrity, Righ-
teoufnefs, with v/hich our firfl: Parents, and Mankind in them,
were originally made by God.
The Doctrine of the Text then is, that God originally, ar at
his firfi Creation made Man '^ upright or righteons : He formed
him not only rational, and a free Jgent, but holy. He made
him not only capable of knowing, loving and ferving God, but
with fuch a Principle of Love and Obedience to his Maker, as
difpofed and enabled him, to perform the whole of his Duty
with Eafe and Delight : Tho' Holincfs, or a fupreme Love to
God, was in a Senfc, fupernatural to hitn, it being fuperaddcd
to the eflential Powers and Faculties of his Nature, as a Man ;
It was however, thus far natural to him, that it was concreated
•with his rational Powets. He was, at once, made Raiioval, and
Holy. To fay ctherwife, and aflert the Impoffibllity of This, ;
to maintain, that Man neither was, nor could be formed with
eriginal Righteoufnefs, or Holinefs, becaufe he mufl chufe to be
righiccus, before he could be righteous ; And thereiore he muft
exift, he muft be created ; yea, he muft exercife Thought and
Refleftion before he was righteous ; and that none can be righ-
teous, but in Confequencc of his own Choice and Endeavour :•»
This is bold with a WiinL'fi, and asi Inftance, (if I may have
leave to hy it) cither o\ gicat Incojifideration or {frong Preju^
dice ; It is in effeft, a contradidting expi-efs Scripture, and c-
yident Fadl:, ftnce the Text does not fay, God made Man ca-
pable of becoming upright,, or righteous j but, he made Man
upright,
* The Way of rpeakir>g here \ukd plainly, points out the Csimatu-
raheft of Uprightncfs, or Righteoufnefs, with the human Sow!, in its
original State ; for 'tis not faid, Gcd Jirfi, made Man, and then, made
him upright, but God made M-z:-: upright.
'» To tbJs Purpofe Mr J. fa^;lar Ipeak^ ir> his late TreatJfe of
Qrigtnal Sir..
tijferted and proved 7
ttfyirht, which if we conform to the good old Rule, of inter-
pretiii'^ Scripture by Scripture^ mufr fignify, ti)at God made
Man, at firil, righteous^ or holy.- But I would. further
ilrengthen this Interpretation of the Text, and further confirm
the Do<^rine contained in it as (o interpreted by the following
Arguments.
I. A'fofcs in his Account of the Creation, reprefents God,
as faying, ** Let us make Man in our Image, after our Like-
nefs." Here, as the Antients ' obferve, God the Father is
brought in, fpeaking to his Son and Spirit, Of thefe two Words,
Image and Ltkenefs^ various Explications are given : Some di-
ftinguifh them, others reckon them equivalent, or to fignify a
perfect Kind of Likenefs : feme would extend this Image^ and,
(or Likejufs) to the Body of Man, others reftrain it to the Soul.
Some are for including herein the HaPpinefs of the primitive
State of Man, v.'hile others chufe rather to confider that^ as X
Refult from v/hat the Scripture mentions as Man's original Like-
nefs to God. Some reckon Man's Dominion over the other Crea-
tures, as one Part of the Image of God in which he was at firft
made ; while others diftmguilk thefe two, as Mofes plainly does
in the Text now before us. Some, /. e. the Pelagians^ and So-
f;«?tf«junderftand it of the rational Faculties of Man's Nature |
together with the Dominion given him, exclufively of what we
call Original Righteoujnefs., or Holinefs ; but that this muft be
included, and was indee<^, the principal Part (tho' not the whole)
of the Image of God in which he made Man, appears as from
the Text fairly interpreted, according to the conftant Ufe of the
Word Upright in the Scripture, fo from Ephef. iv. 22, 24. and
Col. iii. 9, 10. For explaining thefe two Pafiages of the Apof-
tle, I obferve. (i.) By the Old Man is not meant an hta^
thcnijl) Life^ as it has been lately interpreted, •* or any ungodly
Converfation, hut i\ corrirpi fu/ture, or an habitual Propenfity to
Sin. For the Apoflle elfc where fpeaks of our old Afan, as dru-
dfied with Chrijt^ and here he diftinguiflics from it, their for-
mer Converfation and finful Actions, which he calls the Deeds of
the Old Man. Again, by the Nnv Alan., is meant, not anew
Courfe of Life ('as the Socinians^ ' weakly and in judicioufly in-
* Barnabas and JuJIt'^ Martyr reprefcnt God the Father as fpeaking
thus to his Son. Len^rus and feveral others reprefent him, as fpeaking
it to his Son and Spirit, his PFord and Wifdom, whom Irtn<t:us calls the
Hands of Gad, by whom he freely and voluntarily made all things,
k By Mr J. Taylor, oi Ncrnvicb, in his late Book of Original Sin.
' Whom the Gtntleman juft mentioned, follows in his Doftrine, and
Explicatio.n of tl»i}^ and s/^^r Texts of Scripture.
tcrprct
8 ' Man'?, Original Rjghteoufnefs
terprct it) but, a Principle of Grace in the Soul, called the hidden
IiL\T\.qf thi Hearty ™ and a divine nature^ " as well as by feveral
other. Names. To put off the old Man^ is the fame as to crucify thf
FJcjhy Gal. V. 24. and X.omake-r,o Provifion for the Flejh^ Rom.
xlij.. 14. It is, to mortify and fubdue the coKupt Principle,
u-iiich every renewed Soul feels, laments and abhors in itfeif.
To put on the new Man^ Is to cultivate and ftir up the gracious
Principle, the new Nature, which the Spirit of God had begun -
in them. This^ fays the Apollle, is created after God in Righ-
ieoufnef^ and Holinefs of Truth. It is created^ which can't
properly be fiiid of a new Courfe of Life ; but is proper enough,
as to a new Nature, or a new Principle breathed into the Soul.
Tt is created after God, or in his Image and Likenefs. In thcfe
Words, created after God, the Apofile feems to point at what
Mofcs writes, Gen. i. 27. oi^ Man's being at firft made in the
Image of God, or after his Likenefs. Well, what is it to be
made in the Image and Likenefs of God, ot to he created after
God ? The Apoftle anfwers, it is to be created, in Righteouf-
nefs and true Holinefs, for which, (in Eph. iv. 24. ) he puts
Knowledge, Col. iii. 10. For thefe, a praSiical Knowledge of
God, and Righteoufnefs with Holinefs are the fame. We fee
then, .what it is that conftitutes Man's principal Conformity to
God : It is not his rational Poivers, which, without a fmcere
prevailing Lo\e to God, or a practical Knowledge of God, .
render Man viler than the Beafls of the Field ; but it is, Righ-
teoufnejs, ox Holincf, which two are fometimes diilinguiihed, and
often put promilcuoafly for each other : When aillinguiflied,
Righteoufnefs is a Difpofition toacl, as becomes us, wich Regard
to the Cieature : Hslinefs is a Principle of Love to God him-
fclf, as diftinguiflied from all otliers ; or, it is a fleady Inclina-
tion to praclife the Esuties that we owe to him. But often,
either of thefe two Words is put for the whole of Man's Duty ;
or a Principle difpofing and enabling him to act agreeably to his
Duty, both as to God and others. Tiiis the Apoille fjieaks of,
as the Glory, or chief Excellency of Man, 2 Cor. iit. 2:. Tf^e
all, who are true Chriflians, beholding as in a Glajs, the Glory
»f the Lord, are changed into the fame Image from ^lory to Glory^t
or from one Degree of Holinefs to another, even as 'by th'e Spirit
' cfthe Lord. If now Righteoufnefs or Holinefs, is the moft ami-
able Endowment of the human Soul, and what gives icit'smoft
dtfirable Likenefs to God : Arid if to be created after God, or in
bis Image and Likenefs, is to be created in Rightecufuefs and
true Holinefs, or witli a pratPiical Knowlt\lge of God ; a«d,-
if ,that Principle of Righteoufnefs, or Holinefs, by wiiich we
=" I Pet. iii. 4. "2 Pet. i, 4.
arc
aJJ'trled and proved, ' 9
are created unto good Works, or in order to the doing of fuch
"Works (Ephef. ii. 10.) is a New Man a Divine Naiufgy or God-
like Difpofition ; hence it is cafy to infer, that Man was created
■at firft, Righteous, Holy, difpofed to perform the whole of his
Duty, both in ragard to God, and every one vliom he fliould
be concerned with. Tho' Af(7« might be faid to refemblc God
his Maker, in that his Soulis immaterial, intelligent, and im-
mortal, Gen. ix. 6. yatn. iv. 9, Yet from the aforecited Texts
of the Apoftle Paul, we learn what is principally meant, by
being created after God, or made in the Likenefs of God, name-
ly, a being made righteous and holy, or upright, which therefore
was the primitive Original State of Man.
II. All things, as at firft made by God, were very good ; a-
greeable to the Ideas of the Divine Mind, and fuch as it be-
came the moft Holy One to make them. Nov/ a rational Being
whofe thinking, confidering, rcafoning, rcmembring, eledlive
■Powers, were not devoted to God, or in a readinefs to be em-
ployed for him, could hardly be accouiUed Good. If Man^
as well as every other Species of Creatures, was good in his
Kind, and the Goodnefs of fuch a Being as Man, muft lie in a
Devotednefs and Confccration to God ; 'tis evident, that Man
was no fooner made by God, than he w^as inclinable and readjr
to ferve God, in whatever Manner his Service Ihould be re-
quired i which Inclination, and Pvcadinefs to ferve God was
Righteotifnefs, or HoUnejs. This the Apoftle calls Goodnefs, '* I
know tl)at in Me, that is, in my Flefli, there dwelleth no good
Tiling," in me, fo farasi am unrenewed, there dwelleth nothing
of the Goodnefs, that the Law of God requires of the rational
Creature as fuch. The Goodnefs which the Law of God now
and always requires of M:m, as maJc by God capable of loving
and fcrving himfelf, is Righteoifnefs, or true Holinefs. Now
this Goodnefs, this Rectitude, ti)!s U^prightnefs, this reruhir and
due State, or Difpofition of tlie human Mind was natural to
Man at firft ; 'Twas wrought into his Nature, and conoreated
v/ith his rational Powers, becaufe, as Mofes fays, all things made
by God were, in their original State, very good. The rational
Creature, as fuch, is made capable of knowing, loving, ferving,
living in Communion with the moft Holy one ; but if being
madcfo capable^ the Powers and Faculties of his Nature are not
confecrated to God, he is on that A.ccount worfe than all infe-
rior Creaturfs. An hsly Perfon, as fuch, is one, all whofe
Powers and Faculties are dedicated to Gcd ; or on^ who chufes
to be fur Gcd j or one v.'lio fteadily ana earneflly inclines to
honour the Lord, with what he is, and has. Sucii an one,
undoubtedly, .was Man, when he lirfi cams out of tlit Hands
of God,
III,
io Man*s Original Righteoufnejs
III, When God vefted Man with a Dominion over the other
Creatures of this World, vihzx. Capacity^ or D'tfpofiiion could he
have duly to exercife that Dominion and Authority, without a
Principle of Love and Obedience to the great God himfelf ;
who made the Creatures ferviceable to Man^ and framed them
with a Difpofition to fubmit to him, that Man might be induc-
ed thereby to perfevere in his Dependance on, and voluntary
Subjection to, his God ? Did not a good God frame the
inferior Creatures with a Difpofition to fubmit to Man their Su-
perior and Lord ; as well as v/ith Capacities of being ufeful and
ferviceable to him ? If fo, where is the Abfurdity of believing
that Man was originally framed by a wife and good God,
with a Difpofition to fubmit to, and live dependant on, the
Lord of all ; as well as with natural Capacities for fuch a
Submillion and praClical Dependance ? What an agreeable yf«a*
icgy and Harmony was there between the inferior Creature*
being made by God ready for the ferving of Man, and Man's
being made ready or difpofed to ferve God.
IV. Either Man was originally framed with Principles of
Love and Obedience rooted in his Nature, or he was made at
iirft an Enemy to God, One of thefe muft be fuppofed for
this plain Reafon, becaufe as all the Duty required of Man^
as an intelligent moral Agent, is fummarily comprehended in
Lovc^ a fupreme Love to God as the greateft and beft Bci.
ingi and Man's Creator, andPreferver, and a fubordinate Love
to others for his fake ; fo there can be no Medium between
an intelligent Creature's Love to God, and a degree of Enmity
againft him, or Diiraffe(5iion to him. Either, O Man, thou
loveft the Lord thy God with all thine Heart, or thou doft
iiot ; if thou dojl^ thou art inclinable to be obedient to him
In all Things, and to avoid whatever is forbidden to thee by
hini^ /. e. thou art holy, or righteous : If thou dojl not^ thou
art indifpofed to ferve him in fuch a manner, or with fuch a
Frame of Spirit, as he requires j thou art a Rebel againft his
Authority, and ::n Enemy to him. Since therefore it would be
gre.uly abfurd to confider Man as originally made by God irt
a State of Enmity againft him, or without an entire readinefs
i^i Soul to be obedient to every Divine Command, and fiibmif-
five to every Divine Rc(i:iaint ; it muft be believed, by every
One who can reafun and think ci)nriftently, that Man in hil
primitive State was a Fiicnd of GoDj a Lover of him, or in
other Words righteous and }}oly. Either he was formed with
or "vithout the Knowledge of God. To fuppofe the latter,
is higlily abfurd, fince his Knowledge of the Creature's^ dif-
ftoverin^ itfelf iu hid being able to ^\s& proper fignificant
Names
ajfdrted and proljed. i r
Names o to them ; his being appointed to faniSify the feventh
Day, in Remembrance of God's reftins; from his creuting
Work, with the entire Mofa'ic Account of the primitive State
of Man, demonftrate his beiiig originally imprelb'd with Tome
Senfe of God and Divine 'ihings upon his Mind. Eut would
a- good and holy God imprint lome Degree of Divine Know-
ledge MX the Mind of Man, and give him a Capacity of great'y
improving his original Stock of Knowledge, and nor inipire
him with a Degree of Divine Love and Sacred Zeal ? Im-
poffible.
■ If therefore any deny the or^-ginal Righteoufnefs of Man inno'
cent^ I might reafon with fuch in the Manner following.
Can you deny, if you carefully read the Scripture, and will
allow that to be it's own Interpreter, either that God at
firft made Man upright, or that Uprigbtnefs is the fame with
R'tghteoufnefs and HoUnefs F Can you prove either that Man
was not created after God, or that this does not mean, accord-
ing to the Apoftle's Explication of it, a being created in Righ^
teoufnefs and true Holinefs ? Was not Man as well as all other
Creatures good in his Kind ; and can a Being made by God
rational with any Propriety be called good^ whofe Thinking,
and other natural Powers, are not dedicated to God, or in a
Readinefs to aft for him ? Is it reafonable to fuppofe that Man
when firfl made was difmclined to contemplate the Works of
God, with fuitable Sentiments and Afl'eftions of Soul j which
if he was in a natural Readinefs and Difpofednefs for, he
was made holy as well as rational? Was Man in his primitive
State capable, or difpofed, with a due Temper of Soul, to ex-
ercife the Authority granted him over the other Creatures, if
not infpired with a Principle of Love and Duty to his Sove-
reign Lord and Ruler ? I defy any of the Pelagian or Socinian
Deniers of original Righteoufnefs and original Sin, to prove
either that Man can hs innocent, and finlefs, if he does not love
" A very Learned Man conjeftures that Jdam gave Names to the
Heavenly Bodies, as well as Terrejlrial Anitr.ah ; but Mofei gives no
Hint of that. As to the najnes given by Adam, whom fome affeft to
reprefentas very fimple and ignorant, to the various Species of Crea-
tures belonging to this Eartti, 'tis reafonab'e to fuopofe they were
ptoper 2t.\iA Jignificant ; fince all the antientefl Names on Record are
cf fuch a Kind, and God would fcarcely have brought them before
Adam, to fee what he would call them, if he had not been well ac-
quainted with their Natures, and capable of giving them luitable
Names. His Dominion over them Iccms to have icqaired for»-.e
good Knowledge of them.
F the
J 2 Man's Original KighUoujmj's
the Lord his God with all his Heart, or that fuch a Love to
God is not Right eoufnefs and tn''e Holincfs ; or that this facred
or divine Love did not glow in'^tr.e'-'HeaFt or Jc'iam at his firft
Creation. But thoupji Man vv'is created holy ha was tnu-
table^ capable of altering for tl/e <voitt as. well as of improving
for the better. He was not without fufficient Abilities to per-
fcvere in well-doing, and fecure Eternal Life to himfelf there-
by ; to perform every Duty, and withftand every Tempta-
tion ; to improve the Stock of divine Knowledge, and other
Gifts imparted to him ; to continue beholding, admiring, adorn-
ing and enjoying God, in, and by, each of his various Works ;
to renew delightful Taftcs and Relifhes of his Maker's Love
whenever he would ; yet being lefc to the FreedoiH of his own
Will, he might, and A\d foon fall : How foon none can fay:
not fo foon, I am confident, as fome are willing to fuppofe,
who argue that Man probably fell on the very Day of his
Creation, from P/^/. xlix. 12. mif-tranflated ihus^ Jclam being
in honsur lodged not there all Night ; from John viii. 44. The
Devil was a Murderer from the Beglrining., i. e. fay fome fronn
the fix hrft Days commonly called by the Jews^ the Beginning,
(accordingly the Syriac Verfion has, frotn in the Beginning.)
Adam^ lays Lightfoot^ was created about nine o'Clock in the
Morning, fell about Noon, and heard the firft Promife about
three in the Afternoon. But this was fcarce poffible. p 'Tis
much more likely, that Man, the lafl of God's, Works was
not created, and uitroduced into the Garden of Eden, till to-
wards the Clofe of the fixth Day ; that the (\x^ Sabbath was
obferved by Man while yet innocent ; and that the Particulars
recorded by jVlofes^ Gen. i. and ii. could not ail of them take
Place within a Day or two of the Creation of Man. But how
loon foever the Fcdl happened, that difproves not Man's origi-
nal moral Rc^litude : It only ihcvvs us, that though made cz-
Y>ih]ii of Jlandmg, he, miaht, if jeit to hiuifdf, \'oon fall; that
though furnifhed with all the Knowledge ncctirary for him, he
did not kiiov/ all things, but was capable of being deceived^ and
by that means of bemg per:uertcJ.
Tiiat Man was produced by God in a State of ohfolute Per-
feiiion, or as perfect as it is poiiibie for any one to be, it wouW
be monflroufiy abfurd to fuppofe : Such a Perfection muft be
peculiar to the fird, greatcfl, beft Being. Tijac our firft Father
was made by God as perfeSl os he could havd been ; or as per-
hi\ as glorified S.:ints are in the Heaven of the Gofpel j or as
P A Learned Man, Mr. A. Bedford, in his Scripture Chronology,
thinks that the Fall of Man eould not well happen till about four
D*iys after hi» C'reauon. Prob;ibiy it \va« not quite fo foon.
perfe(5t
ajferted and proved. ic^
perfect as Adorn would have gradually become after a long
Continuance in his primitive State ; this no thinking Perfons
can venture to aflert. That l)e was peccable^ or capable of
falling into Sin, is undeniable ; but to infer froin thence that he
■wiii< not Righteous, diS Socinus did, is a poor Specimen of the
Clearnefs and Strength of Reafoning, al'cribed by no Icfs a Man
than Dr. T- — ,'/, to that Author and thofe of his Party.
We do not Deiievc with fome, that Adam's bodily Senles were
to a prodigious Degree acuter than thofe of all his Defcendants,
particularly, that his Eye was fo framed as to be capable of dif-
cerning all- the Telefcopiml Stars, and the minutelt Corpufcles
that enter into the Contexture of the greater and fmaller
Bodies in or about this Earth. Neirher do we judge it neccf-
fary to fuppofe the firll IV'Lin, in his ori;;inal State, was the
confummate Philofopher, Mathematician, Phyfician ; or the pro-
found Divine, which fomcjezvijh Writers, and others from them^
have imagin'd him to have been, Vv''e infift on nothing in re-
gard to the primitive State of Man, but what may be deduced,
by the fober Exercife of Reafon, out of the old and new Tefta-
ment. But whatever necejfary or 'voluntary Imperfedlions the
firft Mail was made by God with, this we find, that God
inade Man upright, or holy ; well afFecStcd to his Maker ; fm-
cerely difpofed for an entire conitant Obedience to the Will of
God ; capable of continuing fo, and vaftly improving upon
his original Stock, ^V. However, as he could not be omnifcient,
io he Wis not impeccable. His Ktiowledge, tho' not fo diminu-
tive as the Socinians would pretend, was not fo great, but that
he might be impofed upon, as he really was by fome fophiftical
Reafonirig of other, Confequeritly he was capable of being
drawn away from h.is Allegiance to God, and perfuaded to a6t
contrary to /'/j Commands. After ail the Noife, and darken-
ing Difputes, about the Origin of moral Evil, the Scripture
gives this plalfi eafy Solution of it : The Underjtanding of the
firft Man was capable of being deceived, and his Will by that
Means, of being perverted.
I might now add, and infift upon, the Refledlidns following.
What an excellent and happy Creature was R4an at firlt ! Hdvj
much does it concern every one to look back upon, and en-
deavour for a diftin(ft: tCnowledge of the primitive State of Man ?
Hoiiu greatly do the finful Pofterity of Adam difFer, from what
he was originally made by God! Hoxv undefirable a Thing is
it for Man to be left to the Freedom of his own Will ? How
vain and foolifh is the Self- Confidence of finful Man ? Whai
Reafon has every true Chriltian to praife God, for th.e Pronilfes
of Pardon, renewing Grace, and perfevering Strength belong-
ing to the new Covenant^ and for the Hopes which thofe Pro-
F 2 pi\Uz
14 Mcin^s Original Righteoufnejs
nilfes give him> of be'ing preferved in Jefus ChrtJI, and kept
by his mighty Power thro' Faith unto Salvation ! ff^bo that
confiJers, how foon Mjn, v/iih all the Perfedion and Powers
of his Primitive Slate, fell from GoJ, can hope to get fafe
to Heaven, if not intercfted in fuch new Covenant Promifes as
I juft now hinted at ? Admirable indeed is the free, rich Grace,
that preferves weak, tempted, ami imperfedlly renewed or fanc-
tified Chriftians, (dh unto God's heavenly Kingdom, and
makes them more than Conquerors over all their Enemies.——
But not to infift on thefe things, plainly fuggeftcd by the fore-
going Difcoutfe, I content myfelf with two Remarks.
I. What abfurd and unfcriptural Accounts do fome give of
the primitive State of Man ? " Adain^ fays Socinus, and thofe of
" his Party, was like a Child, he knew not that he was naked ;
" he had no Notion of the Virtue of the Tree of Knowledge ; he
*' knew not himfclf to be mortal, ^r." Thus they reprefent the
firft Man as a mere Babe in Underftandins ! " Let us conclude,,.
*' (a.ys SocimtSf that Adatn^ before he tranfgrefled the Command of
** God, was not juft or righteous. " " That Man was adorned
"■ \Mtii Holinefs from his Creation, (ays S/nalcius^h an old flink-
" ing Fable." They fpcidc of l;im, ss before his Fall, mortal,
and prone to Sin. " In Man, as coniifling of Fiefh and Spirit,
" (fay Bellarmin., and oxhtr Papijls) thcie were at firft-, different
" and contrary Propenfitics, which Tendered his doing well diffi-
" cult to him. God therefore to provide a Remedy againft that
'* Bi'tleniper, and Weaknefs of humaii Nature, gave to A'la.n Ori-
*' ginal Righteoufnefs for a Curb and Check to his fcnfitive Appe-
" tite. " " In Man there was not only aPoffibility of finning but
_*■'■ an Inclination to Sin, fuch as we find in ourfelves fince the
" Fall. " Thus do the Roman Do Sf or s., at once, acknowledge in
Words, and take away the original Righteoufnefs of Man. But
whereas they often mention the Original Righteoufnefs of our
firft Parents, without true and juft Conceptions of it, this is not
the only Inftance that might be given of their fpeaking with
Augvfiin., and thinking with the Pelagians and Socinians, as a
learutrd Man provts ''againft them. If God made Man upright
or righteous ; if Man was created not only with the natural
Image of God, in being intelligent^ and free ; but with his mo-
ral Image too ; he was far from being fo fooliil), and weak, and
prone to Sin, as Pelagians, Socinians, and Papi/Is agree to re-
p.^efent him. For a further Proof of the PofTibility and Reality
of IsLin' s Original moral Rectitude, I might obferve, tiiat Man
was made a little lower than the Angels, and tbefe were at firft
made
"■ Mr, JVillkm Jamefon in his Rama RacoViana, el Racofia Ro-
man/x.
ajjertsd and proved. 1 5
iTva<3e by God righteous, as our Lord hint!^, John viii. 44.. "He
was a Murderer from the Beginning, and abode not in the
Truth ; becaufe there is no Truth in him. " By Truth is there
meant, Veracity, Fidelity, Iiitegiity, fo called, as being a
Conformity to Truth, or a Principle difpofing a Perfon to fpeak
and adl agreeably to Truth, 1 John ii. 4. 3 John 4. That of
ChriJ?, he abode not in the Truth, aiifwers to t.'iat in Jude, They
kept not their fir Ji EJlate. That the Devil abode not in the Truth,
is evident, fays Chriji, becaufe now, !^\\<^ Irom the Beginning
aforementioned, there is no Truth, no Veracity, or Faithfulnefs,
or Sincerity, to be found in him. Since, therefore, Man was
made at firft upright, in the Image of God, and but a little
lower than tiie Angels, whom God formed Spirits, and righ-
teous ; we may from hence, together with the aforementioned
Arguments, conclude, whatever Pelagians, Socinians, and
others fay to the contrary, that Man was originally made with
fuch moral Difpofitions, as that, he no fooner began to exercife
Thought and Refieclion, than he entertained, with regard to his
great and good Creator, Thoughts of LoVe, Admiration, Gra-
titude, and Readinefs for all Obedience : But he abode not in
that original State of Uprightnefs, of which there is this affcit-
ing Proof, that fmce the Pall, there is no Truth, or Uprightnefs
or Difpofition to a6f conformably to Divine Truih, when re-
vealed to him, but what is breathed into his Soul by the renew-
ing, fancSlifying Spirit.
2- From'the Dod^rine of Man's Original Righteoiifnefs, we
may now fairly conclude the entire Dodrine of Original Sin.
Thefe two ftand or fall together. Dp but clearly prove the
former, and you lay a good Foundation for a Proof of the lat-
ter. For this Reafon it is, that fome fo earneftly protcll: againft
Original Right eoufnejs, becaufe they dread the Conlequences of
owning it, and know, that cither rhey muft deny this, or in-
cur the Danger of being driven upon the Do6trine oi Original
Sin ; the very Thoughts of which, are terrible to them, riicy
will clofe in with the abfurdeft Tenets, ai:d withitand the plain-
eft Truths, lather than l-elieve this. They won't bclu^ld Man
in the Beauty and Glory of his Original Uprightnrfs, becaufe
they dread looking upon thcnifcives as by Nature fallen Ciea-
tures, and Children of I'Frath. If Man was not at fnft made
righteous and holy, it follows, that he di<l not, could not, when
he (mvxil, fall from fuch an h(<Iy Slate ; and ihat the firflTranf-
greiTion expofed him to notliing moic than tenip(;ral Sorrow,
and bodily j)e;uh ; in C<;nf<:'qiit p.cc or which h.s Piiitcrity nuiy
he born liable to the fjmc, without being be n\ S'nners, or <ic-
fiving Guilt and 2 corrupt Nature froui tht;r firit Fjiher. Vtux,
i' ? on
J 5 Man^ L Original Right eoufnefs
on the other hand, if the human Nature was, in the firft Man,
created holy, or upright, from thence it follows, (i.) That
Man loft his original Righteoufnefs, when he fell, and there-
with his primitive Title to. God's Favour, and the Communion
with God, v/hich, as made upright, he was inclinable to, and
qualified for. (2.) If Man by his Fall, fuftained fuch Loffes as
thefe, he incurred thereby a fpiritual Death, as well as a cor-
poral one. It rendered him prone to Sin : He contracted a
moral Inability to fcrve God in a due manner, though theOb-
li'^ations thereto are immutable. Upon his Fall, (which on a
Suppuution of his being creaieJ, after God, in Righteoufnefs
and true Holinefs, way a great deal more heinous and guilty
than it could be, in cafe of his not being /o made by God,) he
became dead in Sin., and a Child of Wrath, as well as liable to
a bodily Death ; .which being granted, or proved, as plainly
confequent on the Do6lrinc of the Original Righteoufnefs of
Man before the Fall, it becomes eafy to argue and confirm the
Dodrine of Man's native Corruption and Guilt, ftnce the Fall.
With fuch a Nature, not as God gave to Adam at firft; but,
.as he contra<Sted by his Fall from God, are all his Pofterity as
fuch, in every Age born. ■■ — The Do6trine of Man's Origi-
nal Righteoufnefs, then, being plainly proved in this little Dif-
courfe, nothing more is necelFary to guard us againft the Infec-
tion of every Scheme propofed in Oppofition to the Dodlrine of
Original Sin ; however, I fliall advance one Step farther, and
from the Original Righteoufnefs of Man proceed to God's Ori-
ginal Covenant with our firft Father, for himfelf, and all his
Pofterity: This, with the other, being the impregnable Bails
of the true Scripture-Do^lrine of Original Sin,
FINIS,
( X7 >
S E R M O N II-
G E N. ii, i6, 17.
A7td the Lord God co7nmanded the Man^
f dyings of every T'ree of the Garden thou
mayefi freely eat : But of the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil^ thou fhalt
not eat of it \ for in the Day that thou
eatefl thereof^ thou fhalt furdy die.
I Shall next fliew, from ihc Text before us, explained by and
joined with foine other Scriptures, that, when God made
Man at firfc, he not only ciiofe to govern him, by a Law
fuited to his Nature as made rational and holy^ but h : entered
into a Covenant with iiim, promifin'^, or giving him to expect
eternal Life, on condition of his fubmitting to a particular Re-
ftraint for a Time, together with continuing to yield fuch an
Obedience to the Law of Nature, as he wa^ formed both ca-
pable t)f, and inclinable to ; and threatening Death, a miferable
Peath, in cafe of his prtfuming to tranfgrcfs; which Covenant
of Life and Death was made with the firft Man, both for
himfelf, and all his natural Defcendants. Adam was not only
the natural^ but the federal Head^ of Mankind. It was the
Will of. God, that he fnould fland or fall for himfelf, and all
who were, in a natural V/ay, to defcrnd from him.
In the Text obfcrve, (i.) The Names ?ivcn to. Man'n
Creator. (2.) Man's original Siii.j;(5lion to his Creator's le-,
giflntive Authority. (3.) A pofitive Divine F:;liit'.;tion ;;ivin l^)
Man.
Fa-
1 8 ADAM treated with
FirJ}, The Names given to Man's Creator in the Text are,
7he Lord God^ in the Hebretv, Jehovah Elohi?n ; the former
of which is trinflateJ Lord, and the other God, throughout the
Old Teflament. Jehovah is not a Term of Authority, as the
Engl'iJJ) Word Lord properly is. It comes from a Vet'b that fig-
nifies to be; fo that it ri2,nifies properly, the being, or Being it'
felf. Jah, Pfal. Ixviii. 4. is a Contradijon of it. I am that I
am, the firji and the lajl 5 each of thefe is a Periphrajis of it.
The Conjundlion of thefe two Names, one fingular, and the
other plural, -fo frequently, and that with fingular Verbs, of
which there is an Inllance in the Text ; this many take to be
expreflive of the Trinity^ or a Proof of fomcwhat like perfonal
DiflindtioiiS in the one living and true God.
Secondly^ Exprefs Mention is made in the Text of Man's ori-
ginal Subje^Lion to his Creator's legiflative Authority. The
Lord God commanded the Ma?!. All the Creatures, as fuch, are
neceflariiy fubje6t tp the Will of God ; and God's mtelligent
Creatures fhould be fo tvillingiy, and of Choice. A Creature
independant on either the Power or the TVill of God; a Being
made by him, but not governed by him, in a Manner agree-
able to it's Nature, is a Contradidlion in Terms. Man, as
made by God Rational, (capable of difcerning his Relations and
Obligations to him) in that refpeSf, was governable by a Law.
Accordinglv he was naturally fubjecSlto the Legiflative Will' and
Authority of his Maker, wlio would not, could not, make Man
upright towards himfelf, or hoiy, without giving him a Law
agreeable to his holy upright Nature ; the Subftance of which
was. Thou /halt love the Lord thy God with all thine Heart, Sec.
This Divines call, the Laiu of Nature, which Appellation of it
is juft and proper, as it was the very Law that God wrote on.
the Heart of Man at firft. Indeed God's making Man upright,
evidently implies, and is the fame with, his putting into him a
Principle of Obedience to this natural Law; or a Readinefs to
perform what fuch a Law as that demanded from him. If Go^
would make fuch a Creature as Man, he could not but requjrc
him to love the Lord his God with his whole Heart, and to con-
tinue obedient to him in all things. But this Law of Nature
was not the only Laiu that Man in his primitive State was fub-
je6t to ; for.
Thirdly, We have in the T<.:xt a pofitive divine Inftitution
to this purpofc, Cf every Tree of the Garden thou mayji freely
eat, hut of the Ti ee of Knozvlcdge — thou /halt not eat, for &c.
Bcfides the Law of . Nature, lummanly comprehended in Love
to God as God, and Love toothers lor his fike, Man was ori-
ginally bound by fuch a pojiiive Law aj is expreffcd in the Text.
Oofcrve in if,
I. Gcd's
as a puhlick Perfon. 19
1. God's gracious Indulgence to his Creature Man.
2. The Reibaint he was pleafed to put him under.
■?. The Threatening of Death exprefled ; and,
4. The Promife of Life evidently implied.
Firfi, God's gracious Indulgence to his Creature Man. Of
every Tree of the Garden thou nmyeji freely eat. The Garden of
Eden was a moft delightful Spot, and better furniftied than any-
other Part of \.\\t primitive Earth. The firft Man was not cre-
ated in it, but fooi); or immediately on his Creation, brought
into it. In this Garden he had Liberty enough ; there being a
large Variety of wh lefome delicious Fruits, which he was al-
lowed freely to part::ke of. Befidcs other Trees, Iwo were
iTfioft remarkable, the Tiee of Life, and that mentioned in the
Text. The former might be fo called, partly becaufe the
Fruits of It had a hngular Virtue in them, by the Bleffing of
God, to preferve the Life, Hec;ith and Vigour of innocent Man;
and chiefly, becaufe it was a Symbol, a Seal, of the eternal Life
promifed to Man, and that he would have certainly partook of,
had he preferved his Original Innocence. As to the Name of
the other Tree, that will be accounted for prcfently. -_--- Man,
in the Garden of Eden., had, I fay. Liberty enougii : God re-
fufed nothing to him that was needful for him. If God's Indul-
gence to him had been much more limited than it was, there
had been no room for reafonable Complaint. This, of every
Tree of the Garden thou juayeji., or {halt, freely eat^ might be
both a Fermiffion and an Appoinnnent , If the latter., it niuft be
rendered, " thou {halt freely eat, " if the former only, our
Tranflation is jufl. " thou mayeft freely eat, " in the He-
hrevj it is, eating thou Jhalt eat^ or eating thou maycfl- eat ;
Verbs of the future T.'enfe being often of a potential Signifi-
cation.
2. The Rellraint that Man was put under, was only this.
But of the Tree of Knoivlcdge of Good and Evil^ thou Jhalt not
eat of it. Why was this Tree fo called, and why did God for-
bid Man to take of the Fruit of it ? 'Twas called by tiie Name
mentioned J becaufe by means of eating the Fruit of this Tree,
Man came to know, by forrowful Experience, what both Good
and hvil were ; or lO fignify to Man that if he fhould prefumc
to eat of this forbidden Fruit, he would then know to his cofr.
Good and Evil ; the Good he had loft, and the Evil he was now
liable to, God forbad Man to cat of this Tree, not be-
caufe the Fruit of it tended in itfelf to impair the Health., and
fhorten the Life of Man; not a': though an abftaining from the
Fruit of this Tree was, in the Nature of Things, moie ncccf-
Ury than an Abftinence from many others, but in token oi his
own fovereign Authority, and for the Excrcife of A'lan's L'>vt.,
and
Q.O A D A' M treated with
and the Trial of his Obedience. If this Prohibition isjoined
and compared with the foregoing Grmtt, it cannot be thought
pnrearonable.
3. Here is a Threatening of Death in csfe of Man's finning.
In the Day thou eateji thereof thou /halt furely die : In dying
thou jj) alt d'le^ which way of fpcaking is ufed by the Hebrews^ a$
learned Grammarians and Criticics obferve, to fignify the Cer-
tainty oi a Thing, or the PerfeSiion and Fulnefs of it; or th^
Speedinefs of it ; or the Continuance of it. Of the firji Signifi-
cation there are fome Inftances in the former Part of the Text,
and Exod. xix. 12. Of X.\\q fecond^ in Exod. xxi. 19. Of the
third.) 'Lech. viii. 21. And oithcfourthy Gen. viii. 7. 7'here-
(i.) In dying thou fialt die^ might be the fime with thou fljalt
tertainlyy or unavoidably, die. It thou tranfgrefiefi: my Com-
mand, tlaou (halt by no means efcape Death. For if Go d will
tieftroy, who can preferve ? If God is refolved to kill, who can
lave ali\'e ?
(2.) The meaning of this Phrafe, in dying thoufoalt die^ may
be this. Thou J})alt juffer every kind of Death .^ a fpiritual Death,
as v/ell as a corporal one. Thy Body (hall be mortal^ and thy
Soul mifcrable. Some, confidently with their Denial of the O-
riginal Righteoufntrs of Aian, confine the Tii|-eaten!ng of the
Text to the Dcatli of the Body. But if God mde Man Upright^
or Holy J if Man was at firft infpired with a Principle of living
to God, or with fuch a Principle of holy Obedience, as the
Scripture terms the Lif of God ; if both Holinejs., and the Blef
fednefs conneikd with it, arc called L'fe often j and if the mi-'
i'crable State of the Soul, as well as a Separation of Soul and
Body, is expreffed by the Word Death ; iffo, it plainly follows,
that the Original Threatning muft include nothing lefs than a
Lofs of Man's Original Reditude, iiis Title to God's Favour,
rmd a Life of happy Communion with God Cvvhich, as made
by God Righteous^ he was fufficiently prepared for, and inclined
to,) no lefs than a Lofs of, the Animal Life which he partook
of in cominon with the Bcafts. Without doubt the Threatning
ir.ufi- be interpreted according to the primitive State of Man,
and what the difma! Confequcnces of the /t?// really were.
(o). In dying thou JImU die, might be underftood thus, Thou
fnalt^ in cafe of eating the forbidden Fi'uit, injianily, and im-
mediately, die. Death of every Kind fhall be not only una-
voidable, but the immediate Cunfequcnt of thy Difobediencc to
jny Law. I won't fpare thee fo much as a Day or an Hour.
If it be faid, How was fuch a Threatning as tl^is executed, unce
Man when he eat of the forbidden Fruit v^as not imtncdiatcly
arr^.fi■ed by Death, butiivcd nine hundred and thirty Years ahcr
it.
as a ■public Perjun. 2 1
it, and not only was fufFeied to live, but as Djvlnes generally
believ'f; ^vas foi iivcn and laved ? To fulve tbis^ Seme 0; the
Hebrews prcrend that by a Day in this Threatniiv;, may be
mean'v not a riotural, or ordinary Day, h\xX a Day of the Lqrdy
or a thowrand Years, and Adarn^ fay they, was obliged to yield
to the Arreft or Death, before he was a thoufanJ Years old-
Others would Uiiderlbnd the Fhreatning thus^ that Man Ihould
certainly die, in caCe of his continuing impenitent. But not to
infill: qn thde and foine other manifeitly taife Glofles, the true
Anfwpr is this, (i.) If Man was (pared and reprived from Death
many Years, the Threating did neverthelefs ii7tmediately take
place : It began to be executed as foon as Man began to fm ; for
immediately on his eating the forbidden Fruit, his Original Righ-
teoufnefs, Title to God's Favour, and Fimcfs for Communion
with God being loft, he was fpiritually dead, dead in Sin, an4
the Life of his Body was become forfeited to the Law and Juf-
tice of God. (2.) If Man was not only ipared from the
Stroke of Death, but forgiven and faved, as 1 firmly believe, his
Salvation was owing to a better Covenant than what Man tranf-
grefled, and than innoant Man had any Notion of.
(4) Dying thou /hall die, i. e. thou fhalt die for ever. Man,
before he fell, had no Profpedl given him of a Kecovery to Life
and forfeited Happinefs, in cafe of his prefuming to do what
God forbad. So that Death temporal, and Death eternal were
the Contents of the Original Threatning. From hence, by ths
Way, let us infer hoiv great an Evil Sin is; how much it deferve?
the Abhorrence of every rational Creature, and with what Ear-
neftnefs of Deiire we Ihould feek after Deliverance from fo curf-
ed a Thing, fo malignant a Diftemper, fo threatning a Plague.
So abominable is Sin, in the Nature of it, that an infinitely gra-
cious and good Being has threatned to punifii his own CreaturcSg
The Works of his hands, with bodily Death, and endlefs Ali-
fery, for Sin.
4. As there is a Threatning of Death, or Mifery, exprcfs'dj
ib there is a Promife of Life, or Happinefs, implied. From the
Text's mentioning no Promife, together with the Threatning^
it follows not that innocent Man had no Hope, no Profpe6t giv-
en him of eternal Life, or everlafling Bleflednefs, provided he
(hould continue obedient. For
I. Would fo good and gracious a Being as Gij^i threaten Deaths
in Cafe of Difobedience, and not promife Life, every kind of
Life, in cafe of Aran's continuing to obey .? To fuppofe, as
fome have done, tliat Man while innocent, was liable to Death,
and that he had no Promife, or Profpetl: given him, of eternal
Life, to eiicourage his continuing obedient, 'till it fliould pleafe
his
.y^
• 2 ADAM treated with
his Maker to endow him with the Grace and Privilege of Con-
fnnation. Does not this impeach the Goodnefs of God ? But God
Jorbid that we fhould fo derogate from the Goodnefs of the Al-
mighty, as to aflert, either that he made an innocent Creature
Jiable to Death, or that after Man's continuing innocent for a
Time, God would have inclined to put an end to his Being,
Life,- and happy State. If God might, pojjibly^ have thus dealt
with Man, his threatning Death, only in Cafe of Man's tranf-
greffing^ intimated however, a Refolution on God's Part to deal
?nuch more kindly with this new made Creature.
2. Could there be fuch a Threatning of Death, as has been
explained, without fuch a Proniife of Life as is pleaded for f
1'here qould not, fince the Meaning of the Text muft be. Thou
ihalt forfeit thv prefent Life, with all the Happinefsthat attends,
and might rtfult from, thine Original Redtitude and Intereft in
my Favour, if thou abftaineft noc from what I forbid. What
is Deaths but a Privation of Life ? The Threatning therefore,
gave Man to expe6t an immediate forfeiture of his original Life,
and happy State, as what would have continued with Improve-
ments, if Man fiiould continue obedient.
3. Does not the Law prcmife, fmce the Fall, eternal Life to
Obedience, as well as threaten Death to Man's Difobedience,
fince the Tenor of it is. Do and Live ; or if thou wilt enter in-
to Life., keep the Commandments ; or the Man that doth them fhall
live by them ; as well as " Curfed is every one who continueih
•' not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law, to
*' do them." 'Tis plain then, that God would nor, could
not, confiftently with his moral Perfe6tions, threaten Death to
yizn falling., without promifing Life to Many?^W/«^. Now
a Law given by God, with aPromife of Life, and a Threatning
of Death confented to by Man, evidently and fully amounts to
a Covenant of Life, or Covenant of Works, made with Man
in his primitive State. For what is a Covenant ? Is there not
luch a Thing when two or more Parties tranfa£l with each o-
thcr, and enter into an Agreement on certain Terms ? In this
Senfe God covenanted with Man, and Man covenanted with God,
i. e. God not only gave to his Creature Man a Law, requiring
Obedience and forbidding every A61 of Difobedience, but he
fignified to him that his continuing to enjoy the liappy State he
v/as placed in, (his Title to God's Favour, iiis Communion
with God, and all the Pleafures that might and would perpetual-
ly flow from thence,) depended on his good Behaviour, and his.
prefcrving his primitive Innocence, or moial Re6litude. This
Man, as made by God, upright., confented to. Thus it ap-
juari that God and J/u.v, did implicitly and really covenant
with
as a p'nhlick Perf^H. 23
with each other. But for preventing Millakes, and guarding
againlt- the moft material Objeilion?, I add,
1. When we fpcak of God's entering into a Covenant of Life
with innocent Man, tlje meaning is not, that when Cjod had
made Man, he afllimcd a human, or fome external vifible Form,
and thefi^ in the manner of one Perfon formally treating with a-
nother, fpake to this Purpofe ; I have made you Adam^ holy
and hcippy : TheHappinefs you enjoy, or art in a Fitnefs for the
]i^njoyment of, fhall continue, and {hall increafe rather than be
any ways diminifhed, if duriiig a certain Period determined by
my Pleafure^ thou continued to fubmit to the Reftraint I put
thee under ; but if thou dareft to difobey my declared Will, thou
fhalt become a wretclied miferable Creature. Without conde-
fcending to fo formal and folemn a Procedure as that, God
might, and doubtlefs did, fignify to Adam^ Confcience upon
what Terms he muft expeil to be dealt with, as to Ltfe or
Deaths Happinefs or Mifery.
2. We don't aficrt, that Man had an Hope, or Promife given
him, of being, after fome Time, tranflated from Earth to flea-
"ven, fif he had, 'tis however, more than we know, we neither
deny nor afTert it ;) but what we plead for is, tiiat God gave
Man to expe6l a St?>te of never ceafmg BleiTednefs, at ieaft a
perpetual Enjoyment of fuch an Hnppinefs as he had in Pofl'efTion,
which in Cafe of Man's perfifting in his Duty would have been
a growing and increafmg Happinefs, rather than a dimhujhing
one. The Heaven of the Blefled is a ^tate rather than a Place.
Wherever the Creature enjoys God without Sin, or any Degree
of Mifery and Suffering, there is Heaven. Of fuch a BleiTed-
nefs there may be, and doubtlefs are, various Degrees. If A-
dam had flood ; with his Original Reilitude, Communion with
God, and the Happinefs perpetually refuking from thence, he
might have been as happy in the ierrejlrial Paradife as any where
elfe. Adam v.-ithout Doubt was lenfible of this, that nothing
but Sin could forfeit for him, the Happincis which, as made by
Ciod upright, he was prepared and fitted for the perpetual En-
joyment of, either in the Garden of Eden^ or in fome other Re-
gions of the Univerfc.
3. Whether this Original Tranfaciion between God and in-
riocent Man, is exprei'sly called a Covetjant or no, it mi^ht ne-
verthelcis bear that Name. Some think that it is {o called, Hof.
>i. 7. Like Adam., fo it is in the Original, iheyhave tranfgrejfed
the Covenant. We me;rt with tb.c fame Expreilion. 'Job xxxi.
33. If Icover'd my tranrgrclTions, as Adam.
4. What though there is an iniinite Dilpruportion between
God and innofei.t A'lau^ and tbui m::;ht feeni to render a Co-
v«iuut between ihem in\:^..>mbic : Theic can be, fay fome, no
proper
i^ ADAM treated iviib
proper Covenant between Gcij^ and his Creatures ; Why? bfe-
caufe there is fo valt a Diftance between them i and becaufe Man,
as Goil's Creature, was naturally and unavoidably obliged to doj
or omit, whatever his Maker fhould require. But though fome
Covenanting Parties are equal, or nearly fo, why may there not
be a real proper Agreement between Parties greatly unequal, one
bf whom is under all polTible prior Obligations to the other ? If
one greatly fiiperior will freely condefcend to treat Vvith another
inuch inferior, and incapable of being profitable to him, thii
does not annul the mutual Agreement, or hinder it's being of
the nature of a Co'-jenant ; it only manifefts the great Conde-
fcenfion of the Covenanter^ and is a fignal Honour done to thfe
Covenantee. Has not God engaged himfelf by free gracious pro-
mifes, to Abraham., Ifrael of oJd, his People in the Gofpel, and
taken them into Coveiiant With himfelf ^ If fo, what fhbuld
hinder his y^ dealing with the firjl Man in his primitive State,
who, as perfectly upright towards God, was rather more able to
perform what God required, and on feme Accounts fitter to co-
venant with God, than anv of Mankind zxc fince ?
I conclude then with Aflurance, that God having made Mari
iipright, entered into a Covenant of Life with him for himfelf;
and in the next Place undertake to prove, that the firft Man was
not only the natural Headj but the federal, or legal Reprefenta^
five of all who v/cre, in an ordinary way, to defcend from him;
The Covenant w^?; made with Adam^y not only for himfelf^ but
them alfo. The HoVuiefs and Happinefs of his primitive State he
was to preferve, or lofe, for himfelf and all his natural Defcen-»
dants. This I argue,
1. From. the Tenor of the ori^riaal Threatning, ds compared
with the prefent natural State of Mankind. That every one of
Adani% Pofterity is hern liable to Death, all will grant : That
the Death which every one of them is, from his Birthj nay
before his Birth, obnoxious to, was not threatned at firft but ill
cafe of Pvlan's finning, is no lefs undeniable : That Man was
not mortal, or liable to die, till he fell, and his being fo then
was a Refult froni the Thre.itning in the Text, this too is, I
think, evident enough ; as alfo that the Scripture confl-antly
points at S//7, as the fole proper Caufe of Death, and all Suf-
ferings : For, fays the Apolllc, " The Wages of Sia is Death,"
where he fpeaks not merely of the firft Sin, and the Death
threatned for that, but Sin in the general. Every kind of Sin
is confidered as the Caufe of Death, and as juftly expofing to
it, by virtue of the Threatning of the Sovereign Lawgiver ; fo
that whoever fin, they deferve to fuffer Death, and whoever
are liable to fufFer Death, it is for Sin, as juftly deferving it.
When by one Man Sin enteied into the Worlds it brought a-
long
as a pi, h lick Pa foil. i:\
\m\'i with it Death ^ Sin hath reigned over all Mankind, fd
fai iis to expofc them to Death f. If the BoJy is dead, it is be-
caufc of Sin ". Now if Mankind are born liable to that which
was originally threatened, only in cafe of Sin, this makes out:
the Concern of every one of Adarns Defcendants in tht original
Tbreatning^ confequciuly in the original Protiiife. Whoever
was concerned \n either of thefe, he was, v>?ithout all Queftion,
concerned in the other. Now that each of us was concerned
in 'the Threatningy is evident from hence, that antecedently to
a)l Acls of Sinnin;?; we are liable to Death. What can this be
owing to, but cither the arbitrary Will of God, or the original
"i'hreatning ? To fuppofe the former is to impeach the Goodnefs
and Equity of Providence, which does not aftliil any of Man-
k^ind willingly ^v, or grieve them undefervediy, but punifhes Sin
\yith Deati), accord nig to the Threatnings of his Word, of
which that g.iven to the hril: Man was a fummary Compend.
2. I will next argue from i Corinth, xv. 22. In Adam all
die. Hero tlie Apoflle fpeaks not of hoih our firft Parents, but
of Adam futgly.^ as elfevvhere ". He dcnss liot fay, in Adam and
Eve., but in Adam., whom he therefore points at as, in a fpe-
cial peculiar way, related to Mankind. The all mentioned^
are all the natural Dcfcendants of x.\\t firjl Man as fuch. Their
dying //z him., or by him., or through him., ov for him., (the Greek
Particle admits of any of thefe renderings^ it is a being liable to'
Death on the account of tlicir Relation to him^ and Defcent-
from him. It is not merely a bodily Death., but a wretched ml-
fcrable Death, a Death of the Body attended with a fucceeding
endlefs Deflrudtion of die whole Man, that the Apoltle fpciiks
of as ariiing jioin the Sin of Adam ; becaufe it ftands oppofetl
not to a bare Revival of the Body, but ar. happy and glorious
Refurredtion, fuch as all belonging to Chrid, or all the trtie
Members of his Body, are to partake of at his fecond coming j
as any one who y/\\\ but open his Eyes may perceive in the lat-
ter Words of the Verfe, explained by the Verfe following.
7'he Apojile fp;aks not one Word, throughout this Chapter, of
the Refurreclio'! of the Ungodly ; but only of Chrift^s, ami
that of his Saints, as confequent upoij his. In Adam all die, /.
i. all the Djfcendints of the firft Mm are from their Birth, or
on the account of their Concern with him, obncixious to Death
and Mifery, whicli as his Defcendants tliey could not be, did they
not fni in him, and f.'.ll luith him. Now if they therefore r//V /;;
•
'■ Rom, v, 12, ' Rom. V. 3r. •■ Rom. viti. 10. v I,a.
ment. iii, 3-}. " Rom v. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, i2, 19. of wlijch
Paffuge fee nn Explication in O^^pofition to Pelagian QI>J'^', in my
Sermon on y<j^-xiv. i, 2. p. 18, &c,
bifn
•26 ADAM treated wdh
h'tm^ becaufe ihcv Jinned in him^ (Death being Hie Wages ofSin^
and Sin ti)e Ible proper Caufe. of Death, whoever fufFer it j if
fo, it follows that they muft have been,' in him, righteous and
holx', antecedently to his (inning ; and from the Time of his
Creation, and confeiuing to the 'Ftrms of th^'" old Covenant,
he mult have been the federal Head of ill to defcend naturally
from him. '■
3. With the foregoing Text I might join v. 45, and 47. of
the fame Chapter. T^z jirji Man Jdam^ and I'le laji Adaniy
(the fecond Man) are there oppofed. Adam and Chrill are
pointed at as two publick Peribns or Heads. Why is Chrijt,
notwithftanding the Millions of Mankind intervening between
jfdam and hlm^ and following after his Birth, called as here the
]afl Jdam^ and ihe fecoml Man ? An Anfwei to this may be ta-
ken not only from the Text already confidered, but from Rom.
y. 12, 14, &'<:. where Adam fingly is faid to be a Figure of
Chriji ; and the Refemblanc* between them is made to confilt
in this, that as Guilt and Death defcend fiom tlie one to 2\\ his,
lo Righteoufnefs and Life derive from the other to all his. If
therefore Adam\ Fall did not involve Mankind in Guilt, neither
does the Obedience or Righteoufnefs of Chrift procure a Ti-
tle to eternal Life for all true Believers. If .^,^'^w did not un-
dertake for his Deleendants as well as himfelf, neither did Chriji
undertake to procure Salvation for all who fnicerely believe on
him ; as in the Pafiage before us, and in many other Places, we
are plainly told he did. As was the wretched Influence of bur
firft Fathers hrft Tranfgreffion, fuch is the hleffed Influence of
the Obedience of the fecond Adaai, Rom. v. 17, 18, 19. Con-
fequently what Chriji is in regard to all whom he juftifies and
faves, that is Adam in regard to all his natural Defcendants, a
publick Perforty a federal Head^ a legal Reprefeijtative.
Mofes indeed does not exprefsly tell us this in his Hiftory : As
he does not plainly tell us, it was the Devil who feduced Eve^
and, God gave to Man a Promife of Life to encourage his Obe-
dience, as well as a Threatning of Death to deter him from
tranfgrefllng, and, Zm paid Tythes to Melchifedec in Abraham
^wiiich Thiiigs are notwithftanding deducii)le from other Parts
of Scripture) \ fo he has not exprefsly tolJ us, that Mankind finned
in Adam., and were originally righteous in him, and treated with
by God in him ; but he has delivered that in his brief concife
Account of the primitive State of IVIan, from which, by the
Help of other Scriptures, 'tis no difficult matter to infer it. ---But
Ibme will fay again. ' " ' "'
If this is fo tnomentGUs a Truth, as it mufl: be if a Truth, 'tis
flrange it fliould not be more plainly and frequently ffated in
ilie Scripture. R. (i.) If it is^tall mentioned in the Word of
Truth,
tis a public V trfcn 27
Truth, that is fufficient to oblige our Adent to it : {z.) 'Tis a
Milt ke to fuppofe, that it is not plainly and frcquetiily toi-i i.s:
Forwtf often meet with that in the Scripcure from wheiiteif iii jy
be rationally deduced. As often as it fpcaks of oiy beuig f>orn
mo't.il, i)f our being; Sinners from our Birth, of our being iJ^lleii
Crcjtttre"?, of rfjq Ncceffityof the holy Image of God bein_' rc-
inftanpipcd oi» cur Souls, l^c. fo often does it implicitly f.-i^j^eft
to us what Wsi are now pleading for. But the moft maierial
Obje6tion is yet Lebiiid.
Why fhould God appoint the firfl Man to be a publick Perfon,
to (tand or fall for fo m^ny others befides himfelf, fince he tore-
knew that in fuch a Cafe, he would by falling ruin both himfelf
and them ?- - To this I anfwer,
i^r/?, making uJe of the Words of the Apoftle on the like
Occahon, W^ho art thou, O Alan, who replieji againjl God ?
Does not the infinitely wife God better know how to a6l than
any Man can diredl him ? Shall the Potftierds of the Earth pre-
fume to contend with Sovereign Authority, and fay, What do-
ell thou ? Are not the Judgments of the Molt High unfearcha-
ble, and many of his Ways paft finding out ? If the Scripture
teaches us that the firft Man was the Federal as well as Natural
Head of Mankind, or fuggeft that from, which this Dodlrine may
be fairly concluded ; it becomes us to fubmit, and to acknow-
ledge theGoodnefs, Wifdom, and Equity of fuch a Conftituti-
on : Why ? Becaufe it is God's. The Queftion is. Was Jdam
our legal and federal Head, or was he not ? If he was not,
why dofs the Apoille fay. In Adam all die, as in Chrift all are
to be made alive, znd. By one Mans Dijobedtence many were made
Sinners, Sec. From whence are the Cries, Pains, Diftem-
pers, an J Death of poor helplefs Infants ? From wher.ce our
early Pronenefs to finful Ways, though none but good Examples
arc fet before us, and continual pious Inftru(ftions are given us,
which IS the Cafe of fome, but from the Sin of our N^iture, con-
fequent on our Lofs of original Righteoufnefs, by the Fall of
our fiift Father ? We may, and we fliould look upon Infants
with Companion ; but muft always endeavour to acquiel'ce in
what God has wifely and juftly ordered. Even fo Father, for fa
it feemeth good in thy Sight. As to thole who regard not the
Old and New Tcftamcnt as the Rule of their Faith, it is im-
poflible to Qonv\ni. c fuch either of the Goodnefs and Equity or of
the Reality of this Divine C«jnftitution. This is not a Truth
to be immediately propofcd to their Belief, or to be argued wirh
them. As to thofe who profefs to believe the Scripture, bui zr :
not convinced of the Truth and Reality of the Appointn tnt
mentioned, it would be vain, as yet, to argue with them tl at
it it good and Right. Such mu<l" be firfl convinced of the Reali y
G or
,2 8 ADAM treated njolth
of it, from which it will be reafonahle to conclude the Goodnefs
and Equity oi it. But if there are aiiy w1io apprehend that the
Doctrine we plead for fee ms to reft on a Scripture Bottom, but they
can't help fulpecSing that the Texts we found it upon may
poiiibly be miftaken, only becaufe they can't make outthe Good-
nefs and Equity of it, I v^ould endeavour to ofi'er what may
quiet the Minds oi Juch. Have not feveral of us been per-
plexed upon this Head ? Let me a(k you this ^itjlion } Have
you not thought of this Matter with fome Concern, and on a
Suppofition of God's having appointed the firft M;;n to fiand or
fail for all his natural Defcendants, without taking effectual
care to prevent his falling, have you not been almoft ready to
'Accnh God ? It rhuft not be denied, th.u, for. the fake of this
Dodlrine, and fome others, many ignorantly reproach the Scrip-
ture, and rafiily rejcttt either the entire Chrillian Revelation, or
.tiiolt: Dodtrines of particular diiciiminating Grace which are the
Marrow and Subftance of it. Two or three Things are
obvious, and them I begin with.
1. If a Reprcfentative oi Mankind was to.be appointed, none
could be fitter to fullain fuch a Cliaracfer than that fiiil: Man, from
"whom all others were to defcend. If it was proper for God to
.enter into a Covenant of Life with any one for all thereit, with
whovn could he/^ treat more jufllyihan with our original Pa-
rent ? Now can any one demonftrate, that it was improper,
unfitting, unworthy of the Divine Perfections, for any one to
he Jo conftituted and covenanted with ? Do not, or may not.
Parents undertake for themfclvcs and their Heirs? "Why might
.not the hrfi: Man be ordained, and eonfent to be a common
Truftee or Depofitary ? Certainly he might, if any.
2. If God having appointed Jdam to ftand or fall for others
befides himfelf, liad taken care to preferve him from falling ;
and if thereupon he had tranfmitted Righteoufncfs and eternal
Life to all his Defcendants, in that cafe none would have com-
plained of his having been by God's Appointment their cove-
nanting Reprefentative : None would then have faid. Why was
f)??^ ordained to fland or fall for the rf/i ? or. Why were not we
and all others left to Hand or fall each one for himfelf? So that
the Diincuiiy, and the Appearance of Unreafonablenefs, that
fume complain of lies here: Why did not God confirm Man
in his primitive State ? or, Why did he fufFer Mankind to fall
into Sin? But can any prove, that (jod might not, coaliUcntly
with his moral Perfedlions, permit the Entrance of Sin? or that
'tis not better for the Entrance of Sin to hcfuffered th:in pre-
%>e):t£di confidering the LU'e that infinite VVifdom could make o[
luch a Difpenfation ?
3- If
as a public Perfon. 29
3. If God having appointed the fitft Man a publick Perfon,
and having likewife permitted him, as fuch, to fall, had been
pleafed to take efFtdtual Method^ for an univerfal a£>ual Reco-
very, this, all will grant, would have juftified the Condudt of
Provitlence in appointing one, even our firil Father^ to ftand or
fall for all Mankind. But to ordain that one Man to adt for all
his Dc-fccndants, and to permit the Fall of the whole humaa
Race /«/;/»;, without making an effectual Frovifion for as geneial
a Recovery : This i? what many are difpofcd to exclaim agair.fl
as unreafonabie, over fevere, and unworthy of God. As to
wldch I .'hall only offer one thing. If it had pleafed God to ap-
point each of Mankind to fl..nu on his own Bottom, an-i then to
permit all of them to fall into Sin, without undertaking for the
Recovery of fo much as ane \ will any dare to fay that fuch a
Condu<St would have been unjuji ? Yet fuch a Pr.ocedure as that
would have been full out as fcvere, and difficalr to account for,
as what we fuppofc confequent on the Fall of Mankind in their
firft Father : For in conft-quence of that we believe, that God
efifectually provides for xhc certain final Salvation of fomey while
hewith-holds from none of Mankind any thing due to them, and
inftead of that vouchfafcs fuch Advantages as render all who per-
rifti, efpecially among them to whom the Gofpel is prciiched,
greatly inexcufable. But it is my piv fent Concern to vindicate
God's having conliituted the fiift Man a publi>.k Perfon .tnd
treated with him for all his Dcfcendants, which, whatever are
the Conicquences of it, i. Muft not be complained of, becaufe
it was injurious to none concerned, neither to Adam himfeU, nor
any of his Offspring. Why ? becaufe if each had been leit to
ftand or fall for himfelf, hhjlanding would not have been more
fecure than it v/as in Adam., neither would his Fall have been
niore avoidiible than that of every one really was in him. For
Adam was made by God upright j as fuch he was capable of per-
forming his Duty with eafe, and as able to continue obedient as
any other could have been, if left to fland or fall for himfelf.
So that God granted to all a PofTibility of l>eing for ever happy
in tlieir firll Father 5 as good a Poifibility, that is, as any one
could have had, if God had ordered his ftandingon Ids own Bot-
tom. Why then (hould any complain ? It was no Difadvantage
to thee, ccnfcqiientlv not at ail injurious to ihee^ for God to
treat with thy fwfl: Father, for himfelf and all his Dcfcendants;
fince if God had dealt otherwifc^ had created all Mankind at
once, and had treated Vvith each fmiily for himfelf, every one
would have been as liable to fall as Adam was j and if God had
not efifectually prevented it, (which he cotild have been no ways
obiigt'd to^ he would as really and certainly have fallen. If
there is that Man in the World, who can Hand forth and f^iy,
G a Adam's
CO ADAM treated with
Aduni'i being the federal Head of Mankind was a Difadvantage
and Injury to me : it had been better for me if I had been left to
ihmd on my own Legs ; I fhouJd have done better for myfclf
tiian /tuam took care to do ; my ftanding had been more fccure:
I could and would have continued in my primitive State ; and
ihereforc as I did not chufe Adam for my I'ruftee^ none had any
Authority yo to appoint him, or to do wiiat was fo much difad-
vantagiouy end injurious to me. If any one could rightly plead
to this Puipofe, there might be fome room for reafonable Com-
plaint. But no wife Perfon, who rcfle<Els on the original State
«f iour firft Father, can pretend what I have now fuppofed.
*ffiflwvvasas capable of ftanding as any of Mankind could have
been, without that efFe£tual Grace which God was not bound
ti) give, and which the new Covenant, in Confcquence of the
Rniii of Mankind in Adam^ engages for. For Adam was made up-
right i and that origuul Uprightnefs of his included fuflicient
divine Knowledge j a Conformity of Man's Will to God's 5
a fteady inclination to obey God in all things j Abilities to con-
tinue what he was, and to improve the Stock put into his Hands.
TiK Pioniifc and the Threatning given him liad both of them a
TenJency to hold him to his Duty : Befides that, a knowing
liow much the Literefts of his Pofterity were to depend on his
CouJuil, wouiJ naturally make him rather more cautious than
any one of Mankind, if left to ftand or fall purely for himfelf,
would probably have been. 'Tis Folly and Pcrverfenefs^ there-
fore, iiii any to complain of the Divine Condudt in treating
with Mank nd in fuch an one as Adam was i fmce none can
prove tiicy were injured thereby, and nnce it was an Advantage
{ixW tilings conudeied) rather than a Difadvantage to the whole
Race ; confequently it was not an unreafonable Procedure,
or unwoitby of the Divine Perfeftions ; efpecially if herewith
it be conlidered, that if every one had Itood on his own Bottom,
and all had failed, God might in that cafe have refufed Mercy
to all ; whereas now^ in confcqujnce of the Fall of Mankind
in Adam., cfFcdlual care is taken for the Rec' very of feme., in a
WdV tiioft aloiioully manifeflative of all the Divine Perfections,
iiiil il/c ;r// fo dealt with, as to be greatly inexcufable. I add,
2. God inighl appoint A Inni to be apublick Peifon, for the
fake of his being a Type and Figure of him vj\\o was to come.
Thiit Adam was a Figure of Ch'-f/i ., the Apoftle exprefly tells us,
Rom. V . 15. For tliough, one y, by him who was to come^ under-
if juiss Mu< kind^ the whole Tenor of the Apollle's Difcoui fe plain-
ly Jiiccts us to underlbnd it of no other than him whom he elfe-
^ Sir Norlan Kitatchhull.
where
as a public Per/on. 3 1
where calls the Second Adatn.^ and whom he points at as the
Fountain of Righteoufnejs and Life, as the Firft Adam was of
Sin and Death. If Adam was not a federal Head, neither was
Chr'tji : If Adam a6ted only for himelf, fo did Chrlft : If Adam
falling did not ruin Mankind j neither did Chrijiy by punf^uaijy
performing what he undertook, fecure eternal liic to all hi^ Fol-
lowers. But thatChrift was a federal Head, and did undertake
for others, and hy fulfilling all Righteoufnefs procure for chenj
cverlafting Salvation, this is undeniably apparent from Rom. v.
17, 18. and many other Places, which 'tis not my prefent Buji-
nefs to infift on. So that God's appointing Adam to be a
publick Perfon, was a wife as well as an equitable Conftitution.
As \% was injurious to none concerned, fo it was wifely contr.ir
ved torefemnle and prefigure Chriftas undertaking for others.
So that if CZ'r//?, the fecond Adam^ had failed, all whom he
undertook for muft have perifhed. But this could not be. Why-
did the firft Adam fall, and why could not the fecond Aliim
inifcarry too ? The firft Adam failed, becaufe, as a Creature,
he was mutable in himfclf, and was left to the Freedom of his
own Will: The fecond Adam could not mifcirry, becaufe he is
more than a Creature, and God in our Nature, which if he had
not been, he had been as liable to fall as our firft Father, and
as liable to undo all he was concerned with and undertook for.
But this is the Record of the Gofpel, that God has given to us
eternal Life, and this Life is ip his Son, John v. n, 12. If
therefore we make fure of an Intereft in Chrlft, we are {a^q for
ever. In order to that., we muft be perfuaded to accept
him, to clofe with him, to depend on him, and fubmit to him
as the Saviour and King of the Church of God. O Sinner, as
thou haft finned in thy firft Father, and derived a corrupt Nature
from him, confider and lament thine unoone State without
Chrifi. — Let it be thy great Concern to win Chrift, and be
found in him. -Take him to be thy Lord and Saviour. r
Confent to be beholden to him for the whole of thy Salvation,
^nd to live both dependant on him, and obedient to him.- Gcd
grant, for his own Name's fake, that as we have been made din-
ners by the Difobedience of Adam, fo we may be made Righteous
by the Obedience of Chrid ; that as we have born the Image of
the earthly, fo we may bear the Image of the heavenly Adam j
and that as we have died in our firft Father, who tranfgrefied
the old Covenant of Works, as the Head of Mankind, fo /;;
Qhriji we may be made alive, or at the Time of his fecond co-
ining raifed up to a ble/Ted Immortality.
G3 APPENDI5C.
v
f 32 ]
~W~^ H E foregoing plain Sermons lay a Foundation for
^ coiia;rF,ing the entire Do6lrine of Original Sin^ as
incliiding the Guilt of Adam% Fall imputed, and a
CO upt Nature derived from Adain to his jPofterity,
Tiie oppofue Priiciples of Mr T 'slate Book may be reduc-
ed to ihe following HeaJs, which I here mention, with a dif-
tind ihort Confutation of each.
I Men was originally made rational and free^ hut not rightS'
eus. Tills is, ro vfiJloy Tey^'o^, the fundamental Miftake of P^-
Ingiar.s and kio.iiiians, from whom the Papifts, for the moft part,
difFe. verbally rather tiian really. According to Mr T^— , Man
neither was nor could be originally righteous. But let Mr T"
declare to the contrary, with ever fo much Warmth and Aflu-
rance, God maJc Mm upright^ and Upright throughout the
Scripture is the fame with Righteous, or Holy. If this Gentle-
man, or any in he fame Sentiments with him, would do any
thing to the Purp >fj, it lies upon them to prove, either that God
did iiot make Man upright at firft, or that Uprightnefs is not the
fame with Integrity, godly Sincerity, Righteoufnefs ; either that
Man was not made in the Image anu Likenefs of God, or that
t© be created after God is not to be created in Righteoujnefs^ and
true HoUnefs ', either that Man in his original State was not very
Good, or that a rational Being, formed with Capacities of know-
ing, loving and enjoying God, may be good, iuftly efteemed fo,
though not inclinable to ferve God, and though h;s natural
Powers are not in a Readinefs to acl for him. T iiey nruft prove
either ttiat Alan was not made a little lower than the Angeis, or
that thefe Spirits were not originally Righteou;;. LaiUy, It con-
cerns them to prove, that a rational Creature may be ivnocent^
though he does not love the Lord his God with all his" Heart,
or that fuch a fincere prtvailitjg Love to God, wl>i<.ii is a Sum-
miry of the Duties of the moral Law. is not Ri^jiitoufnefs or
Holmefe, as unJoubtcdlv Ji is.
IT.
APPENDIX. 3^
II. IVhen Adam finned aga'tnjl God^ in eating of the forbidden
Fruity he did not fall from an holy State^ hut rather fell Jl'iort of
it. This, it muft be allowed, is confiftent witli the foreiroing.
If Man was not created after God in Righteoufnefs or Hohnefs
of Truth, he could not lofe by his Fall what Divines call Ori-
ginal Righteoufnefs. For none can Jofe what they have not, .
But be thefe two Propofitions ever fo harmonious, they are evi-
dently falfe. One may wonder that a A4an who has fpcnt To
much Time in the Study of the Scripture, and wlio has pur-
fued his Enquiries fo diligently and hncerely as Mr T-— fays lie
has, fhould have tfiC Hardinefs to allert either. If i!ic Scripture
is plain in any thing, it is fo in this, that Man was originally
made righteous, and that the original Righteoufnefs of Man was
Joft by the firll Sin, as the former of thcfe two Sermons clearly
proves.
III. Adam\ Fall, or firfi Sin^ expofed himfclf to nothing
more than temporal Labour^ Sorrow., and bodily Death. This
folely, accordmg to Mr T'-— , was the Death originally threat-
ened : Of this only he underfUnds Gen. ii. ly. Ro?n. v. 12.
I Cor. XV. 21, 22. But it God m^ide Man lightx^ous, as has
been proved, and Mm loii his original Riohteoufnefs by the
Fall, it follows, th;it iie incurred diereay a fpiritual., as well a«:
a corporal Dcaih, and expofed himfelf nqt only to temporal
Affli(5lion3, but to eno'Iefi Punifiiintnt. As we may fairly in-
fer a conditional GiJtit of eternal Life to innocent Man from
the Law's pronnTinrr fuch a Life, or an cndkfs happy State, to
the Obedience of Mankind Tmce the Fall j fo if the Sins ot
Mankind render them liable to eveilafting Punifhment noiv, can
it be thought that fo heinous and complicated an Offence, as
jidam's eating the forbidden Fruit, did not defervc, and cxpofe
him to, an cverladim?. Separation from the comforting Pre-
fencc of Goily as well as invoh.' \\.\n in a prefent fpirituaj
Death ?
IV. Adanu the common Father of J^Janhnd^ %va< not appoint'
td to fiand or fill for any b./ides hitnfJf. The (.luiU of his
firft Sin, if xve hearken to I\Ir T---., w^-i piirely perfonal.
This I have difproved from Gen. ii. i6, 17. 1 Oor. xv. 22, 4c,
4.7, with which may be joined Rom. v. 12, CrV. as to v.'hich i
add at prefent but an Hint or two. (i.j None of tije Deniers
ot Original Sin obferve the Force of that F.xpreflxon, By onf
Alan Sin entered. Tiie Ap^^iflle plainly me.ins this of Ad.'i?K
ftngly. Though tlie Devil finned before any of ]\4;inkind, and
Ev:^s Tranfgrtlliun was ptior to .ihim's i yet th-' ApollUt f^v-.
54 APPENDIX.
By one Man^ (i. e, Adam) Sin entered into thi TVorU\ where
the JVorld muft not be taken locally, but for Mankind, as
whom the firft Sin of their firft Father involved in Guilt, and
made liable to Death. (2.) Mr T"—'s Glofs on that of the
Apoftle, And fo Death pajfed upon all Mtn^ for that all have
fwned^ is egrcgioufly trifling, to fay no worfc, fince it con-
founds two Things that the Apoftle carefully diftinguiihes, Sin
and Death. The fame is true as to his Glofs on the other Parti
of the Apoftle's Difcourfe, to ver. 19. throughout which he
plainly pouits at the fame Sin,, as the procuriug Caufe of Death
to Jdam^ and all his Defcendants ; and the Death of him and
them as the penal juft Confequent of that firft Sin of his.
V. Excepting the Ignorance and Wtaknejfes of Infancy^ we
are naturally in the fame State with Adam before his Fall. But,
Ci.) If Man was originally righteous, and we, as his Defcen-
dants, are not born righteous, as all grant we are not, 'tis evi-
dent the original State of Man, and the prefent natural State of
Mankind, are greatly different, (2.) If Adam was the federal
Head of ail his natural Defcendants, and in confcquence of /^a^
(which has been proved an equitable, wife, and good Conftitu-
tion) we fmned in him, and fell with him ; if fo, we no fooner
become Adam's Offspring, than a Degree of Guilt is imputed to
lis; and if God forms our Souls without original Righteouf-
nefs, he herein ad:s the Part of a righteous Judge, and wc arc
thereby txpofv.d to an endlefs Separation from God.
VI. What the Scripture feems to fpeal^ as t» our deriving
Guilty and a corrupt Nature from hAam ; it amounts to no more
than this^ fays Mr T----, from the Pelagians and Socinians,
Thatf on Occafion of his Sin^ we are Suferers of temporal Af-
flictions and Mortality.^ which a gracious God turns into an uni-
verfal Beriefit to Ma^ kind. But (i.j The Sinning affirmed of
all Men, Rom. v. 12. and their being made Sinners^ ver. ig.
mult be different from a being liable to temporal Sorrows and
Death, becaule Sin and Death are by the Apoftle fo plainly dif.
tiiiguirned. (2.) Where is Mr T- warranted to confidec
temporal Sorrciws and Mortality as made, or dcfigncd by God
for, fo univxrfai a Bitlling? The Apoftle fays, AH Things, all
rifHiflive Events, work together for Good to them who love God^
&c\ hut where does the Scripiuie iippiy this to Mankind in ge-
neral ? M'jfl: Pelagians^ bolides all their other undue Liberties
tdkcn with ti.e Scripture, extern' to all what the Holy Ghoft
app.'ipriates to jome ? (3 ) Let tertwporal Sorrows and MortaHty
b^ cvtr fo beiithci-1 to n;iir.\, they are in thtmfelv'es great
Evils,
APPENDIX. 35
Evils, Fruits of Sin, and what defcend to each of us from our
iirft finning Father and Head. If Man is horn untoTrouble^ it
is becaufe he is liorn a fallen Creature ; for Man was not made
at Ji'Jl for tiie fufpering of Trouble. If we are by Nature li-
able to Death, it is becaufe we are naturally prone to Sin, as
being defliiute of original Righteoufnefs by reafon of the Fall
of our firft Father. As is the cauful Influence of the Obedience
of Chrift on our Rightcoufnt-fs and Life, fuch is the Influence of
Adam's Fall on our Guiltinefs and Deaih ; as I hope fome one or
other will abundantly prove in Confutation of Mr ^---^s Book.
With what Zeal and Induftry that Boole hjth been difpCrfed in
Xown and Country, is not unknown to feveral. 5ut although
it feems to be a laboured Work, and is cried up by fome, who
know little of the Scriptuie ihemfelves, and the GraCe of God,
as unanfwerable, it will fcarcely pervert any who are not Stran-
gers to experimental Religion ; and as it would be no diflSicult
Undertaking 'o detedl the Sophiftry of it, it's Mlfreprefenta-
tions, and numerous Abufes of the Scripture, fo 1 hope a
thorough Confutation of it will be ere long given tO the Pub-
lick.
I conclude with juft hinting the principal Texts, and fom^
of the Arguments that may be urged for proving the Doftrine
of Oii^iJi 1 Sin, as laid down in the Aflembly's Catechifm.
ThcTexti are. Gen. v, 3. ch. vi. 5.^^'. viii. 21. Job xi. il.
ch. xiv. 4. ch. XV. 14, Pfal. xiv. i, 2, 3. PfAu 5. Prhv,
xxii. 15. and ch. xxix. 15. John iii. 6- Rom. v. 12, ^r.
3f Cor. XV. 22. The Argutnents are taken from, our natural
LiahKncTs to Diath., which may be eafily proved to be, in the:
Cafe of all, the penal Confequcnce of Sin j the Ordinances of
Circumciiion and Baptifm ; the Redemption of Chriji as ex-
tending itfelf to Infants ; every finful Ai^ion being reprefented
in the .-•cripture as ariHng from a corrupt finful Principle ; the
evident clofe Connexion of this Dodlrine with other important
and [plainly revealed Truths. From thefe, and other Argu-
ments, fuch a Proof may be given of the Dodrine of Original
Sill, as none, who pay a due Deference to the infpircd Writ-
ings, will be able fairly to evade.
MINI S^
r^v
THE
NOV 9. f926
<^^
DOCTR I N
%fifeilst>^^
O F
ORIGINAL SIN.
As laid down in the
Assembly's Catechism^
E X P L A 1 N E Pi
Proved to be agreeable to
SCRIPTURE andREASON;
And vindicated as a Truth of the greateft
IMPORTANCE.
With plain exprefs TESTIMONIES of
Lhriftian Writers before Augujiin.
By Samuel Hebden.
LONDON:
Eiinted, and Dublin Reprinted, by E D W. B A T F. \\\
George' i- lane ^ M Dcc XLvii.
THE
PREFACE.
WHEN Errofi of a Very bad Tendency are openly main-
tained, and zealouJJy pleaded for as momenUui Truths^
by Men who feem to befomewhat, it greatly concerns
all who are perfwaded of the Evil^ and Danger, of fuch erro'
neous Opinions- to Jlrive together for the Faith of the Gofpel, to
contend earnefily for it, " in Meeknefs inftruSiing thofe who op-
" poje themf elves, if God per adventure will give them Repen-
" tance to the acknowledging of the Truth." This is my Apology
for fending abroad the follow Papers ; in which,
1 begin with explaining the Do£trine of Original Sin, as laid
down in the Affembly' s Catechijm. This / refer to, rather than
the IXth Article of the Church of England, becaufe this
Article, though perfectly Orthodox, fo far as it goes, does not
exprefs the entire Doctrine : It does not exprefsly mention what
we call. Original Sin imputed, but confines itfelf to Original
Corruption ; which, however, implies the other, and plainly
prcfuppofes it : For fuppoftng Man to have been originally righte-
ous, no rational Account can be given of his being, fence the Fall
created without that Original Right eoufnefs, and *' of his own
*' Nature inclined to Evil,'^ if each of Adam'j natural Defcen-
dants zvas not concerned with him in his firji Sin, or involved
in the Guilt of it, as the Sin of their legal federal. Head The
Do£irine being explained, arid fame different Ways of ft caking
reconciled, I then feate a Number of Propofitions, a.s what, it
feems advifeuble to take and confider together. The Fifth is chief y
infiJJcd on, as exprejjing the Doiirine of Original Sin itjeif.
In Proof of this Doilrine, I propofe a lurgt Numbtr of Texts,
as
PREFACE.
as fo niany divine Tejiimonies to the Truth of it. To thefe Texti
I fubjoin feveral rational Proofs, with a Reply to fame princi-
fahObje£fionSyj}t_'eajh of the, diJlFn^ Heads "of Original Sin^
imputed, and inherent. Whether Gairfayers will be hereby
convinced or no ; whether fueh will be induced^ by what is here
offered^ to re-examine their Principles, or will not^ t am per-
fuaded of the Tendency of it^ by the Bleftng of God, to efiablijh
the Minds of fincere Believers \ who, if they keep attending to
the Voice of Scripture, ^?zi'Reafon, and ferioufy obferve their
Jlated Experience of the continual oppofite Workings of Nature
and Grace, the Flefh and the Symt, will, by thofe Means, bi
effeSiually engaged to adhere (leaf of ly to the [elf-humbling Doc-
trine of Original Sin, which is info cl'ofe a Connet^ion withi tFe
entire DoSirine of Christ, and Salvation by free, rich Grace^
tis is here endeavoured tv befbewn'i-^ — — i-** If Paffagesfrom ^he
Ante-Auguftinian Fathers are here died, they are not appealed
to as Proofs, but only confidered as ant lent human Tejiimonies td
<? Scripture-DoSfrine ; which I had taken no Notice of in thefe
.Papersy if -fome reputed Scholars, ' and profeffed Admirers of
Antiquity, did not 4:ontinue objlinately to maintain, that the
■JFathers of. . the . Four frjl Centuries wer£ utterly ignorant of
'the , commonly .received. IXo^rine a/" Original Sin. For their
Fakes it is that F ^here infert jome plain exprefs Teflimoniet
-of the Fathers before Auguftin ; and, for their further Con"
■'vi^iion, I might refer them to feveral learned Authors, par*'
ticular.ly G. J. Voflius in his Pelagian Hiftory, p. 158, ^c. —-
The fir/} Oppofers ' of the Do5irine here pleaded for ivere Pela-
\a\\ls\ and hh Adherents, in f/;^P'ifth Century. Since that it has
beeh conftderably .ohfc\iredi and in a Manner quite fubverted by
the great Doctors of the Roman Church ; many of whom [peak
indeed with hx\^\\'i^\^'^^ but think with the Pehghns, as the very
learned Mr W. Jamefon proves again fl them, from their own
fVritirigs, i« /j/j Roma Racoviana, & Racovia Romana. A-
^rnonq them who call themfehes Proteftants, the mo/t firenuout
Oppcfers of the entire Dotlrine, have been the Socinians, the
Remonftrants, and at Heme, ( hcfdes the Quakers, and fome
Antipednhr.ptifi-s) Dr J. T, in the laft Age, Z)r Whitby, and
Mr. J. Tnylor of N , Ihe leal xvith tvhich Mr T—'s
late Book has been pfypagated, in Town and Country, may jujily
awoken the Indignation of intelligent judicious Cbrifiians, toge-
ih:r with a Concern for the unhappy many, vjhom fo Unfair ^
uncharitahk^ and tveak, a Performance, can either draw off
from plain Scripture-Truth^ or confirm in the Pelagian, Soci-
.nian, and ?o\<nh Errors, fo boldly vented therein. What^ the
fane Gentleman is further about, he bejl knows. hnpartial En-
quirers afttr Truth expf^ from him a Confutatisn of what has
been
PREFACE
been publijhed againji his late Book. But if inftead of that, he
thinks to put us off with a Paraphrafe on the Epijile to the Ko-
mans, Judging that much eafter than a Vindication of what he has
wrote ; fome will perhaps applaud his Difcretion, hut can't help
blaming his objiinate AddiSiednefs to dangerous Errors^ which
having publijhed to the World he is in no Capacity^ or Readinefs^
either to retraB^ or in a Gentleman^ Scholar^ Chrijlian-like Man~
ncr^ to defend. If he cant confute what has been offered by me,
in regard to Man's Original Righteoulnefs, cW God's Cove-
rant with Adam as a publick Perfon, and Mr Jenning'j ingeni-
cus Vindication of the Scripture-Dodlrine of Original Sin, he
is bound in Honour and Confcience to give up his whole Seheme. If
he can do it^ 'tis what his Antagonijh, as Jincere Friends to him^
and impartial Searchers after "Truths defire and expeii from
him. As to the Occofton of the prefent Publication., which fame
m&y Judge needlcfs and unfeafonable ; at the Clofe of a late Tra^
which hxi\ lays a Foundation fsr confirming the entire Do^rine
of Original Sin, and then /lates the oppofite Sentiments of Mr
'i^' slate Book., with a frjort di/iinSf Confutation of each, ^ j'ift
mention a large Nh7rber of Texts, and fome ftw ArgumenfSj
ovcrpajjed by Air T\ as what feem fujfficient to prove both the Im-
putation of Adam's firjl Sin, and thu Propagation of a corrupt
Jinfut Nature fro?n him, as their federal Head by Gad's Appoint-
mcnt, to all his natural Dejcendants. Thofe Texts^ and Argu-
ments, I here explain and inculcate, in Compliance with the De-
fir.es and Requeji of fotnc; hoping that the merciful God who was
fo Londtf tending as to accept even an Offering cf Goats Hair^
zvheu fticfreiy and humbly prcjented for helping forward the Work
of the Tabernacle, luill not rcfuje his Acceptance of, and his
Biffing to t theje weak well-7neant Endeavours to J'upport Jo va-
luable, ufifnL important an Article of the Faith of the Gojpcl.
— I had 1 hovghts of much more largely vindicating our In-
tcrpietaiion of Rom. vii. 14, 15, l^c. but perhaps it may not he
ii/'pioper to defer tiiat for Jotue Time Icngcr. I might have in-
Ji/ied on J'ome more 'Texts of Scripture, \p<:iriicu!arly tiiuf, ap-
pealed to in the PAth /I r tide cf the Church of England, Ronu
vi:i. y, 8.) and fomcmore Arguments, grounded on the Scripture :
but I zvasfludious of Brcvit}', as well as Pla;nnefs ; and this
Jhort mean Trndf, if God ivill vonchfafe his Bleffuig., will be
jifficient CO infiver my End, at prcjtnt, which is not Jo much to
confute cbjlinute Gainfayen , or to reduce Backfiiders from thi
Faith (among whom is Mr T . if I am not ?nifufortned) as to
corfirni fmcere Chriftians, whofe Prayers for a divine BUffvig on
the weak Endea'jours of the meanejl In/hument I earne/Uy defirc,-
T H E
[ ' 1
THE
DOCTRINE
O F
ORIGINAL S I N, iiic.
Explained and Vindicated*
■*^ H E Dodtrine that I now undertake to plead for, as
not only true, fagreeable to Scripture and Reafon) but
a Truth of the greateft Importance and Uiefulnefs, is
this. *' The Pofterity of Jdam^ all who defcended
from him in a natural, and ordinary Way, are, from their
Birth and Original, falTn degenerate Creatures. From him^
their finning Father and Head, each of them derives a De-
gree of Guilt, and a corrupt Nature, which renders him not
only liable but inclinable to adtual Sins, and a Continuance
in them, to his utter and final Undoing." This is a Sum-
mary of what we take to be the true Scripture-Dodrine of O-
riginal Sin. Some, who are firm Believers of this DoiStrine,
are almoft inclinable to except againft the Phrafe Original Sin.
But though this Phrafe is not found in the Scripture (as feveral
other Terms and Phrafcs in conftant Theological Ufe are not)
and might well enough be quite riifcarded, confiftently with a
firm Adherence to the Doctrine itfelf j 'tis, notwihftanding,
very antient, and capable of fo good a Conftru£^ion, as ren-
ders the common Ufe made of it fafe, proper, and juftifiable e-
nou^h. To give fome (liort Account of the Antiquity of this
Kcclefiaflical Term. 'Tis not much kfs than 1400 Years old:
H 'Tis
2 the Do^rine of Original Sin, &c.
'Tis a little, and but a little, antienter than the Phrafe Servu?n
Arbiirium ^, which the great Cardinal Bellarmin cenfur'd, thro'
Miftake, as firft ufed by our Reformers. The earlieftUfe made
of the Phrafe, Original Sin^ fo far as we can difcover, was in
the IVth Century. The hrlt who ufed it was either Ru^nus,
as one ^ fays, or Chryjojlotn^ as feveral learned c Men have fup-
pofed, or rather Hilary of Poitiers, fome of whofc words are
thefe. ** The Pfalmift fays, 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." The fame Father elfewhere fpeaks of Original Sins
in the plural Number, as did lilcewife fome other of the ^ Anti-
ents. S(!)on after Hilary^s Time, the Phrafe fpoken of was
brought int» common EcckTiaftical Ufe by that moft renowned
Antient, Augujlin of Hippoy whom Providence raifed up about
the Begiimin^ of the Vth Century ^, and whom a very particu-
lax»
* The fei vile, or flavilh, Will. Luther in his great Zeal for God's
Efficacious Grace oppofed, or darkened, by the Popifh School men,
made ufe of this phrafe in oppofition to the Uberum Arhitrium, or
Dodlrine of Free-Will, as then afferted by the Papiits^ and fmce by
many Proteftants. Bellarmin obferving this, cenfurcd Luther as the
firll Coiner of that Phrafe, but in that he was miftaken,as fome learn-
ed IVIen have dilcovered ; it being antieiitly ufed by uguftin.
|J Bifnop y. Prldeaux, who having proved Original Sin, adds,
" Confentient hie nobifcum Patres, undo peccatum hoc originate eft
*• Ignatio, antiqua iniquitas ; yujlino Martyri, ab Adamo mors, Cy-
♦' priano antique mortis contagium, Origo peccati Hilario, originale
♦' deliclum Ruffi.no.'''' This laft fome think to be a Miflake.
c Ferdinand Vellofiilus, Bellarmin, Stapleton, Didacus Alvarez,
whom the molt learned G. J . Voffiius takes notice of, with an Account
of the ground of their Miftake, Hifl. Pelag- p 166.
d Particularly Zuguftin, who in one place diftinguifhes Peccata ori-
ginalia iff propria, Original Sins and the perfonal Sins of every one.
Yec he obfeives elfewhere, Originalia peccata ejje noflra, that Origi-
nal Sins are ours. Oiigina! Sm may be exprefTed, plurally, becaufe it
confiib of Guijt, and Corruption, which are really dillindl ; and becaufe
it is the Rooc of, many, all, aflual Sins.
•= ' Tis laid that Augujlin was born at Tagafie in Africa, on the fame
Day whereon Pdagius was born in Britain. Pelagius learned the
©pinions that take their Name from him, fomewhere in the Eaft.
So;i:e fay that Ritffinus, E^agrius Ponticus, and Jo-uinian, were before
hand with him in afi'erting fuch Tenets : having gathered them out
of fome corrupted Writings of the great Origen. His Followers or
Abettors were dleftius, and Julian a Bifhop fomewhere in Italy.
Tiieir Tenets were thefe. That " Men may live without Sin in this
•' World, if they will, a.id endeavour for it j " Hhat " AdavCs
Sin
Explained and Vindicated. 3
lar Experience of the Workings of corrupt Nature, and the
free effectual Grace of God, thoroughly qual ficd to oppofe
thofe Errois of Pelagius^ and his Adherents, wiuch the Clirif-
tian Church has generally voted to be wielded and dangerous, on
Account of their over-rating the Powcis of fal'n Nature, and
derogating not a little from the Freenefs and Efficacy of divine
Grace. But whenever and by whomfoever this Phrafe was
iirft introduced, the Dodtrine itfelf was not invented by Hilary^
or Augiijiin^ or any other of the old Fathers of the Church.
Some indeed will have it, that the latter of the two Fatliers
mentioned invented both ISlavie and Thing, They are not a-
fliamed to call, Original Sin, Augujiini figment urn ^ one of Au"
gujline^s Fiiiions (as Tit IFhitby (with fome others) blundering-
ly terms \t a fcholajiick DoSlrine^ and Mr Taylor^ in a marginal
Note affixed to />. 125, 126, infinuates it to be a Popijh Doc-
trine.) But whatever thefe Dreamers fancy, and whatever fome
of the Admirers of Mr T " 's late Book may fuppofe from
the marginal Note referred to, we are aiFured on clear Grounds
of it's being much antienter than the Schoolmen, Popery, or
Augujiin\ and of it's being a moft important Scripture-Truth;
a Truth that both the Old and New Teftament abound with
Teftimonies to j a Truth that both Hiftory and Chriftian ex-
perience unite with the Word of God, to confirm us in the Be-
lief of; a Truth thoroughly adapted to pr'omote true practical
Godliriefs, and with wh ch the Evangelical Dodlrine of Salva-
tion by the Grace of God thro' Chriil mult ftand, or fall.
The Affembly's Catechifm, from the Scripture (by which
we are to try all Catechifms, Confeflions, Creeds, Syftems, Ar-
ticles of human Compofition) teaches us, that " the Fall, of
*' Adam., brought Mankind into a State of Sin, and Mifery.'*
The Sinfulnefs of our fal'n State it defcribes as confifting in the
*' Guilt of Adam\ firft Sin, a want of Original Righteoufnefs,
*' and the Corruption of our whole Nature," which three
Heads many reduce to thefe Two, Original Sin imputed.^ and
Original Sin inherent. The former is the firfl Sin of our firft
Father, or the Guilt of it, imputed in fome Senfe, to all his
Natural DefcenvJants. The latter is a want of Original Righ-
teoufiiefs, and a Corruption of Nature or an habitual Propen-
fity to Sin, immediately and unavoidably enfuing thereupon.
" Sin hurt none but himfelf ; " Th.it " Original Sin as well as Ori-
" ginal Righteoufnefs, is but a Dream ; " '[hat " Grace is given
" according to Works ; " That " Every Man has a Power in himlelf
" to turn to God :" Thefe, and fuch like Tenets, were oppofed by
/ugnjiin, and many others, as unfcriptural, contrary to the antienC
Faitli of ihe Church, and of a pernicious Tendency.
H 2 Oft
4- ^he 'DoBrine of Original Sin, See.
On each of thefe Heads there are fome different Ways of
fpeaking made ufe of hy th.ofe xvhofe Ideas and Sentiments are
the fame. With regard to the former, Original Sin imputedy
fome fay, " The firft Sin of our firfl: Father is made ours,
** as foon as we become his Offspring, by Imputation j" or
** It is imputed to us, and a!l who defcend from him, in a na-
** tural and ordinary Wav." Others chufe to fpcak thus,
" The Guilt of Jdam's firii Sin is imputed to all his natural
*' Defcendants ;" or, ** Guilt on Account of that firft Tranf-
" greilion of his is imputed to thcTft.'^ Now thefe different
Propofitions are not fo many contradictory Sentiments : The
felf-fame Pcrfons do, or may, fpcak, each of thefe Ways.
They are no more than different Words for conveying the
fame Idea^ or fo many different Expreffions of the fame Truth.
The firft Way of fpeaking, oft ufed by our old Divines, does
not import, that the firft Sin of /idam (the finful A6lion of
eating the forbidden Fruit] is charged on us, or any of his Po-
fterity, as though we, or any otheis, bcfides himfelf, were
really and pcrfonaliy the Doers of that finful Adion of his.
But what it implies is to this Purpofe. The firft Sin of Adam^
being the Sin of our legal, federal, Flead, it is, as fuch, rec-
koned to us ; the Sin itfelf, is imputed, or reckoned, to uf,
as being not indeed our perfonal Fault, but the Sin of our fede-
ral Hea'.l, for which we are juftly reputed guilty, or liable to
bodily Death and endlefs Punifliincnt. Of the fame Import
are tl-e other Propofitions, or Wjys of fpeaking, above-men-
tioned. Guilt could not be jufily imputed to us ; a juft and
holy God would not repute us guilty, and deal with us aS'
guilty, on Account of our firft Father's fit ft Tranfgreffion,
had wt not' been, fome way or other, concerned in that fiift
'iVanfgreftlon of his. Now how far were we, and the reft of
Jdavi\ Defcendants, concerned in it ? We were not, we could.
not be, any of us, the perfonal Doers of it : But it was th-c
Sin of him who was, by God's Appointment, our legal, fe-
deral P.eprefentative ; and in that refpedl we are born guilty of
it, as our Catechifm fpeaks, /'. e. accountable in fome Meafure
for it, or liable to D^;ath and Punifhment on Account of it, as
foon as we become the Defcendants of that firft Man.
With Regard to the latter, Original Sin inherent^ our Di-
vines fometimes fpeak as though it was nothing more than a
U'^aat of Original Righteou fiefs. At other Times they men-
tion together with that tiie Corruption of our whole Nature,
as wiiat all our actual Sins d'.) immediatelv proceed from. If we
confidcr this S;n of our Nature aburactedly from the Subject
©f ir, 'tis nothing more tlian a Want of our Original moral
Reditudc,
Explained and - Vindicated. 5
Rectitude, which, fay Calvin, and others, expreflcs the entire
Nature of Original Sin inherent^ or as we fometimes term it
Original Corruption. But when we confider this Sin toge-
ther with tiie Subjedt to which it belongs, we then fpejk of a
Corruption of our whole Nature, or an liabitual Prcpeiifity to
Sin, as what our natural want of Oiiginal Righteoufnefs is im-
mediately, and unavoidably attended with.
As none of our Divines did ever fuppofe the firft: Sin of
Adam to be fo far imputed to us his Poflerity, as that vvc, or any
others, are reputed, and confidered, by the Judge of the World,
as the adlual Committers of that firit Sin of our firfl- Father ;
fo none of them did ever conceive of Qriging,! Corruption as a
vicious corrupt Principle infufed intq our Natures, or implant-
ed in us, by the Hand of God himfclf. Yet many have at-
tempted to load and burden our Do6trine with this unlcriptural,
abfurd, hateful Notion. The Socinian TVriters on this Sub-
ject ; Bifliop J. Taylor in the lafl Age ; Dr. Whitby ; and Mr
y. Taylor of Norwich ; all thefe have been fo unfair, or fo
little acquainted with the Doctrine we plead for, as to infi-
■nuate that according to »;, (the AfTerters of Original Sin
•inherent) the holy God puts into our Natures Principles of
Wickednefs, and Rebellion againft himfelf, on Purpofe to ren-
der us criminal, i\nJ punifliable. Whereas the Sybflance of
what we plead lor is this. As to the former Branch, Original
Sin imputed, we maintain that Ala?n's firft Sin, as the Sin of
our federal Head, is fo imputed to us, as that we, on Account
of it, are juftly reputed guilty, or punifhable with the Death
originally threatned. As to the latti^r Branch, Original Si?i in-
herent, or Original Corruption, our Perfwafion is, that being by
the holy God judicially deprived of the Original moral Rt-di-
tude of human Nature for the Fall of our firfl Father, and
Head, we become in, and of, our felves averfe to what is Good,
and inclinable to adlual Sins ; which we go on in, and per-
ievere in, to our final undoing, if free rich Grace does not
prevent.
The Principles that this Dodlrine prefuppofes, a?7d is grounded
upon, are thefe : " Man's original Righteoufnefs;" " God's
*' Covenant with A(la?n as a publick Pcrfon j" " his Fall frora
\^ God (by which his original Rightcoujucfs was loft, and
** Death of every kind incurred) as the lcg:i!, or federal Plead
S« of Mankind." With fuch Principles, as thefe, the Dodrin.e
that aflerts the native hereditary Ciuilt and Corruption of
uida}n\ Offspring, as fuch, muft iKind or fall. I'o engage in
a Defence of this Dodrine without eflahliOiing ihofu Principles,
as the Bafis on which it refls, is like an utuvifc Builder's at-
IT 3 templing
6 ^he Bo^rine of Original Sin, &c,
tempting to ere£l a large ftately Edifice, without firft laying,
a folic], fufficient Foundation. I chufe therefore to begin with
thofe Principles ; which being afferted and proved as the Bafis,
or Foundation of the true Scripture-Do6trine of Original Sin,
I proceed to a further Confirmation of the fame Dodlrine,
from a large number of Texts and Arguments, ( juft hinted at
the Clofe of a late Traft f ) concluding with a Vindication of
it, as a Truth of the greateft Importance and Ufefulnefs. All
this may be reduced to the following Propofitions.
I. Man was originally made by God righteous or holy.
IT. That original Righteoufnefs, or Uprightnefs, was loft by
the firft Sin.
III. Thereby he likewife incurred Death j every Kind of
Death.
IV. Jdatns firft Sin, was the Sin of a publick Perfon, one
whom God wifely, juftly, and for great and good Ends, ap-
pointed to ftand or fall, (to preferve or lofe original Righte-
oufnefs, to fecure eternal Life, or incur Death of every Kind^
both for himfelf and all hi* natural Defcendants.
V. All fuch are, from their Birth and Original, fallen dege-
nerate Creatures ; Children of Wrath ; deftitute of original
Righteoufnefs, and inclinable to Sins of all Sorts.
La/ily, This, which we call the Do(5lrine of Original Sin,
is an efi'ential Article of the Faith of the Gofpel, that Faith
which Miniftcrs and Chriftians are commanded to ftrive toge-
ther, and contend earneftly, for. 'Tis not only true, (agree-
able to Scripture and Reafon) but a Truth of the utmoft Im-
portance ; and what has been generally witnelTcd to by the
Churches of Chrift from the Beginning.
Prop. I. Man, originally, was not only rational, and endowed
with free Agency, but made by God righteous or holy. His Soul
f Mans Original R'tghieoufnefs ; and God's Coi'enant nvith Adam as
a pahlick Perfon. ajferted and plainly proved from the Scripture as a Bajls
of the true Scripture Do£lrine of Original Sin, in tnvo Sermons ; luith an
Appendix, in 'which the main Principles of Mr. ], Taylor'j Book againji
Oiiginai Si'i, are reduced to certain Heads ^ nuith a Jhort Confutation of
each, upon the Principles eji .blijhed in the iuuo fore going Sermons,
was
Explained and Vindicated. y
Was formed with fuch a Principle of Love and Obedience to his
Maker, as difpofed and enabled him to perform the whole
of his Duty, with Eafe and Pleafurc. This I have proved elfe-
ivhere^^ from Ecclef. vii. 29. from Gen. i. 26. compared with
and interpreted by Eph. iv. 22, 24. and Col. iii, g, 10. frofli
Gen. i. 31. as applicable paiticularly to Man ; from the Domi-
nion granted to Man over the other Creatures of this World ;
from there being no Medium between a rational B-ing's Love
to God, and his being an Enemy to him ; from our Lord's Ac-
count of the original State of Angels, John viii. 44. The
Truth therefore of this firll Propofition is here taken for granted :
For 'tis Time enough to retraif, when the Arguments for
what has been advanced are confuted j which I am perfuaded
the moft conceited crafty Antagonifts are far from being fuffici-
cnt for.
I now obferve what Ufe might be made of this firft Propofi-
tion, for confuting an Aphorijm in which lies the main Srength
of a late Book, as well as others, more antient, wrote with
the fame View. " Whatever is natural is neceffary, and what
** is necefl'ary mud not be deemed criminal, '' This Alaxim.,
fo much depended on by the Pelagians.^ Socinians^ and all De-
niers of the Dodtrine of Original Sin, is really no better than a
Piece of thin Sophiftry, and what Men of Learning, ftudious
in the Scripture, fiiould Ije afhamed to infift on. As fuch it
muft appear to every one who is convinced of, and duly con-
fiders, the origifiai Righieoufnefs of Man. If Man was origi-
ginally upright.^ or rigliteous, as we have proved him to be *,
we may fairly argue thus. It was natural to Man at firft to
love his Maker, and to b^ ready for the doing of his whol?
Will. Yet the genuine Effefts of Man's original Love to God,
(his natural Readinefs or Difpofediiefs for the ferving of God)
were not necejfary., as necejfary is oppofed to 'voluntary, ox fne.
For Man, as made by God upright, did freely, willingly, and
^ In the former of the two Sermons aforementioned.
^ We pretend not, with the Jeivs, that the Head of the firft Man
was at firft encompaffed with a vifible Sp'cndor, or Glory, which at-
tended him wherever he went, and ftruck all other Creatures with an
Awe of him. We believe not that his Body was as beautiful, perfect,
and glor/ous, as the glorified Bodies of the Saints fhall be. We af-
cribe not to the firft Man, that moft extraordinary Acutenefs of Senfe ;
that fupra-gigantick Strength of Body; that moft profound Infighc
into all -Arts and Sciences ; that Superiority, in point of Knowledge,
to any of the Angels, which feme pleafe themfelves witii imagining.
We pay no Regard to any extra fcriptural Accounts of the Original
State of Mr.n. ' ■
II A. with
8 The DoSfrine of Original Sin, &c.
with Pleafure perform the whole of his Duty. And if we fay,
he did this, while upright, necejjarl/y, i. e. unavoidably, it was
neverthelefs rewardable ; or capable of being rewarded by Vir-
tue of the Covenant God freely eftablifhed with him ; accord-
ing to which, had Man continued upright for a Time, his
Love and Obedience would have been rewarded with confirming
Grace, in Confequence of which he would have tranfmitted
Holinefs and Happinefs to his lateft Pofterity ; as has been prov-
ed in the little Tvzdi already referred to. Before I go ofF from
this Head, let me annex fomeantient Teftimonies to theDo6lrine
of Mans Original Righteoufnefs. The pretended Barnabas
hys, " Attend, that the Temple of the Lord may be built
•' glorious. How ? Learn. We receiving the Remiffion of
<* our Sins, and hoping in the Name of the Lord, are made
*' new, being created again as ' from the Beginning. " Here
a being renewed is explained by a being created again, as from
fhe Beginning', which evidently refers to the original State of
Man, as made by God holy. Tatian fomewhere fpeaks of a
Spirit that hved familiar with the human Soul at firfl, but when
the Soul would no longer follow it, then the Spirit forfook it.
What could he mean by this Spirit diftindl from the Soul,
(which the Soul once pofleiTed and afterwards loft) but the
Principle of Holinefs originally infufed into the Soul of Man ?
Again, "Free-will has deftroyed us j we vfho were free are
♦' become Slaves ; through Sin we are fold. We acknow-
*' ledge two kinds of Spirits, one is called the Soul, the other,
«' greater than the Soul, is the Image and Likenefs of God,
<' Both thefe were d,iveii to the Fisft of Mankind''. " ^The
Freedom which he fpeaks of, as loft by Sin, cannot be the natu-
* As, is not in the Original, but is plainly underftood.
k Vid. latlan cont- Gracos. OraC. p. 150. — The three following
Quotations from henneui are in Lib. 3 ch. 20. lib. 3. ch 37. lib. 5.
ch. 10. The late Dr 5. Clarke, was (Mr W. Whipn {vji) a great
Admirer of this Father, and once intended a corredt Englijh Edition
of him for prora ting what they reckoned true Primitive Chriftianity.
As Bull, Waterlatid, Alexander, &c. have proved him to be an Or-
thodox Trinitarian, according to their Principles, fo there are nume-
rous, firong, moft exprefs Tcflimonies in Irenaus, to Original Righ-
teoufnefs, Original Sin in the full Extent of it, the Doctrines of fpe-
cial, diliinguilhing, efficacious Grace , which makes me wonder at his
being fo much admired by a Gentleman, who befides his being an
Arian, was as much of a Pelagian^ as perhaps any of the Moderns.
(Bifhop H / himfelf, and Mr J. T. of N. not excepted) and it
convinces me of the Strength of Prejudice and Prepoffeffion, where-
with fome learned Men reid the Wrunigs of the Fathers.
ral
E^Jained and Vindicated. a
ral Liberty of the Soul which remains to Man in every State ;
but the moral, fpiritual Freedom of Will, by which he was,
according to our Dodlrine, originally difpofed, as welK as en-
abled, to do the Will of God. and to perfevere in well-doiiig.
Whereas he fpeaks of a Spirit diftincSt from, and excellentcr
than, the Soul, and fays, ** both thefe were given to the firft
*' Men, " what can this imply but our firft Parents being made
by God, both rational and holy? the Principle of Holinefs being
indeed diftind from, an^ excellenter than, the cffential Powers
of the human Soul, and what the Scripture principally intends
by the Image and Likenefs of God, with, or in, which Man
was at firft made. Iren^us often fpeaks cur, as plainly as can
be, the whole of what we plead for. *' What we loft in Adam^
'* that is, a being after the Image and Likenefs of God, this
*« we recover by Chrilt. " Man having, upon his Fall, covered
bimfelf with Fig-leaves, in token of his Repentance, ( fo Ire^
riaus, with others of the Antients, thought^ he brings in fpeak-
ing thus : " Becaufe I have loft, by Difobedience, the Robe of
*' Holinefs which I had from the Spirit ; I now know that [
*' deferve fuch a Covering as is attended with no Pleafure to the
" Body, but flings and pains \t."-—Jgain, *' They who are not
" fruitful in Righteoufnefs, and are as it were covered over
*' with Thorns, if they attain to DiHgence, and receive the
*< engrafted Word of God, they return to the antient Nature
*' of Man ^ that by which he was made after the Image and
*' Likenefs of God. " I grant that he fometimes fpeaks of
Reafon^ and Freedom of Will^ as included in that Image and
Likenefs^ of God, in which Man was made at firft; but then
*tis as plain that he did not confine it to theje. He as plainly in-
cluded Holinefs therein ; fince he fpeaks of the Robe of Holi-
nefs^ which he loft by his Difobedience, and often mentions the
Image of God as loft in Adam^ and recovered in, or by, Chrift.
Origen too fays, " Man by finning loft the Image and Likenefs
*' of God." To the fem.e purpofe fpeak TertvlliafT, Cyprian^
and others before Augujlin. I alledge not thefe IVJlnaes as Proofs^
but as Tejiirnonies. When Smalctus deri(fed the D(i6tiine of
Man's Original Righteoufnefs as an old Jiinking Fable, he mi<»ht
have thefe antient Pallages, or Ibme fuch, in his Eye. Whe-
ther he had or no, they anfwer our Purpofe in citinii them, anci
do indeed atteft more than the bare Contents of our firft Pio-
pofition. They are Teftimonies not only to ihis^ but to what
next follows, and the Doctrine of Original Sin itfclf ; wliicli
none can confiftently oppofe ihemfelvcs to, who are convinccii
of the Reality of Man's Original ^'^iighteoufnefs. A late Book
^ught therefore to have begun here. The Author of ;t ftiould
iia'. e^
lo ^he Bo£frine of Original Sin, Sec.
have firft difproved the Do&ine of Man' ^ Original Righteouf"
nefsy inftead of contenting himfclf with earneft Repetitions of a
Denial of it, or flrongly aflerting, again and ag^in, that it nei-
ther was, nor could be ; in Oppofition to which yi^e have endea-
voured to make it evident ', to all ferious impartial Enquirers
after Truth, that it both really was, agreeably to plain exprefs
Scriptures, and, in Confiftence with the moral Perfedions of'
God, could not be otherwife. "*''
Prop. 11. Man^ by his Fall, or firjl Sin, lo/i the Original
Righteoufnefs of his Nature, and fell^ from the holy State in
which his good and bountiful Creator had placed him. Though
made by God upright, he was notwithftanding mutable. Being
in himfelf, as a Creature, changeable, and being left to the
Freedom of his own Will, he foon fell ; lofing, at once, his
primitive Title to the divine Favour, and the holy Image of
God originally itamped on his Soul. This, after a Proof of the
foregoing Propofition, it may feem needlefs to infifl on. Ad-
mit, that Man was made holy at firft, and it evidently follows,
that he ceafed to be fo when he began to fin. But if any dc-
fire a clear diftinft Proof of this Second Propofition, it may be
argued for, and fully confirmed, from the Account Mofes gives
of our firft Pap;nts, Gen. iii. y, is'c. from the Guilt that in-
feparabiy attends every Tranfgreflion of the divine Law, and
from the raoft comprehenfive Nature, and aggravating Gircum-
ftances, of the firft'Tfanfgreflion.
I. Sundry Particulars m the Mo/aic Account, Gen. iii. 7,
&c. will invincibly prove thus much. As (i.) The Eyes of
them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, i. e.
they were confcious to Guilt, arid touched with a pungent Senfe
of their Folly and Wickednefs ; They began to find" their . A^a-
>fi^/«^ inconvenient and irklonie to them; and they refleded
on it, not without Shame, and finful Emotions of Soul. (2.)
Immediately on their firft Sin, they were indifpofed for Com-^'
munion with God, and ftruck with fuch a Dread of him, and
fuch a Concern to avoid his Prefence, as could net confift with
a true Love to him, ver. 8. (3.) When queftioned about
what they had done, ver, 9, 13. how do they prevaricate and
play the Hypocrite, each of them? ver. 10, 12, 13. inftead of
ingenuoufly confefling their Fault, and humbly pleading for
Forgivenefs ; which argues not only their having finned, but
their, as yet, continuing altoeether impenitent. (4.) The
Judgment denounced againfi: them was a Proof of their being
guilty in the Sight of God ; and if guilty, or juftly obnoxious
* In the former of the two Sermons before referred to.
Explained and Vindicated. 1 1
to the threatened Punifhment, fallen Creatures ; which implies
a Lofs of'their criginallitle to Bleflednefs, and of the Holincfs
which quahficd and fitted them for God's Service, and a Life of
friendlylntercouire and Communion with him. ('5.) Why
did God caft our firft Parents out of the ierrejirial Paradife^
and prevent tin ir Acccis to the Tree of Life, but to iignify
that for Sin they had defcvcd to be caft out of the Prefcnce of
Sod ; and that now ihey wcie become abfolutely incapable of
attaining eternal Life, upon the Foot of the firft Covenant ?
*Tis probable, indeed, that our firft Parents repented, and found
Mercy with God: but that no ways difproves, but rather con-
firms, the Truth of our feconu Propcfition ; fince Repentance
and For^ivenefs piefuppofc Sin and Guilty both which were ab-
foliicely incuniiilent vvitii thicir original State.
2. The fanje miglit be further proved from thisi that every
Sin agairft rl,e Law of God vii tualiy contains all Sin in it, and is
a Tranfgreflion oi the whole Law. So fays the Apoftle James.
" For whofucvcr fhall keep the whole Law, ard yet offend in
" one Point, he is guilty of all. For he who faid do not com-
** niit Adulceiy, faiu alio do not kill : Now if thou commit no
*' Adultery, vet it thou kill, thou art become a Tranfgreflbr
" of the whole Law m. " Every Tingle Offence is a virtual
Breach of all the Commands of God. There is in every parti-
cular Sin the Principle of <7//Sin. If a Man adually tranrii;rer-
fes unc Command of the Law, he is guilty of tranfgrefling the
wh.iii Luw in Principle^ for this Reafon given by the Apoftle;
becaufe the fame fovereign Authority of the Lawgiver is equally
{lamped upon every Command, and is aff'ronted, or defpifed,
by every wilful Sin. When therefore our firft Parents took and
eat of the forbidden Fiuit, they were chargeable with not only
violating a particular-, pofitlve Precept, but with tranfgrefting the
entire Law of God they were under; the Law of Nature, the
Law written in their Hearts at their Creation, the Law of
' %ove vC'hich God had formed them, both with a Capacity, and
'. an Inclination, thoroughly to obey. They could not eat of the
forbidden Fruit, or adt contrary to the divine Pleafurc in any
^ one Liftancc, v/ithout virtually, or in principle, tran)"grefiing
that entire Law of their Creation ; which being once done,
their original Title to God's Favour, and their original Righ-
teoufnefs, were both loff.
3. riie particular Nature, and tie fpecial aggravating Cir-
cuniftanc.s of ihc firji Sin, deferve to be next conlidered bv us.
Of what Nature was the Sin whereby our firft Parents fell from
their primitive State ? As to the external Att of it, it was no
more than eating of that Fruit, which God, for tlie Tri^l oi"
'" James ii. 10, 1 1,
tutu-
^ 2 The l)o5frine of Origiml Sin, &c.
their Obedience, and in Token of his fovcreign Authority, had
forbidden them to eat of. But this is far from being a tho-
rough fufficient Anfwer to the Queftion propofed. I will
briefly mention feveral Things, as what an eating of the for-
bidden Fruit by our firft Parents proceeded from, or implied in
it.
T. Unbelief. This was the Beginning of the Sin fpoken of.
Man did not prefume to adl contrary to the divine Command,
till, by fome fophiftical Reafoning or other, he was perfuaded
to queftion the Truth of the divine Threatening. It was by
ekceiuing onx firfl Parents that the Tempter perverted them.
2. An Irreverence to God. Reverence is a Mixture of Love
and Fear. Our firft Parents beipg fo far deluded, by the So-
phiftry of the Tempter, as to caft ofF their firjl Lovs^ and their
firji Fear^ of the Almighty, then, and not till then, did they •
prefume to tranfgrefs.
3. Ingratitude. When they took and eat of the forbidden
Fruit, they a6ted a mort bafe unthankful Part. God had done
creat thinais for them, and denied them the Ufe of but one Tree,
aiid they would not refrain from the eating of that.
4. Pride and Ambition. They were caught in the Snare of
that Temptation, *' ye fliall be as Gods knowing good and evil."
Being deceived by fome Iiiiuiuations of the Tempter, they be-
gan to think diOionourably of the divine Condu6l towards them,
and afFe£led to be v/ifer and greater than God had made theii},
Gen. iii. 6.
5. Covetoufnefs, or an irregular Defire of what they had no
need of, what they might have been fufficienily happy with-
out, and what a wife and good God, had thought fit to deny
them.
6. Scnfuality. " The Woman faw that the Tree was good
*' for Food. " She looked upon it with an evil Eye, with an
irregular Appetite. There now began in our firft Mother a
Confliii: between Senfe and Reafon, Appetite and Duty. To
talk of a Conflict between thefe two in Man innocent, or be-
fore he fell, as the Pelagians and Socinians do, it is abfurdly to
reprefent Man as in a Degree finful, and guilty, while innocent,
for ConjiiSi denotes Oppoiicion, and an Oppofition of the fen-
fual Appetites and Paflions to the Dire61;ion of Reafon is nothing
Jcfs than a Repugnance to the Law of God ; Vv-hich our firft Pa-
rents were no way guilty of, before they were led by the Temp-
tation of the Devil to look upon the prohibited Fruit with an In-
clination towards it.
-]. Theft. The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was none
of theirs ; fince the great Proprietor of all things, w})ofe Te-
nants and Dependants they were, forbad them the Ufe of it
When
Explained and Vindicated. i^^
When therefore they took and eat of this Fruit, they flolc vihat
w^s none of their own, and took what they had no manner of
Right to ; v/hich was dov/nright Thefti a robbing of God, and
that, in the Nature of it, is more criminal than any di/honeft,
Uijurious, Dealings viwh the Creature.
8. Murder^ both in regard to themfelves and their Defcen-
dants. Not as yet to infift on tlie latter \ when our firft Pa-
rents ventured, in Compliance with the Suggeftioiis of the
Tempter, to a6l contrary to the Command of God (who had
promifed the Continuance of Life, and their primitive Happinef's,
only on Condition of their continuing obedient, and had threat-
ened Death in Cafe of the contrary) they became Self-Mur-
derers.
The firji Sin^ then, was not a finall Fault, or a trivial Of-
fence. It was a moil heinous complicated Sin. It was a vir-
tual TranfgreiTion of the Vv'hole Law of God fafterwards delivered
with an audible divine Voice from Mount Sinai^ and fummarily
comprehended in the two Words of Love to God^ and Love to
our Neighbour). It was a bafe ungrateful fcrfaking of their Al-
legiance to God., and taking Part v/ith anotlier Dgainfl him. R
was an entire Apoftacy from God, and not a little aggravated, by
his very great Kindnei's and Indulgence towards them; by the
Eafmeis of the Precept given for their Trial ; by the pad Expe-
rience they had of the Pleafures of God's Service; and by the
fhoit Continuance of their Love and Allegiance to him. — Let
none therefore oW]tdi : How could Adam fo foon fall, if created
with Original Rigbtcoufncfs ; and if it was fo, how could one
fmgle Fault eradicate an Habit or Principle? We fhould he
more modeft, and humble, than to contradi61: exprefs ScripturCj
which, if it tells us any thing, tells us thcfe two things, thaC
God originally made Man upright, or righteous, and that Ori-
ginal P.ighteotifnejs of his failed, as foon as, being deluded by
the Tempter, he became inclinable to cat of tlie fcjibidden Fruir,
Wherefore fhould any cavilling fay, how can thefe things be^
v/hen the VV^ord of Truth fo plainly teaches us that they really
were ? If the gracious Principle planted, and preferved, in eve-
ry fincere Convert, is not extinguifhtd by continued fmful Dc-
icCi'i, and incidental A6ts of aggravated ilnning (as in the Cafe
of David, Peter, and other backfliding Saints) ; and if this
Seed of God, this divine Nature, this new Creature, this nevj
Alan, as it is called, may and does, during the prefcnt State^
confift with finful Corruption, felt, lamented, abhorred, flrova
and prayed agailTft ; this is owing to the fpecial Grace of the
New Covenant, which promifcs Pardon of Sins, renewing
Grace, perfcvering Strength^ and a being preferved fafe unfo
God's heavenly Kingdom, to all the Heirs of Salvation. \yn\\
vvbac
1 4. The Do^rine of Original Shi, Si c.
what Love and Thankfulnefs to the God of all Grace, does
the fincre, humMe, judicious Ch.iftian remember thefc preci-
ous, fuitable, neceflary FtoniT.^s of God's cverLiting Covenant,
when he ferioiiflv reflects on iiis own experienced Pionmefs to
backflide, vviih the Inconftancy of the ! <lr Cream res, if Jevc to
themfelves, and the fpeedy Apoftacy of his hrfi Father, thouoh
created, (as the iLlcripture afi'ures him he vvasj with Original
Righteoufnefs^ or trueHolii^cfs ? What wru'd become of u^ ail,
if a gracious God did not engage hinifclt, '^\ Piomifes, lo put
his Fear into our Hearts ; to heal our haikfliJing Soirits ; rvd.
to preferveus, by his mighty Power, tnrojgh Fain , to a o»n-
plete Salvation ; which God of his infii.ite Meity grunt to every
Reader of this Treatife. But I leave this Digitiiicn, and pro-
ceed to
Prop. III. The fir jl. Sin, of our firji Father^ incurred a fpi-
r'itual as tvell as a corporal Deaths and expofed him to the ever-
lajling Dijpleafure of a jiiji and hol^ God. Theyi>rw<fr Biaiich
of this Propofition is a plain Confcquence from the foregrtin:-. If
Man was created holy, and that divine Principle failed when he
began to fin, or firft became a Sinner, it undenia >ly follows, that
the firft Sin not only made him mortal but fpiritually dead.
When he eat of the forbidden Fruit, he was now iDccome liable
to bodily Death, and alfo dead in Sin. What is the fpiritual
Death fo often fpoke of by Divines^ but a being void of that
Principle of fincere prevailing Love and Obedience to God, which
the Apoftle terms the Life of God ", and eternal Life '^ begun
in the Soul ? A Creature formed with rational Faculties, capa-
citating him to know, love and ferve God muft be either dead in
Sin ov alive unto God. Adam, who in his primitive State, was
alive uvto God, and capable, by perfevering in his Duty, to fecure
eternal Life to himfelf, upon his finning, or as foon as he Legan
to fin, became dead in Sin, as well as dead in Law. Mr T". p. 7.
20, 21- is confident that the Death which God threatened, and
which was the Confequence of his Difobedience, was no other
than Death in the uCual Senfe of the Word. This Opinion is
jiow-a-days modifli and fafhionable. I remember to have read
it in Mr Grove, and other ingenious Moderns, as well as the old
Socinians, and the much d^nucnter Pelagians. But I re-
gard it not, for the Numbers and boafted Politenefs of the^ who
embrace it, while it appears to me both irrational, and unfcrip-
tiiral. We grant with Mr T. p. 7. that Death is the lofing of
** Life : Death is oppofed to Life; and muft be underftood ac-
*' cording to the Nature of the Life to which it is oppofed />
* Epb. iv, 18. o I John iii. 15.
But
Explained and Vindkaled. 15
But we infift upon it, that the Life given to Adam^ and which
was forfeited by iS/«, was not only Life in the common Senie
of the Word, but fuch a Principle of Holinels as by which he
lived to God, and which the Scripture terms the Life of God. It
was alio a Title to eternal Life, or to everlaftiwg Bleflednefs,
that God gave to Adam when he created him. This by Sin he
forfeited and lofl. Cortfequently, by Sin he expofed himfelf to
the everlafting Difpleafure of a juft and holy God. As Life is
put for Blcjcdnefs, fo Death is put for Mifery often. When
the Apoftlc fays Death is the IVages of Sin, he plainly means
it of Sin in the general, and Death in every Senfe oi the Word ;
for Death {lands oppofeJ to eternal Life^, which always in the
Scripture, fignifies a State of everlajling Blejfednefs ; and the
Apojlle does not fay. Death is the Wages, or the juft Defert,
of, this or that particular. Sin ; but it is the Wages of Sin, Sin
in the general, every kind of bin. If Sin wi^w deferves for the
Creature not only bodily Death, but a fpiritual Mifery of equal
Duration with the immcutal Soul, nothing lefs than which can
be the Death oppofed by the Apoftle to eternal Life j what Rea-
fon can be affigned why tlie firft Sin of Adam, fo heinous and
aggravated as we have heard, fhould not be fo far demeritorious
as to cut oiF his Claim to all Happinefs, and render him juftly
obnoxious to perpetual Mifery ? But it is n e( lefs to enlarge on
this, fmce the three Propofitions, two cf which were poved
before, muft becqually falfe or true. ** Man was made by God
*' with Original Righteoufnefs." " By his Fall, or firft Sin,
*' that Original Righteoufiiefs was loft." — " By the fame Fall,
*' or firft Sin, he incurred 'd fpiritual Death, and expofed him-
*' felf to eternal Death, which is nothing elfe than a Continua-
** tion of the other." Prove any one of thefe Propofitions, and
the two other ftan-d of Courfe. The fecond is an undeniable
Confequence from the y^r/?, and the ^/5iV^/ from the other two.
As the Pelagians are confiftent with themfelves in equally op-
pofing thefe three Propofitions, fo %ve in maintaining them.
Some will perhaps fay, Man did indeed, by Sin, incur a fpiri-
tual as well as a corporal De^th ; this we can granr, if hy fpi-
ritual Death is meant, an utter ExtinS'tion of the Being, Life,
and active Powers of the Soul. But that this was not included
in the firft Threatning I prove thus. It muft doubtlefs be in-
terpreted to a Confiftence with the original Law of Propagation,
Now that Law was eftabliftied by God, without a Regard to
Man's continuing innocent, or finning. Whether Man ftood
or fell, he was to be tlie Father «f a numerous Pofterity. Con-
fcqueutly he nmft cojuinuc to cxilt and live : llis Soul, iniKad
^ Rom, V, 23.
J 6 The Bcotrine of Original Sin tec,
of beitig thruft-out of Beine, by it's Almighty Creator, would
continue U> 5ivc miferatle^ guilty before God, indifpofed for a
living to /'/wi a'tid liable to an chiJlefs Separation from his beati-
fick Frereii^e. To fucii a wretched State as this d\d the Fall re-
duce the Soiil of Mall, This therefore^ and not an Extinction
of the natural L fc, and Activity of the human Soul^ was the
fpiritual Death oig\i\JAy threatened, and incurred by the Fall.
Such a miferable State of the Soul is undoubtedly called Deaih^
and that often, Rom. vi. 23. 2 Cor. v. 14. j John iu. 14. In
Diffin6lion from bodily Death, and the Troubles of the prefent
Worlu, the future Mifery of Sinners is defcribed as the fecond
Death., Rev. ii. 13. of this then, and not of what the Scripture
110 where calls Death., and never fpealcs of at all that we tail
difcover, we think ourfelves obliged to interpret the firft Threatn-
ing , [Gen. ii. 16, 17-) fo far as it concerned the human Soul 5
thib being the only Explication that feems confiftent with other
Scriptures, and the original Law of Propagation ; according to
which Man muft have continued to live (in the ufual Senfe of
the Word) in order to his becoming a Father, even though he
had been left to fall, without any PromiFe of a Saviour, or any
gracious Provifioh made for a Revovery. I now go on to ano-
ther Head.
Prop. IV. God having appointed the firji Man^ to be the fe-
deral Head of all his natural Defendants., and tofiand or fall not
tnly for himf elf but them ^ in Confequence of that when he finned,
they ftnned in him^ and when he fell they fell With him, in his
firfi Trdnfgreffion. Three things are here put together, as (i.)
God entered into a Covenant of Life and Death with Adam
himfelf. (2,) God fo treated with our firft Father, not only
for himfelf, but for all his natural Defcendants. {"3.) In Con-
fequence of that, when he finned and fell they finned and fell,
in him atid with him.
In Proof of thefe things I might argue from Gen. ii. 16, 17.
from Rom. v. li, ^r, from i Cor. xv. 22, 45, 47. But thefe
with feme other Arguments, have been infilled on already 1.
That Adam was a public Perfon, by God's Appointment the
federal Head of all his natural Defcendants, this was not un-
known to the Fathers before Augufxin. For Tome of them
ipeak of our finning in A'lam, of our being caft out o^ Paradife
in him. ** In the firft Adam, faid Iren^us, we offended God,
*' not doing his Commands ; but in the fecond Adam we are
«< reconciled, ^c." To the fame Purpofe that venerable An-
tient fpeaks often. Now how could we lofe the Image of God
in Adam, and fin, in him, if we were not confidered as origi-
nally in him ; and if he w.-^s not ordained by God both the com-
^ In the latter of the two Sermons pointed at before.
mon
Explained and Vindicated. i j
jnon Parent and the legal Reprcfentative of all who were fo de-
fcend from him. Indeed Angufiin himfelf, that {Malleus Pe-
lagianorum) Maul of the Pelagians y as ibme have called him,
could not exprefs thefe Principles of the Dodtrine of Original
Sin, in plainer and ftronger Terms, than Irencsus often did.
** Bccaufe, faid Athanaftus^ we failed not, we fell from Para-
*« rt'r/>." This is as exprefs as can be. He fpeaks of us^ the
Defcendants of Adam^ -Asnot fojiingy yNhtnhe, our hrft Father,
took of the forbidden Fruit ; and ?ls f:>Uingfro?n Paradife by that
Means. How could he talk at this Rate without conceiving of
our firfl: Father as our appointed legal Reprcfentative ? We did
not adually eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge ; We
did not, could not, perfonally tranfgrefs, and fall from Para-
dife : But when Ada??i prelumed to tranfgrefs the Command of
God, and thereby forfeited his Right to all the Happinefs that
he enjoyed in the Terreftrial Paradife^ we, according to this
Ydiiher, fajted not, and fell from Paradife. This v/ay of fpeak-
ing is rather more ftrong than what is commonly chofe by tnany.,
who are firm Believers, and flrenuous Afferters, of Man's Ori-
ginal Righteoufnefs, and God's treatmg with Adam as the fede-
ral Head of Mankind. Again, Gregory oi Nazianzim, fpeak-
ing of the firfl Sin of our firft Father, cries out in thefe very-
Words, *«0 my Infirmity I for that of my firft Father is mine."
As Grace is of the Nature ofy^/nV««/ Strength, and Sin of fpiri-
tual Infirmity, or Weaknefs, in that it debilitates the Powers
of our Souls, difables us for the ferving of God in a due Man-
ner, and greatly unfits us for abiding in the Prefence, and living
in the Service, of the moft Holy One, Gregory might well
confider the Sin of Adam, as an Infirmity, or fpintual Difeafe ;
and he plainly confiders this as the malignant contagious Difor-
der of a publick Pcrfon, or federal Head. \x\ z. '^zni^ Adam' s
Sin was not ours ; it was not our perfonal Fault, our a6lual
Tranfgreflion ; in a Senfe we may confider it as ours, i. e. it
was the Sin ©f our federal Head : As fuch it is juftly imputed
to us, with all the other natural Defcendants of the firfl Man.
While he flood, his Original Righteoufnefs was imputed to us,
and we were virtually righteous in him : When he fell, his Sin
and Guilt became ours : This was the Sentiment of the Fathers
mentioned ; (befules others) whofe Writings are not appe.aled
to, as a Standard of Orthodoxy, but only as antient Tcfiimo-
nies, inOppoiition to fomc, even in our own Times, who pro-
fciung a good Acquaintance v^'ith tlie Fathers, are notvvithftand-
ing confident that we have no Writers clearly, and fully, on
our Side before Aiigujiin. - — I now proceed to ti^c iiiaiii Branch
of our Subject.
I Prep.
1 8 ^he Dooirine of Original Sin, &c.
Prop. V. JVe nofooner become Adani's Children, than we are
fallen degenerate Creatures. : From him, our finning Father and
Head, we derive a Degree of Guilt, and a corrupt Nature,
which renders us not 'only liable, but inclinable, to A6h of fin-
ning, and a Continuance in Sin, to our utter and final Undoing.
This is the true Scripture- Do6\rine of Original Sin. For clear-
ing and confirming this Propofition, I propofe,
Firjt^ To confider a remarkable Text of Scripture, a fair
Explication of which will prefent us with a Proof of Original
Sin in the hill Extent of it, as it confifts of the Guilt of Adam'j
Sin imputed.^ and a Corruption of Nature, called by fome. Ori-
ginal Sin inherent, and by iome, Original Corruption.
Sccondh', To produce, and explain, a large Number of other
Texts, which relate either to the Guilt, or the fmful Corruption^
we derive from our firft Father, in particular,
Thirdly, to add to thofe Scriptures feveral Arguments, which
Mr T. in his late Book has taken no Notice at all of, or touched
but very {lightly. And,
Fourthly, To anfwer Objections.
The Text I begin with is, Eph , ii, 3 — - — " And were by
*' Nature Children of Wrath, even as others. " At the Begin-
ning of the Chapter, the JpoJile^u{s the Ephefians in Mind of
what the Grace of God had done for them ; and that led him
to obferve what their Conditiotr had been, before their Con-
verfion to Chrift. They had *' been dead in Trefpafl'es and
*' Sins'"," but were now quickened, or infpired with a Princi-
ple of living to God : They had " walked according to the
'* Courfc of this World, according to the Prince of the Power
*' of the Air, the Spirit that now, and always, worketh in the
*' Children of Difobedience :" " Among fi;cb fays the Apoftle,
*' we all had our Converfation, in Times pad," the ivholsTime
hefcre our Converfon, " in thcLuftsof our Flcfli, fulfilling the
*"• Defires, not only of the Ktcl'h, but of the Mind; and were
• Some ignorantly rtOraln this to the State of the Heaihe^i, or very
notorious Oft'cnders. But indeed the Scripture acknowledges no Me-
dium between being dead in Sm, and ali^e unto God through Je/us
CMtif}. If we are ali-z^e unto God, being quickned by the lafluence of
his Spirit, we are true regenerate Per/ons, and in a State of Grace, If
\vc are not fo, we are dead in Si/i, let our Frofeflion, Gifts, and Self-
Eltecm, be what they will.
«« by'
Etxpkined and Vindicated. 1 9
** by Nature Children of Wrath even as others :" For explain-
ing which laji Claufe^ I obferve as follows :
1. The SubjeSis of this Propofition, were both the believing
Ephefians^ and the Apoftle himfelf : For he fays not, ye were^
fpeaking in the fecond Perfon, as he had done, ver. i, 2. but,
we were, plainly with a Defign, the more exprefsly, to include
himfelf. Such Tranfitions, from one Perfon to another, are elfe-
where ufed by this Apoftle ; and they are frequcn'. with the beft
Writers. If the Apoftle had continued, in this third Verfe, to
fpeak in the fecond Perfon, as before, what is here affirmed
would have been, neverthelefs, true of him as well as them.
But for the fake of more explicitly including himfelf, as not un-
concerned in the awful, afFeding, humbling Truth of the Text,
he chofe to fay, we were, you Ephefans who weredefcended of
.Heathen Idolaters, and I Paul who was born a Jew, within the
Pale of the vifible Church.
2. The Wrath, fpoken of, is the Wrath of God^, which fig-
nifics either God^s hot Difpleafure againft Sin, and Sinners, or
tht Puni/htnentihdLt he threatens, and infli£ls, for Sin.
3. Children of Wrath is an Hebraifm, and denotes Perfons
worthy of, or liable to, Wrath, which implies a being Sinners :
For as the Wrath fpoken of can be no other than the Wrath of
God, fo it is Sin that expofe« to Wrath, or renders the Creature
liable to God's Difpleafure, and the dreadful Effeds of it. If
the Law is faid to work Wrath, Rom. iv. 15. It is the Law as
tranfgrefled, or, which is plainly the fame, a Tranfgreflion of
the Law that bindeth over to the fufl^ering of Wrath.
Tiiough no Regard is due to thofe rafti Cenfors, who charge
the New Teftament Writers with Barbarifms,2ind Improprietiet
if Language, or with writing corrupt falfe Greek f the Rafhnefs
of which Charge has been demonftrated, by feme very learned
Perfons, on their having taken extraordinary Pains to read over
all the beft Greek Authors, wich a View to compare their Style
and Phrafeology with that of the New Teftament) yet it muft
be acknowledged that there arc frequent Hebraifms in it, as in-
deed there are in the very purcft clalTical Writers, Phrafcs and
Modes of fpeaking that were originally Hebrew. Now in the
f TertuUian underftands it of Mans Wrath ; as thowgh the Apoftle's
Meaning was, we are naturally fubjeft to PaJ/ions, particularly fi»ful
Jnger, which he terms irratiotiale indignatinjum. Lib. 3. De Anima, ch.
i6 "—Cerda, one of his Commentators, fays, by (Vrath feme un-
derlt.ind the De-vil, who may be fo called, fay they, for his Malice a-
gainft Men. Thefe Interpretations, though conAl^ent with the Doc-
trine wc plead for, are generally rejedled, very jultly.
I 2 %le
20 'Jhe Do5frine of Original Sin, Sec.
Sc)Ie of the Hebreivs^ a Perfon additted to, or inclinable to
or liable to, or entitled to fomewhat is called a Son^ Child^ of
that thing. Of thib there are Inftances in Dent. xxv. i. i Sam.
XX. 31. ch. xxvi. 16. 2 Sam.'m. 34. ch. vii. 10. Pfal. Ixxix.
II. — Pfal. en. 10. and in many other Places well known to
Perfons lefs converfant perhaps with their Hebrew Bibles, than
the fludious and ingenious Mr T. In thefe and other Places, A
Child cf beating., is one worthy of being beaten ; Sons of Death,
are Peilons worthy of Death, or appointed to die ; Children of
Iniquity are unjufl wicked Perfons ; fo in the New Teflament
Children of Wifdom, Mat, xi. ig. are truly wife Perfons, or
fuch as are devoted to Wifdom ; The Man of Sin, is a Man,
or Succeflion of Men, guilty of an high Degree of Sin and
Wickednefs ; a Son of Perdition., is a Perfon juftiy liable to Per-
dition J Children of Difohcdience, are difobedient Perfons, and
Children of Wrath, muff denote either angry xvrathful Perfons,
or which is the evident Meaning of this Piirafe in the 'Fext
Perjpns, by Reafon of Sin, worthy of, or juftiy obnoxious to,
divine JVreith.
4. This Charge the Apoftle fixes on himfelf and them, as they
had been before their Converfion. He does not fay, " we are^*
but " we 7C'f?v Children of Wrath."
5. He /peaks of himfelf, and thefe converted Epheftans, as
having been {o equally with others. There is an Emphafis in this
Part of- the Text, even as others ; even as the blind hard hearted
feivs, and blind Idolatrous Heathens ; even as all they who are,
now, Strangers and Enemies to Chrift. Thefe, now, are Chil-
dren of Wrath. Well, fays the Apoftle, Whatever Difference
there is between us and them, we once were what they now
are.
6. The Text exprefsly fays, " we were Children of Wrath
" even as others by Natm-e.," or from our Birth, or as foon as
we became the Offspring of Jdani. He does not fay we became
Sinners, liable to Wrath, bv Means of Education ; or by Imi-
tation, and Cuftom in finning ; or when we came to difcern
between good and evil, and abufed the Liberty given us, fo as
voluntarily to engage in fuch and fuch Wavs of finning, then
vvc firft became Children of IVrath : The Apoftle docs not here
i'peak to that Purpofc ; but to fhow us, when it is that we com-
mence Sinners, by what Means we become fallen degenerate
Creatures, and from whence it is that we are fo liable to fin from
our Infancy, and fo forward to Imitate bad Examples, and give
\\\X.o evil Ways , rather than ^ooi:/ o/;^j, he fays, '* we were Chil-
"• dren of Wrath by Naiure.,'^ i. e. we were born fallen Crea-
tures ; we came into the World Sinners, and as fuch liable to
Wrath,
Explained and Vindicated. ii
Wrath^ in Confequence of the Fall of our firft Father, and of
Mankind in him.
Various Attempts have been made to wrcft this Weapon out
of our Hands.
I. It is pretended that by Nature is meant Cujiom, or acquir-
ed Habits, which are a kind oi fecond Nature. *' By Nature^
" fays, Suidas, (as Dr TFhitby quotes and tranflates him ^)
*' we ought to underftand long Cujlom ; for if Sin was accord-
" ing to Nature, the Fault muft be caft on the Author of Na-
" ture." D^dimus oi y//<?.Vi7«^/7'(2 fays," according to the fame
*' DoSlor JV. that the Word fignifies what is adventitious to
" Nature, not what is according to it." " Nature fays Mr 2"".
'* p. 112. among feveral other things, frequently fignifieth an
*' acquired Nature ; a Nature which Man bring upon themfelves
*' by contraiting either good or bad Habits." But though this
Term Nature^ (pva-ii;, is fometimes, and indeed often, applied to
inveterate Cujiom-i or contrasted Habits, with fome qualifying Ex-
preflion joined therewith; 'tis never put, fingly, in that Senfe,
or without fome additional Word to prevent Miflakes. If Na-
ture on Occafion, may be interpreted Cujlom^ ov acquired Habits,
then any Word wi^atever may ftand for any thing whatever,
according to the Fancies, or Caprice of Men, refolved right or
wrong to fupport fome darling Tenet, and bend the Scripture
to it, if poflible, rather than give it up. I fear this is too plain
an Inftance of fome Mens Prejudice, and undue Freedom with
the Word of God, The A[)ol-|:le fays we were Children of
Wrath by Nature ; this according to the plain conftant Meaning
of the W"ords, mutt fignify that we were born fuch, or we were
fo from our B:rth ; but fome G£;ntlemen rather than yield to this
Evidence of v/hat they are refolved not to believe, plead that
Nature muft fignify Cujlom, or contrauied Habits, i. e. it muft
fignify, here, what it never fignifies eljetubcre : The Apoftle
fpeaks in a Way peculiar to himfelf, and very unguarded, in
that, though he meant no more than to fay, we became Sinners,
and liable to Wtath, by Cu/iom, and acquired Habits of fmning,
he yet exprelles himfelf thus, " we were Children of Wrath ^j;
*' Nature,''^ without any additi<Snal qualifying Word, or Cau-
tion, to prevent Miftakcs. (Again) BecauCe the original Words
Hand in a different Order from our TranHauon, thus ", nKicc
' This Dr Whithy took fro'n Bifliop J . Taylor, or Dr Hammond, or
both But that it makes nothinp' for tiiem, but rather ajrainll them,
Mr Anth. Eurgefs alTeni and proves, in his moll excehent Treatire on
Original Sin. p. 52*, 528.
" I'his Remark we find in Dr Qoodvjin «n the Text, and other?
long before Mr 7. without the Inference from it that he give i us in his
lent Book. —
2 2 7be Do^rine of Original Sin, Sec.
<pv(7n opy^?, Children by Nature of Wrath, 'tis pleaded, that Chil"
dren by Nature fignify no more than a genuine Offspring, or
Children in a moft true and real Senfe. But is it not evident
that TEJtw (pvan are Children by Birth, or /uch as are born Chil-
dren, in Diftin6lion from fuch as become Children after-f
wards.
(3.) Some will have it, that (pvcruhy Nature, fignifies no more
than truly, really, altogether. This Glofs is very antient. 'Tis
referred to by Jerome, Augujiin, and others of the Fathers. It
was, if not firft ftarted by Pelagtus, fondly embraced by him,
and thofe of his Party, who herein are followed by the^ocinians,
Grotius, and the others already referred to. But, (i) *Tis
queftionable whether any good Greek Writers ever ufe the Word,
-in this Senfe, meerly for truly, really, &c. — (2-) If
fometimes it bears this Senfe in other Writings (of which I am
fenfible Inftances are alledged) 'tis conftantly ufed Otherwife in
the New Teftament. See Gal. ii. 15. *' We who are Jews
«< by Nature, rftei? (pvcru laS«toi, /. e. who are born Jews, in
«« Contradirtindion to Profelytes." Chap. iv. 8. *' Ye did
«« Service to them which by Nature zxe no Gods," f*»)^u(r« aa-i
Sfotf, /. e. ye ferved thofe Perfons, or Things, which in ihem-
felves are Partakers of no divine Nature, no Pcrfedlion, that
might juftly entitle them to your religious Regards. Rom. i\,
14. *' The Gentiles do by Nature the things contained
in the Law," /. e. by their natural Light, and Powers, they are
dire6led to the doing of fome things required in, and by, the
written Law. Neither here, nor any where elfe that I know
of, does the Word, (pvan, fignify no more than truly, &c. So
that the Pelagian Glofs on this Word, as in Eph. ii. 3. though
far from being modern, is evidently falfe ^. The Word which
we render, by Nature, does really fo fignify. Neither
Augujiin
w Erafmus obferves that Nature h here oppofed to the Grace of God
afterwards mentioned. M.x A. Burgefs c^\io\.e&ChryfoJ}om z.% ex'^Xa.'xnlng
the Text thus. " We are by Nature the Children of the Wrath of
" God, and nothing elfe ; for as he who is the Son of a Man, is by
*• Nature a Man, fo are we the Children of Wrath. Which Quota-
tion I give as from him, not having taken Notice of it myfelf Chry-
foflom indeed has been referred to as a Stranger to the Doflrine of
Original Si", but very unfairly, as G. J- VoJJius (in his mofl learned
Pelagian Hiftory) and others have fhown. He might not interpret
fome particular Texts as we do : but as fome Time before his Death,
(about the Beeinning of the Vch Century) he greatly lamented Pf/«-
g'-us the Monk, as one fallen into pernicious Errors, fo much in his
Writings iliow.-. he was ir\ the fame Sentiments about Nafure and Grace
With Jv'^uih'/i, and hir Followers.
Explained and Vindicated, z ^
Neither Augujiin^ nor Calvin., nor any other unqueffionable
AfTerter of the -Guilt and Corruption of Mankind, as deriving
ixovc\. Adavii^ could ever exprefs it more plainly than the Apof-
tle does here. If M^n were difpofed to take their Sentiments
from the Scripture, rather than endeavour to bend the Scripture
to their own preconceived Notions, one would think they might
eafily difcover the Dodtrine of Original Sin in thisText. IVe, you
Ephcjians^ and I Pciuly zvere Children of Wrath^ liable to divine
Wrath by Reafon of Sin, even as others^ by Nature^ or from
our Birth. Could any thing like this be affirmed of Man in his
primitive State ? Man was at firft, by Nature^: holy, and happy ^
as has been proved. But in every Age, fince the Fall, IVIan-
Jcind are born guilty, finful, and miferable. For they are by
Nature not holy and happy, (as our firft Parents were originally)
but Children of i/rath, which fuppofes their being, fonif Way
or other. Sinners in the Sight of God, and liable to Death',
and Mifefy, in Confequence of it. Indeed, we are not born
fo guilty, as Adam's y?r// Sin made him, or equally guilty with
what a Courfe of actual finning afterwards makes us ; but by
Nature we are Children of JVrath, liable to fome Degree of
•Wrath, or Punifhnient ; and from whence is that ? 'Tis
owing not to our Nature as made by God, but to fome Sin or
other committed antecedently to our adtual Exiftence, which
we were virtually concerned in. Now that was the Fall of
Adam, or the firft Sin of our fiirft Father, who being appointed
to (irand or fall for his natural Defcendants, as well as himfelf,
thereupon he falling, " they fell with him, in his firft Trani'-
greflion." In Confequence of which, no fooncr do v/e become
his Offspring than Guilt is imputed to us, and we are deprived
of Original Righteoufnefs, and born in Sin. Here then, from
a Text of Scriprure fairly interpreted, the Words taken in
their plain obvious Senfe, v/e have fome F.vidence both of
what Divines call Original Sin imputed, and of Original Sin
inherent. The former is the firft Sin of our finning federal
Head, fo far reckoned ours as to conftitute us in fome Degree
guilty. T\\Q other con^\{k^ in, a Want of the Original Righ-
teoulnefs of Man, and a Corruption of Nature ; from whence
it is that from our Infancy we appear averfc to what is good,
and inclinable to what is evil, in tiie Sight of (joJ, auvl liurtful
to ourfclvcs. A Proof of botii thefc Branches of Ori'^inal Sin,
our native Guilt, and our native Qirruption, is given us in thefe
Words of the Apofile, " we weie by Nature Children cf
Wrath, even as others," from which Text I now proceed,
I A Tiecondl-j
24 ^he De^rine of Original Sin, &c.
Secondly, To produce and explain a large Number of other
Texts which relate to one or other, of the two Branches of
Original Sin mentioned, in particular. Thefe Texts arc. Gen.
V. 3. ch. vi. 5. ch. viii. 21. Job xi. 12. ch. xiv. 4. Pfal. xiv.
I, 2, 3. Pfal. li. 5. P/a/. Iviii. 3, Prov. xxii. 15. and ch.
xxix. 15. 7/a. xlviii 8. ^o/^w iii. 6. Rom. v. 12, '^<?- i Cor. xv.
21. with feveral others.
Gen. V. 3. Here the Image, or Likenefs of Adam, in which,
after his Fail, he begat a Son, flands oppofed to the Image of
God, in which Man was made at firft. For Mofes had faid,
'uer. I. " In the Day that God created Man, in the Likenefs
«' of God made he him." And in this third Verfe, fpeaking
of Adam, as he was after the Fall, he does not fay, " he begat
*' a Son in the Likenefs of God," but '* he begat a Son in his
** own Likenefs, after his Image.^' Now what is here obferved
of Adam muft refer to him, either as Man, or as he was a
good Man, or as he was a mortal ftnful Man. Some would un-
dsrfrand it in the fr /I Senfe ; but who that has not a Turn t»
ferve, could allow himfelf to put fo low a Conftrudlion on the
Words of the infpired Hiftorian ; as though he fhould fpeak to
this Purpofe, Adam begat not a Lion, or Horfe, or any other
of the brutal Species, but a Man F Others have chofe
the fecond Senfe, as though what Mofes meant was, that Seth
the Son refembled Adam his Father, as a very good Man. But
though I incline very muj^-h to believe ^contrary to what Tatian
of old fuggefted) that Adam, after his Fall, became a true
Penitent, and was forgiven by a gracious God ; I fee no Rea-
fon to underftand the Likenefs to Adam, in that Senfe, to be
here intended ; becaule 'tis not faid *' Adam begat a Son, who
*' at Length becam.e like himfelf a Man of true Piety ;" But,
*' he begat a Son in his own Likenefs, ^r." As therefore
Adarn upon, and by, his Fall became_/>-a//, mortal, zndfmful-y
Mfes here teaches us that the Corruption, Frailty, and Mor-
tality, cotra£l:ed by the Fall, defcended from Father to Son.
Seth ^, as a Son of Adam, was like to Adam the Sinner j and
if
* Theodoret is charged with fpeaking, as though Setb, Enoch, Noah,
and fuch likejsminent Men v.ere free from Original Sin. So the Rab-
bins, fay of i>o<32andochers, that they were ijoithout e'vil Concupifcence.
The Papijii, too, fonie of them, are againll afcribing Original Sin
to the Virgin Mother of God : The Mahometam fay of their falfe
Prophet, tliat wht^ri he was about four Years old, feme Angels iaid
ho'd on him, diiTifted him, c ea'ifed his inteitines, and took out a
csrrain black Drop which is in every Man, the Seed, or Principle, of
all W.-ckednefs. 'I'hii was done wicftout putting him to any Pain, and
10
Explained and Vindicated. 25
if Seth was fuch a one, (o is every other Defcendant of Adam
hy Nature. We are born not like to him as originally holy ;
not like to him as one who became a Man of true Piety, (that
Senfe the Deniers of Qj-iginal om contend for no more than
•we) ; therefore like to hi?n as made by the Fall, mortal and
fmful. Mr T. takes no Notice of the Antitheils between the
Likcnefs of God, ver. \. and this Likenefs of Adam., ver.
3. On the other Hand, he and other Pelagians fuppofe
thefe two to be the fame. In the Likenefs to God wherein Man
■was made originally, he is, fince the Fall, in every Age born.
Adam was made like to God^ and Seth wis naturally like to
him, as he was at firft, to Gdd. But this Senfe can by no
Means be admitted ; becaufe Adam was formed with Original
Righteoufnefs, and loft it by the Fall, as has been proved. It
muft therefore be a corrupt degenerate Likenefs, or a Likenefs
to Adam Z.S coxxu^x. and degenerate, that is here intended.
Gen. vi. 5. " And God faw that the Wickednefs of Man
'< was great on the Earth, and that every Imagination of the
*« Thoughts of his Heart was only evil continually." Mofes,
to give the Reafon of God's fending a general Flood, repre-
fents him as obferving, feeing with Diflike, " that the Wick-
" ednefs of Man was great ;" then, to account for the general
Prevalency of Wickednefs in the Antediluvian Times, he adds,
that " every Imagination of the Thoughts of his Heart was
«« evil and only evil, and tliat continually," every Day. When
God firft threatened to drown the old World, Wickednefs was
already become general ; and at the Time fet for the Dcftruc-
tion threatened, " all Flefh had corrupted his Way," there
being but a fingle Family left in which any Thing of true Re-
ligion was found, ch. vii. i. Now from whence was this fo
univerfal a Corruption of Manners ? Mofes phinly afcribes it.
to that, which infers a Corruption of the Nature of Man from
his Buth ; for having faid, " God faw that the Wickednefs
*' of Man was great in the Earth," which expiefTes the adtual
Wickednefs of the Sinners of the old World, he adds, " and
" that every Imagination, ^f." The Heart of Man is put
for his Soul. This the God of Nature has formed with a mar-
vellous thinking Power. The human Soul, fay fome, is a think-
ing Power in continual AtSlion, and Exercilc. Others deny
that it continually thinks, and define it to be *' a fpiritual, or
to render him pure from Sin. Thefe Fancies, how ridiculous foever.
are lefb fo, tlian their Dodrine who altogether deny Original Sin. —
T don't remember that this Text {Gen. v. 3.) was made ufe of by
.-juguflin. Proffer, Sec. in their Difputes with the Pelagians ; but to
many learned pious Moderns, our Argument for Original Sin from tliit
Text, appears juft and conclufive.
*' imma-
26 The Do5lrine of Original Sin^ &c.
*« immaterial Being, endued with the Powers Thinking.**
Which foever of thefe two Opinions, is the righter ('that I
don't now debate) this afFeding Account is given of the Souly
in it's fallen State y that every Imagination, Figment, Forma-
tion, of the Thoughts of it, is evil, only evil, continually evil.
Whatever it frameth within itfelf, as a thinking Power, or a
Subftance endowed with thinking Powers, it is an evil Forma-
tion. This Mofes fpake of the Antediluvians. But muft we
reftrain and confine it to them ? Since all the adlual Wicked-
jiefs of thofe old Sinners before the Flood took it's Rife from
the continual evil Formations of their corrupt Hearts, does not
this diredl us to confider them as having been ill inclined from
their Infancy, and Sinners from their Birth P And if they were
fo, it will follow that all others were fo too. Noah was fuch an
one by Nature, and if afterwards he proved a juft, upright
Man, it was becaufe he found Grace in the Eyes of the Lord,
ch. vi. 8, 9. cb. vii. i. Noah's Charadler, as a very good Mao
in an evil Day, is put in Oppofition to that of the Sinners of
the old World. He was naturally in the fame State with them,
and his not continuing fo was owing to his having found Grace
in the Eyes of the Xvord.
G^«. viii. 21. " For the Imagination of Man's Heart is
<« evil from his Youth." The Lord having promifed never to
drown the whole Earth again for Man's Wickednefs, adds
this Reafon, /or the Imagination, &c. Inftead oi for fome read
although, but though ihz Hebrew Vnxudc »^ fometimes fignifies,
a.lthough, it generally fignifies /or, and as this rendring is agree-
able to, both the Targums on the Pentateuch, the Oriental Ver-
fions, the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and many modern Ver-
fions, befides our own, fo the Scope of the Place feems to re-
quire it. The promfe, anti Reafon added, may be to this
Purpofe. " I will not be provoked, by the Wickednefs of
'* Mankind, to fend another general Flood, for, or becaufe,
*' Mankind of themfelves are finfully inclined from their Child-
*« hood ; was I therefore to fend fuch a Flood as often as
<« Maiikiiul, if left to themfelves, will deferve it, I muft re-
" peat it in every Age, and fo be continually deftroying
«' them from off the Face of the Earth, which I don't choofe
«* to do." ''The'^'^ox'l Itn agination , feizer, as has been hinted
includes the Thoughts, Inclinations, with every thing that the
Soul, as a Being endued with a thinking Power, forgeth and
frameth v/ithin itrelt". In the Original it is, '< the Imagination
»« of the Heart of Jdam," which Name is put not only for our
firft Father, and botli our firft Parents, but for Mankind in general,
or any one of tlieDeftendants (y{ Jldom. The Word which we ren-
der Youth, includes Childhood, Infancy, tb.e earlieft Age of Man,
the whole Time from his Birth, or as fome fay, from his For-
mation
Explained and Vindicated* 27
mation in the Womb. The Text then might very juftly be
tranflated thus, " for the Imagination of the Heart of Adaniy
«* fevery one of Mankind) is evil from his Birth." The great
Grotius does not forbid this rendering. But to obh'ge the Pela-
giatis he pretends it to be an Hyperbole^ exprcfling the Earlincfs
of the Corruption of Mankind, who, being led by evil Exam-
ples foon begin to corrupt themfelves. But from whence is it
that every one of Mankind is fo forward early to imitate evil
Examples, rather than good ones ; and that they difcover a per-
verfe finful Difpofition as foon as the Principle of Reafon plant-
ed in their Natures begins to difcover itfelf; if it is not be-
caufc the Imagination of every Man's Heart is evil from his
earlieft Age ? Mr T. is I think fingular in his rendring of this
Text ; for he tranflaies it thus, " Although the Imagination
.<< of Man's Heart fhould be evil from his Youth." But (i.)
Tho' the Particle ^3 chi fometimes fignifies although, it in
mofl: Places fignifies for, and we are not to recede from the
moft ufual Signification of a Word without Neceffity. (2),
If inftead oi for, we read although, this won't at all invalidate
our arguing from hence, for the original Corruption of the
Nature of Man fince the Fall. ('3). No Notice is taken by
Mr. T. of the very large extenfive Signification of the Word
which we render Touth. Upon the whole, admitting although
inftead oi for, which however does not appear neceflary, the
plain Meaning of the Text is this. <' I will not fend another ge~
*' neral Flood for the Sake of the Wickednefs of Mankind,
*' although the Imagination, (every Figment or Formation)
** of the Heart of every Man is evil from his earlieft Age, or
** Birth." • The Hebreivs from the two Texts laft
mentioned, ch. vi. 5. and ch. viii. 21. take Occafion to exprefs
corrupt Nature, by the evil Figment '^ , and to fpeak of it as
dwelling in a Man from his Birth, or firft Formation. " In
" an Hebrew Commentary on Genefis, fays Aynfworth, a Rab-
" bin being aflced, when is the evil Imagination put into a
*' Man'', his Anfwer is, from the Hour of his being formed."
y This Appellation the great Dr O^ojen, fomewhere prefers to the
common eftablifiied Phrafe, Original Sin,
^ This Way of fpeaking we dilallow. From hence, and feme other
Paflages in the Jenvijh Books, feme take Occafion to reproach our
Doftrine of Original Sin as a feivijh Figment j as others, no !efs a^b-
furdiy, father it on Augujlin, or the Schoolmer,, or the -nti Corijiian
Roman Chur.h --- Remarkable is the Liberty fonie take with this Text
and the foregoirg. In that, ch. vi 5. hy Man they underiland not tho
jlntedi/wvians in general, but the Sons of men oppofed to the Sons of
God, mentioned in 'i/«\ 2. and becaufe the vvickedellof Men are not
without
2 8 'rhe DoElr'me of Original Sin^ &c.' |
In another Tra£l referred to by Dr Owen, the Queftion being
put, From what Time doth the evil Concupifcence bear Rule
in a Man ? From the Time of his Birth, or from the Time
of his forming in the Womb ? A Rabbi anfwers, from the
Time of his Conception, and forming in the Womb. Siich is
the bright Evidence of leveral Scriptures, fpeaking clear and
full to this Purpofe, that many of the blinded Jews (with
all their fond Conceits of the Freedom of their Wills, and
the Strength of their moral and fpiritual Powers) are fomewhat
more fenfible of the Con-uption of human Nature by the Fall of
Adam, than many profefling Chriftians, and Divines, are wil-
ling to be.
Job. V. 6, 7. *' Although Affli(£lion cometh not forth of
" the Duft, yet Man is born unto Trouble, as the Sparks
*' fly upwards." The Word that we here render AffliSiiony
is ambiguous through the Hebrew Bible : 'Tis put fometimes
in this Senfe, and fometimes for Iniquity. For what Reafon ?
To fignify that thefe two, Sin and Sorrow^ or Jffii£iion^ are
juftly infeparable. Sin is the Caufe of AffiiSiion, and this, of
whatever Kind it is, is the genuine Effedl of Sin. Whereas the
Pelagians of old, and from them others in the laft Age, pre-
tended that innocent Man was originally liable to Death, this
is entirely groundlefs, as we ftiall hear afterwards. Mortality,
Affli(Slions of all Sorts, and Death are, according to the Scrips
ture, the juft penal Confequences of Sin. It feems not comr
patible with the moral Perfedlions of God, for Sorrows and
Affli6i:ions of any Kind to be appointed for guiltlefs innocent
Creatures. If Chrift was a Man of Sorrows, it is becaufe,
though pure and fpotlefs in himfelf, he became rcfponiibJe for
the Sins of many others. And if every one of the natural Pot
flerity of the firft Man is born unto Trouble, it muft be bi caufe,
in Confeque ce of Adam's Fall, he is born a Sinner. Was
Man originally made for the fufFering of Trouble ? No. Was
Man, while he preferved his primitive Rectitude, liable to the
fufFering either of Death, or Troubles ot any Kind ? No. Can
fo equitable, and kind, a Being as the great God is, oblige
any of his innocent, fmlefs, Creatures, to the enduring of
Sorrow and Affli£lion ? It does not appear to us that he can.
Do not the facred Sciiptures fignify to us that Death, and
without fome good Thoughts, and have, at Times, fome Checks of
Confcience, &c. which are Sentiments pleailng to God ; therefore
the meaning of that Text is, that thofe common fort of People
were very ill dirpolcd, and the Thoughts of their Hearts were evil
for the mofl part To the fame purpofe fome bold Criticks would
"aiiic aWfiy the plain icnfe of that other Text in ib. viii. 21,
all
Explained and Vindicated. 29
all Troubles, are the Fruits and Effc<5ls of Sin ? They moft
certainly, and plainly, do fo. Are the eledt Angels, the Spi-
rits of juft Men departed out of our World, or any pure fin-
lefs Creatures, whatever, involved in any Kinds of Trouble,
or liable thereto ? 'Tis reafonably prefumed they are not.
Yet Mati, every Defcendant of Jdajji as fuch, is born unto Trou-
ble. The prefent Life of Man is fhort and affliflive, Job^ xiv.-
I. This would not, could not, have been, if Man had not
finned. 'Tis true, the "Treafon of the Head of a Family may,
and does, involve all his Defcendants in Difgrace and Pover-
ty, though thofe Defcendants of his are no way guilty of their
Father's Treafon. In like Manner, fay fome, Pvlankind may-
be born for the fufFcring of Trouble, in Confequenee of the
Sin of Adom^ though they are not born Sinners. But if this
was really the Cafe, if Adam's firft Sin was the unhappy Oc-
cafion to his Defcendants of fome (hoi t temporal Inconvenien-
cies only, why is the fame Term applied to the two different
Thing?, Si)i and Jffli^ion F Why does the Scripture reprcfent
Sin and Sorrow of all Kinds as infeparable ? Lam. iii. 33. Rom.
viii. JO- ch. vi. 23. ch. v. 12. That Man i.s indeed born for
* the Suffering of Trouble, all can perceive : The Heathen were
not without an affecting Senfe of this moft evident Truth.
One of them obferves with Concern, that " Mankind was
*' born for Cares, or Difquietude." Another (peaks of the
Life of Man, and Sorrow, as things nearly allied to each
other. A third complains of Nature as an unkind Step-Mo-
ther, for bringing Man into the World with a Body naked and
feeble, and with a Mind liable to Fears and much Anxictude ;
on which pathetical Complaint of one of the greatefi of the
Heathen Sages, Augujlin gives us this juft Remark : " He ac-
*' cufed Nature, he faw the thing itfclf, but was ignorant of
*' the Original of it, or from wiience it is that this heavy
*' Yoke is laid on the Children of Adam.'" The lart Words
of that Remark of his are taken from Eccl. xl. 1. " Great
*' Travail is created for every Mm, and an 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."
Job xi. 12. ** Vain Man would be wife," f'A'ouId be rec-
koned fo, or takes upon him, in finding Fault with the di-
vine ConduiSf, as though he vi'as extremely wife) *' tho' Man
*« be born like a wild Aflcs Colt." In the Original it is, hol-
IczUy or empty, Man ivi'U be zvije, (or talk and a<5} as tho' very
wife,) though, {A\\6., but,) Man, Aiam' he horn, (wiN be born
in every Age,) the Colt of a tvild Aj), which is noted for being
a (Uipid and intrud.4lfle Animal. Such an one is Alan from his
Birth.
^o The Do3irine of Original Sin, &c.
Birth. Mr T. acknowledges that «* we are born quite Igno*
*' rant, as void of adluai Knowledge as the Brutes them-
*« felves." We are born, too, with many fenfual Appetites,
and confequently liable to Temptation, and Sin. But Man's
being born without a6^ual Knowledge, and with fenfual Appe-
tites, as it is far from reaching the plain Import of the former
Texts, fo it feems to fall Ihort of the Significancy of this ;
in which Man, as born into the World, is compared to an
Animal remarkably dull and intra£lable,as all theyoung Offspring
of Adam, very early, appear to be ; much more in Regard to
Religious Inftrudlions, and what is fpiritually good, than any
thing elfe. What is elfewhere fpoken of IJhmael, " he will be
" a wild Afs Man," fo it is in the Hebrew >, the fame is by
Xopbar applied to every one of the Race of Adam, as born
into the World. Let him fwell ever fo much with a Conceit
of his own Wifdotn, or Goodnefs, or moral Abilities ; let him
admire and dote upon himfelf ever fo much (imagining that his
rational Powers arc whole and found, not at all darkned or weak-*
ned by theFallJ he is by Nature, no better than the Colt of a wild
Afs, in Regard to the things of God, and what is truly good J
the Juftnefs and Propriety of which humbling Charafter is con-
firmed by, the Slownefs to learn divine Things, and the impe-
tuous Propenfity towards iinful Practices that difcovers itfelf in
all young Children ; thofe {<:w extraordinary Inftances alone
excepted, in whom a Principle of Grace inflilled begins to dif-
cover itfelf) almoft as early, and, together with a contrary
Principle of Corruption, while they are yet Infants, or very
young Children.
Job xiv. 4. ch. XV. 14. Thefe two I put together becaufc
the latter ferves, in Part, to explain the former. tFho, fays
Job, can bring a clean thing, or Perfon, out of an unclean ?
Not one. This is mofl exprefs ; and the Methods ufed to
evade it, convince nie of the extreme Badrcfs of a^Caufe, that
requires fuch perverfe unnatural Conftrudlions of a plain Text.
Job had reflefted on the Shortnefs of human Life, and the for-
rowful, uncertain, imperfect State of every one of Jdam*s
Children in the prefent World, ■:;?;•. i, 2, 3. Then he carries
his Thoughts to that which is the Spring, and Original^ of fuch
a State, the Original Corruption of Man. The Words can, I
think, fairly admit of no other Conftrudlion than one of thefe
two. IVho, what Creature, what finite Power, can make an
innocent, holy, righteous, Perfon to proceed from a Parent de-
filed With Sin f Not one in the World can do this* Gr^ who
can, in a natural and ordinary Way, make a perfg^ly holy
» Gen. xvi. 12.
Perfon
Expiaified and Vindicated, 3 i
Perfon to be born of a fmful Woman ? Not one^ not God
himfeU" can do this. He did indeed once bring a perfectly clean,
or holy, Man out of an unclean Mcitlier, a Woman fainted
with Sin J but that was an extraordinary and fupernatural Ef-
itOt. For clearing or confirming one or other of thefe two
Interpretations which amount to the fame, and equally fervc
our Purpofe in producing this Text ; I obfcrve that throughout
the Scripture ^in is defcribed as Uncleanngfsy and a Sinner as
an unclean thing : On the contrary, Righteoufnefs^ or Holi-
nejs^ is exprefl'ed by Purity^ or Cleannefs of Heart and Hands :
The truly good Man, the holy, righteous Perfon is defcribed
as clean : San^ification, and "Jujiification too, is in the Style of
Scripture, Purification^ Cleanftng, Sec. Now agreeably to thefe
and fuch like Ways of fpeaking, fo frequent in the facrcd
Writings, this Text aflerts the natural ImpoiTibiUty of any one
of Mankind being born clean, i. c- guiltlefs, zndjinlefs, bc-
caufe he proceeds from them who in, and of, themfclves are
unclean, i. e. guilty and defiled with Sin. The only oppofite
Conftru£tion that carries with it any fiiew of Reafon, and
Probability, is ibis, that whereas the Heavens and Stars arc re-
prefented as not clean, or pure, ia the Sight of God, ch. xv. 15.
ch. XXV. 5. For the fame Reafon, Man, as born into th<;
World, may be defcribed as unclean, comparatively to God^
though not tainted and defiled with Sin. But (i.j Alan is not
here fpoken of in Comparifon of God, but as in himfelf un-
clean from his Birth. Though therefore the moft perfedl Cre;i-
tures may be reprefented as not pure in Comparifon of God
(their Purity, or Perfection, being inconfiderable, and not
worth mentioning, if compared with his), it does not follow
that Man can be fpoken of as born unclean, if born gu'itUfs riinJ
finlefs, when he is defciibed, not as compared with God, but
as he is abfolutely in himfelf. (2.) When the Heavens are
reprefented as not pure, or perfcdt, in Comparifon of what
God is, and Man at the fame Time is fet forth as unclean, his'
Uncleanncfs is defcribed by his being tttirighteous ; and that al-
ways mt?ins gtiilty ox finful. I add, that whereas fome vvouKl
refer this Text to the natural Frailty and Mortality of IMan,
Mortality is the EfFed; of Sin, and prefuppofes Sin in the 'iub-
je6l to which it is afcribed ; and the finlefs Frailty of Mankind
is never called Uncleannefs. The Scptuagint tranfiates this
Text thus, *' Who fliall be clean from Filth ? Not on?,
*' even though his Life on Earth be a fingle Day." Tb.is
Rendring, though not according to the Hebrew, was followed
3 2 The Do£frine of Original Sin, &c.'
by all the Fathers, thereby difcovering their Unacqualntance
with the Hebrew b, and their Knowledge of Original Sin.
Pfal. XIV. I, 2, 3. " There is none who doeth good.
<' They are all gone afide, they are together become filthy :
•' There is none who doeth good, no not one." The Apoftle
refers to this Paflage, with others, Rom. iii. to make way for
confirmina; the Impoflibility of any one of Mankind being jufti-
fied by the Works of the Law he is under. When the Pfal-
mift here, and Pfal. liii. i, 3. fays, " there is none who doeth
<* good," he can't mean that there are none who are perfuaded
to become truly good, none who are ever brought to chufe the
things that pleafe God ; but the Meaning of his Words muft be
this-. There are none who naturally incline this Way; none
wiio of themfelves chufe and pradtice what is truly good in the
Sight of God ; or there are none, of the Pofterity of Adam,
who, if left to themfelves, would ever do that which is good in
the Eye of the Law of God. What can the Pfalmifl intend
lefs than this, which as it is agreeable to Chriftian Experience,
and common eafy Obfervation, fo it is not to be accounted for
but on a Suppofition of the univerfal Corruption of human Na-
ture, arifing from the Fall of Adam, and Mankind in him. Some,
to qualify the Univerfality of the Expreflion, in ver. i, 3,
would infert the Word, almoji. There is none who doeth good,
/. e. there are very few. But as the Apoftle quotes this Paflage,
with others, in Proof of the univerfal Corruption of Mankind,
and the Impoflibility of any Man's being juftified by the Works
of the Law he is under, Rom. iii. 9, 10, 11, 12, I9» 20. So
the Pfalmift himfclf plainly forbids fo bold an Addition to the
Text, in that, repeating the Sentiment of the laft Claufe of,
ver. I. he not only fays, there is none who doeth good, but adds,
no v.ot one.
Pfal. li. 5. " Behold, I was fhapen in Iniquity, and in Sin
*' did my Mother conceive me." Thefe Words, of the peni-
tent Pfalmift, aft'ord us as clear a Proof of the Original Cor-
ruption of Man fince the Fall, as almoft any Words can well do.
Great Pains therefore have been taken, by one and another, to
evade the Force of them. The Pfahnili here confefles, be-
wails, aiid condemns hinifelf for, his native Corruption, or De-
generacy, as that which principally gave Birth to the horrid Sins
of Murder, and Adultery, he had been overtaken with. He ac-
knowledged, bewailed, and fo repented of, not only his paiti-
b Orlgen and Jerome, were indeed tolerable Hebricians, but in Com-
pliance with others, they quote the Text as it was found in the Greek
Bible, then commonly ufed. In that Form 'tis quoted by Clemens
Romanus, Jujiin Martyr, Origin, &,C.
cular,
Explained and Vindicated. 33
tular a^Slual Sins, but tlie Sin of his Nature, alfo, from which
they proceeded. This he points at under the Chara6ter of Ini-
quity and Sin, in which he fpeaks of himfelf as fliapen, and con-
teived. -Behold, Why did the Plalmilt prefix this ? lo
render the Confeffion here made the more remarkable ; and to
reprefent the Truth here exprefFcd as a Matter of no fmall
Weight and Importance 1 was Jhapen. This paiTive
Verb denotes fomewhat in wliici) neither David nov his Parents
had any adlive Concern. It refers to that Formation of the hu-
man Body in the Womb which is God's own Work, and which
the Pfalmift contemplates with fo much pleafing Wonder, Pf^L
cxxxix. 13, 14, 15, 16. In Iniquity, or with Iniquity, fo Sin
is often defcribed, as being of the Nature of Injujiue, Unrigh-
teoufnejs, with refpe£l to God, if not others,— and in^
or with Sin, did viy Mother conceive ?ne. The Word which wc
render conceive, fignifies properly to tvarm, or cherijh hylVarinth,
As le.irned Men obferve, it does not fo properly refer to the
A6t of conceiving as the A6t of cherijhing, what is already con-
ceived, till the Time comes for it's Birth. The Queftion now
is, what does the Pfalmift mean by this? Whofe Iniquity and
Sin does he here confefs, his own or another's ? Vihis own, does
not this amount to an exprefs Acknowledgment of his being con-
ceived, and born in Sin, which Language, as often ufed, feems
to be derived from this Paffage of the Pfalmift.
Dr Whitby obferves that almoft all the Fathers before Augii-
Jiin do fo underftand this Text, as that no Argument can be
drawn from it in Favour of the Dodrine of Original Sin ac-
cording to them.
R. I. This Aflertion is too large and unguarded. As almoft
all the Ante- AugujVinian Fathers clearly aflert the Dodrine plead-
ed for by us, fo (as the moft learned G. J. Fojfius (hows^ fe-
veral of them allcdge this particular Text in Proof of it. So
Origen, Cyril, hafil the great, Hilary, Ambrofe, 'Jeronie.
1. If it was fo, as Dr IF. pretends, what is it to the Purpofe ?
Weie the Fathers before Augujfin, any more than Augvjlin
himfelf and his Followers, infallible Expofitors of Scripture ?
Nay were any of the Fatheis near fo judicious as mai>y of the
learned and pious Moderns ?
Some, of the Aniieitts, as quoted by Dr Whitby, would un-
derftand the Pfalmift lK;re as fpeaking of his Mother Eve. But
none of the Moderns, that F knov/ of, go into this groundlefs
Suppofition. Thouglifiy^./iiight be called the Pfalmift's Ahther^
jTince (he was <' {"HeMoilier of all living," th?re is no Manner
K -of
:?4 1 he BoiJfrine of Original Sin^ &c.
of Reafon for linilerftatiding this Text concerning lief, whrt
could not, with any Propriety, he faid to conceive him ; and
whom he would have called his firfi Mother^ or fpoken of in
fome (uch diftinguifliing Way as tbcd^ if lie had pointed at her
rather tiian his imnnediarc Paient.
Some otiiersof the Antients (as Dr IF. obferves from Hefychi-
us and Scverus) by M'^ther, in this Text, underffuid Concupi'
Jence as the Mother of Sin ; but though what the Apoftle James
tells us of every adual Sin proceeding from a Man's own Lujf^
carries in it ilune Confirn-i<Ufon of that Do^^rine of Original 6in
which we plead for, as implied in this penitent Confcffion of the
Plalmill ,; yet not iuji any more than i\w. general Mother of Man '
kind^ but the Pfalmilt'i own proper Mother Vi\\x^\iQ underftood
to be pointed at in this Tcxf. Howevbr it feems pretty evident
that he fpeaks not of her Iniquity, or Sin, but his oiun. This
is denied by none of tbe Moderns, except the more cautious
con'idcrate Oppo'cis of the Dodfrine of Origt?wl Sin^ wiiich
Doitrinc mull: Ihuid impregnable upon the Bafis of this Text,
un!e(s it can be proved that 'tis his Alother's Iniquity and 57«,
not his oivn that he here bewails. Among them who apprelvjnd
the Nejclfity of aflerting this., fome are not afraid to inhnuate
that David's Mother had been an Adulterejs., and he was the
Son of an W e. But,
i. There is not the jeafi Reafon to think this of the Pfalmift^s
Mother, whom, once and again, he makes a very honourable
Mention of, Pfal. Ixxxvi. i6.— ■* Pfal. cxvi. l6.
?.. If David had been the Son of au Adulterels, to what Pur-
pofc was this inf^ited in a penitential Difcourfe ; fince it would
have been, an Unhappinels indeed, • but no Crime? Is it tne
Manner of a Penitent to impuie Iniquity to another rather than
himfclf ? Why flioiild Da'u/V/ expofe the long palt Wickednefs
of his Parent, when he was concerned to record his own Sins,
and his own Repentance ? I conclude therefore, that David's
Mother was a very honefl pious Woman ; more honeft than they
are wife, who enflave themfelvcs to an Hypothefis that requires
fo grouiiulefs an Iiiterpietation of this penitent ConfelTi-in of
tlic Plaimifi:; snd that i)/77>/W did not here charge his Mother
with ti,e Sm of Aduhery., and himfelf with the Infamv of being
a Bajlard Others therefore by Iniquity and -.9//; in thi*
Text, unJeiihind not the Sin of Adultery., but the nnful Cor-
ruption that always attends thole Aclions tiiat Naiui;; teaches,.
in Order to the propagating of the human Species. But,
I. 7'hough hnrul Creatures fm in every thing t!;ey ilo, it is
not the Manner of the Scripture to give t'le Names of Iniquity
and Sin to (uch Anions as are, in the Nature of them, lawful
"nnd lequifue.
2. One
Explained and Vindicated. 55
2. One of the Words here ufed denotes, as has been faid,
Tomewhat that the God of Nature alone was an Agent in. Job
xxxi. 15. The Iniquity therefore here contefl'ed was not his
Parents, but his oivn, which the good Man confelFes, not ta
throw Blame on the Author of his Nature, or to extenuate his
own Faults, but rather to aggravate them, and to condemn
himCeif, as being by Nature prone and liable to the greateft Sins,
even though there were no evil Examples, or Temptations, to
draw him alide.
Mr T, obferves that iox Jhapen^ we fhould read born or brought
forth, and for conceive,^ we fhould read, warm or cherijh, i. e.
h-^ nurfmg. Upon a critical Examination of the Words, he
chufes to render them thus: ** Behold, I was born in Iniquity,
*' and in Sin did my Mother nurfe me ;" and left this franfla-
tion (hould feem fufficient for our Purpofe, and dellru£live of
his own Caufe, he adds, it is no more than faying in plain Lan-
guage. *' I am a great Sinner ; I have contrafted ftrong Habits
** of Sin." Thus as in a former Text Nature is put for Cujiom
and acquired Habits, fo here, being born in Iniquity and nurfed
in Sin, arc no more than being a great Sinner, Sec. What un-
prejudiced Perfon will not difcern how unnatural and forced a
Conftru6lion this is, and how groundlefs the Notions built on
fuch perverting of plain Scripture ! But to fupport this forced
Conftru£tion, he joins with this Text three or four others,
which will fall in our Way prefently.
Pfa/. Iviii. 3, 4.. *' The wicked are eftranged from the
*' Womb ; they go allray as foon as they be born, fpeaking
*' Lyes." This relates to David's Enemies, probably Saul
•and his Courtiers. Whoever thefe wicked Men were, they were
eftranged from the Womb ; Strangers, or difaffeiltd and averfe,
to true pradlical Religion, from their Birth ; they went aftray,
as foon as they were born, fpeaking Lies. Actions are often put
for the Habits or Principles, from whence they flow. As foon
as Children begin to fpeak, they dilcover an evil Difpofition to
fpeak Lyes. This is not peculiar to fome few, but common to
all. In Regard to this, they who have learned that Le/Ton,
*' Lye not one to anotlier, feeing that ye have put ofi' the old
Man with his Deeds," are by Nature even as others. Were we
to fay, *' All Men are Lyars" by Nature, or from their Birth,
the evident Meaning of it would be not that the Pofterity of
Adam can, and do, adlually fpeak known Falfhoods, as foon as
they are l)orn, but they naturally incline that Way, and difco-
vcr as early a Propeniity to it <is is poflible. Some ttl! us,
that the Pjalmift's Way of fpeaking is ftrongly Hyperbolical^
and imports nothing more than their beginnini: to bci wicked, and
K 3 ' to
q$ 1'he Vo^rine of Origmd Sin, &c. -
to drive a Trade of lying, very early, which they might da
without being Sinners from their Birth, or Lyars by Nature. In
fupport of this Glofs they join with the Text before us, Pp/.
xxii. 9. Jol> xxxi. 18. *' Thou d\di\ make me hope, faid the
" Pfalmift, when I was on my Another's Breafts." For, didji
make vis hope^ fomc read, didH keep me In Safety. The plain
Meaning is, by the moft wonderful Prefervation of me when an
Infant, thou didll afFord fufficient Grounds of Hope and Con-
fidence in thy Mercy ; or thou didft then do that for me, which
\Vhen I n . w rcile6t on, it gives me abundant Encouragement
to iiope and tiuft in thcc. What is therein this to difprovc, or
forbid, that plain Conftru£lion we iiave given of Pfal. Iviii. 3.
As littie to the Purpofc is the other Text. Job might fay, " I
" have guided iier (the Widow) from my Mother's Womb."
to fip;nify his being of a compaffionate fympatiiizing Temper na-
turally ; wiiich natural Difpofition, difcovering itfelf in fome
very early, as it is no Proof of a Principle of true Religion, fo
it may vvellconfift with being born, and grov/ing up, in a State
of Sin. Tb.e Book of Job^ as fome tell us, was wrote in the
Jrabick Dialect. At leait there are divers Arsbifms in it, and
it abounds with very bolci Figures. But the Exprelfion now cit-
ed imports nothing more than this, that Job was of a tender
fympathizing Temper from his earlieft Childhood. Now what-
ever Peifons are laid to be, or to do, from their Birth, from
their Mother's Womb, they are naturally difpofed for it. Some
give very early Proofs oi a particular Tendernefs of Spirit ; while
very youiig, they appear to be kind-hearted, of a compaffionate
friendly Difpofition ; confidently with which all, who fpring
from Adam, difcover as foon as they can, the finfnl Bent and
Biafs of their fallen Natures, which made the Pfalmift fay, <' the
" wicked are eflranged from the Womb, ^c." Nothing like
this, could have been true of any of Ada?n^ Defcendants, if he
had preferved his primitive Rcttiiude, and had tranfmitted Ori-
ginal Righteoufnefs to them,
' Prcv. xxii. 15. *' Fooliflinefs is bound in the Heart of a
*' Child; but the Rod of CojreCtion (hall drive it far from him."
With this I join.
Chap xxix. 15. " The Rod and Reproof give Wifdom,
*« but a Child left to himfelf bringeth his Mother to Shame."
Thefe two Paffages I put together, as coincident, and a plain
Tcftimnny to the inbred Corruption of the Natures of young
Children. Foolijhnefs in the former is not Appetite, as abftradi-
ed from finful Corruption, neither is it meerly a Want of
Knowlecige attainable by Infli U(5.uon, Experience, tSc. neitlieT
tjjut nor this being worthy of the fmart Corrcdion advifed in
the
Explained and Vindicated. 37
the next Words. FooUflmefs^ therefore, is the contrary to a due
pradical Knowledge of God, and divine things. It carries ira
it an Indifpofednefs for what is good, and commendable ; with
a ftrong Pronenefs and Inclination to what is evil. This kind
of Foolijhnefs is bound in the Heart of a Child. 'Tis rooted in
his very Nature, as fallen from God, and deflitute of it's origi-
nal Rectitude : 'Tis as it wer^ faftened to him by ftrong Cords.,
fo the Word fignifies, as fome ohferve. From this corrupt DiG-
pofition of the Heart of every Child it is, that the Rod and Re-
proof are nccefiary to give Wifdom. From hence it is that a
Child left to himfelf i. e. without refroof and Correction, zvill
bring his Mother to Shame. If a Child was naturally difpofed to
what is good, or born equally without Virtue and Vice, as is .
pretended by our Antagonifts, why fltould the wife ]\Ian fpeakr
of praiiical Foolijhnefs., or Wickednefs, as hound in bis Hearty
or (o clofeiy fafiened to his Heart? Why ihouid P.eproof, care-
ful repeated InftruCtion, and feafonable prudent Correction, be
fo r^quifite to form the Mind, and regulate the Manners, ot
young Children ; and why are all thefe fo often inetFedlual to
bring them to be wife and religious ? Why fhould a Child if left
to himfelf bring his Mother to Shame, if he is not born a fallen
degenerate Creature ? Solomon (as well as the othicr facred Pen-
men, whofe Words we have confidt-red) plainly had worfc
Thoughts of our pitfent Nature, or the Nature of Man fince
the Fall, than ire txpreffcd by Mr T*. p. 29-9, and- in feveral
other Places.
IJa. xlviii. 8. '* I knew that tiioii wouldefl deal very
" treacherouflyi and wadcalird a| rranrgicHbr fiom the Wonih."
The God of I/rael here gives a Reafon, why he iiad fpcken to
his profefling People repeated Predictions of fuch futu:c Events
as no Ijuman Sagacity could have foiefecn, or any of tiie falfe
Gods of the Flea'-hen have foretold : Ti;is he did for reftiaining
them from Idolatry, and hc^ldmg tliem to his own inllituted
WoiTnip ; or becaufe he knew that they zvould deal very trea-
cheroufiy, and were called, &c. —Which Words fignify
to us thefe two things, (i.) God's certain Fore-Knowledge of
the free Adtions of moral Agents. (2.) The native Corrupti-
on of Mankind fince the Fall, as what gives Birth to all their
adual Sins. So tiiat if any find thcmfelves fleadily inclinable
to what is truly good in the Si^jht of God ; and if they are dif-
alFected to all Sin as 'tis an OfFf iiv-'e againd God, tiiis muft be
imputed, not to the Goodnefs and Powers of cur prefent Nature^
but to the itce. diftinguifliinc Grace of God : For there are nor.j
who, if left to thcmfelves, would not deal very treaclierouflj',
in as much a's they are Trarfgreffors from the JVonA. — ^-
K % Some
38 the Da^rini of Original Sitty &c.
Some indeed think that this Text my refer to God's People If-
rael as a Nation^ and Church, feparated from all other People.
*« I knew- that thou waft called a Tranfgrefror from the
Womb," i. e. from the Time of my calling thee out oi Egypt,
and taking thee to be my peculiar People. To which I reply :
(i.j The great Grotius^ who is fo much admired as an Expofi-
tor of Scripture, forbids not an Aplication of this Text to
each particular Perfon ; only here, as elfewhere, he betakes him-
felf to an Hyperbole. (2, J Some very learned Men propofe and
vindicate the Expofition 1 have now given. (^-J Allowing it
to be underftood of God's People Ifrael as a Nation, it may,
however, carry in it an Allufion to what Mankind are naturally
as the Offspring of Adam. 'Tis queftionable with me, whether
the God of Ifracl would have exprefled the obftinate invincible
VVickednefs of his profeiTing People in fuch Language as this,
had not each of them been chargeable, as a Child of Adam,
with being a Tranfgrtfibr from his Birth. However, I do not
fo abfolutely infift on this Pailage as each of the foregoing, to-
gether with the following ones, which the New Teftament pre-
fcnts us with.
Matth. XV. 18, 19. Mari vii. 20, 21, 22, 23. *' Thofe
*' things which proceed out of the Mouth, come forth from
*' the Heart, and tiiey defile the Man. For from within, out of
*' the Heart — -- proceed evil Thoughts, Adulteries, Murders,
** &c. — all thefe things come from within, and defile the
'* Man. " Our Lord here teaches us, that all evil Thought?,
Words, Actions of every kind, flow out of the Heart ; where
(as in Ggfi. vi. 5. and ch. viii. 21.) the Heart is put for the hu-
man Soul^ as having loll it's original Uprightnefs, and, by that
Means, become propenfe to Sin. With this I might join,
'James i. 14, 15. — " Every Man is tempted when he is drawn
*' away of his own Luft, the inbred Corruption of his Nature,
*' and enticed. " " Then when Luft hath conceived, it bring-
*' eth forth Sin, " aolual Sins of every kind^ *' and Sin, when
" it is finifhed, bringeth forth Death. " Here the Apoftle dif-
tinguifties Luji^ Sin, and Death. When a Man is tempted to
Sin, or overcome by any particular Temptation, what is this
owing to ? Muft we lay the Blame on God ? By no Means.
For though God permits Mankind to fin, fuffers many to go on
in it, and over-rules the fiiiful Acffions of his Creatures for his
own Glory, he muft not therefore be impeached as the Author
of Sin. Muft we afciibe it to the Devil chiefly? No. Adual
Sins of all kinds proceed fiom Luji in a Man., and Luft is no-
thing clfe but what Divines term Original Corruption. This
brings forth aSiual Sins, and thefe, if fpecial Mercy prevents'
•lot, ifil'.r. in De.7th, not only bodily Death, bat the enuiefs Pu-
nifliment.
Et<,plained and Vindicated, og
niflim'ent, in a futiije World, which is clfl-vvhere called t/^e fe-
cond Death. An Heathen Ssncca could {a^^^ " Wickednefs is
'* exercifcd and difcovered by what a Man does, docs Jiot be-
** begin with it." Anotlier, /. e. Plutarch., obferves tliat "a
** Man does not become, and manifeft himftrlf to be, wicked,
." at onc^. He is ilt-difpofed from the Beginning, but his
*' Wickednefs difcovers itfelf, as Occafions and Opportunities
f ' offer. As th'.' Sting of Scorpions does not begin to be in them
f' when they firil llrike; As l^ipers do not begin to be venoni-
** ous when they bite, " io Sinners do not begin to be fuch,
when a finful Difpofition firft exerts and dilcovers itfelf. In
this Rcfpedl th^-" Poifon of wicked Hearts is like the Poifon of a
Serpent^ Pfal. Iviii. 4. 'Tis natural, 'tis what no human Skilj,
or Endeavours, can eradicate. Aliiighty Grace alone caji re-
move this inveterate, hereditary, Dillemper of fallen Na-'
ture.
Rom. vi. 6. " Our old Man is crucified with him, that the
*' Body of Sin migiit be deilroyed, that henceforth we foould
*' not ferve Sin. " With this we may join, Eph. iv. 22, 23,
24. and Co!, iii. 9, 10. The firfl- of tliefe 1 txts prclents us
.W'ith three difFerenc Denominations o^ corrupt Nature, fpoken of
as common to all : 'Tis called, our oU Mem., the Bsdy cf Sin.,
and Sin.
I. 'Tis called our old Aian., where wc may diflinguifli as ma-
ny Sentiments as IVords, 'Tis compared to a Man., 'tis de-
fcribed as the old Ma ^i., and it is fpoken of as our old Man, (i,)
'Tis compared to a /llan^ nor to fignify that Original Sin is the
,yery Subilance and Nature of M in, as one <; of tlie hot-headed
Followers of Luther in^agined. ' T'ls as a Diikmper feated in,
and cleaving to, the human Soul, rather than the Soul itfelf.
Without feparating Original Corruption from the Nature of
Man in his fallen State, v/c may, and muff, carefully didinguildi
them from each other. God is the Author of human Natwe^
but not of the Corruption of it. Man in iiis fallen dciienerate
State is as a Leper. Now the Body of a Leper ;ind his L::profy
c Flaccut Illyricus He was, 'tis laid, a Man of Learning, and ^
zealous Proteltaiu : But he was of an eager violent Temper, which
being engaged in Dilputes with ViElorinus Siri^t-iius (who feemed to
leffen the Corruption of human Nature, and afcribe too litt'e to efli-
cacious Grace) led hun to another Kxtrcnie, to confound the Sub-
rtance of luimnn Nature, and the Corruption of it. To this purpofe
are two Latin Ve.rfes quoted tioni a Lutbemn Poet by Mr A. Durgefi,
p. io2.
Jpfe DEO tor am fins'Chriflo culfa fcrlufque
}{■]( ego Ptccfilum fum, peMuque 'jo:Qr,
iv A. arc
^o ^he Ihffnne of Original SiUy &c.
are really different. So is the Nature of each of Adam\ De-
fcendants, and the fpiritual Leprofy he is infe£lcd with, from
his Birth, as a Child of Adam. This original, or native Cor-
ruption is compared to a Man. (i.) Becaufe 'tis as infeparable
from the fallen Creature, as though it was his very Nature : He
brings this Dtrtemper into the World with him : It fticks
clofe to him in Infancy, Childhood, and through his following
Years : It grows up with him from his earlicft Age, and, with-
out preventing rich Mercy, it follows him into a future eternal
World, there to render him miferable for ever. Again., 'Tis
compared to a Man, becaufe it overfpreads the whole Man: It
does not confine itfelf to the Body., or to the Soul^ but is as a
Leprofy that corrupts the entire Nature of Man ; fo that the
whole of the fallen Creature is as an unclean, fikhy, thing in the
Sight of God. ('3. J It extendeth itfelf to every one of Man-
kind. The whole of every one of the natural Defcendants of
the firfl Man is infefled with this fpiritual Leprofy. ('4. j As
Man is not a fingle Member, or a fingle Faculty, fo Original
Corruption is not a fingle X«/?, or the Parent of any particular
actual Tranfgreflion only. 'Tis a Collection of finful Lufls,
{'called therefore " the Body of the Sins of the Flefh." Col. ii.
\\.) All adiual Sins flow out of this corrupt Fountain. (1.)
Original Corruption is defcribed as <7K, or, the old Man ; fand
it is eifewhere called the old Leaven ^) becaufe f i.) 'Tis as old
as every Man's Being. We no fooner become Adam's OfF-
fpring than we are his corrupt degenerate Children. (2-) 'Tis
derived from the old Adam. ^3.^ 'Tis as it were the Venonx
of the old Serpent infufed into every one of Adam's Poflerity.
The Devil, whofe Name is the old Serpent^ overcame, and poi-
foned us, in our Head.
But why is this Corurption of Nature called our old Man ?
To fignify that though this Diftemper is derived from our firfl
Father, it is really inherent in us, what we are chargeable with,
and punifhable for. As, in a Senfe, Adam's firft Sin was ours,
fo the Corruption of Nature, confequent upon that firft Tranf-
greflion, we may call, and muft acknowledge, bewail, loath,
complain of, pray to be delivered from, zs our old Man ; agree-
ably to holy Augujiin, who ('having /elt the EfHcacy of God's
renewing Grace, and experiencing, notwithfianding, the oppo-
fite Workings of corrupt Nature remaining in himj ufed to
pray that *' God would deliver him from that evil Man him-
" felf. " All true Chriftians, even the youngefl, might,
with the Apoflle hy, " Our old Man is crucified with Chrift. "
* I Cor, V. 8.
Now
Explained and Vindicated. 41
Now what does this import ? To be crucified^ it is to be faften-
ed unto, and put to Death, upon a Crofs. A Mortification of
corrupt Nature is fo expreffed in Aliufion to our Lord's being put
to Death by a Crucifixim. Our old Man's being crucified with
him, is, a having it's Power broken, it's Strength fubdued, by
the ioworking of a contrary Principle, fo as that it fhall never
recover it's former Power and Dominion. But of this more in
another Place.
2. What theApoftle calls our oU Man ^ he zgz'm ttrmi thi
Body of Sin', the deftroying of which implies a further Degree
of diminifhing the Power, and breaking the Strength, of corrupt
Nature. For, the Body of Sin, wc might read the fmful Body,
'Tis not the natural Body that is here meant. Corrupt Nature
is called the Body, PvOm. viii. 13. the Body of Death, Rom. vii.
24« the Body of the Sins of the FleJJ-), Col. ii, 11. and in the
Text I am upon, the Body of Sin, or the fitful Body ; why ?
Becaufe as a Body confifts of various Parts, lb corrupt Nature
of various ilnful Lufls, Eph. ii. 3. ch. iv. 22. Col. iii. ^. Gal.
V. 24.
3. 'Tis called. Sin, abfolutely. By Sin at the Clofe of this
Veife is meant, not any particular evil Affection, or any parti-
cular corrupt Practice, but that corrupt Nature which all finful
Lufts taken together compofe, an'l which all finful Pra6^ice's
take their Rife from. ' i is called, Sin, Rom. vi. 7,12, 14,
16, 17. chap. vii. 8, 9, II, 13. Why? For two or three
Reafons.
(i.) Becaufe it inclines to nothing but Sin. As a Principle of
Grace inclines only to what is good in the Sight of God ; fo
corrupt Nature inclines only to the contrary. j^ Do
not Sinners incline to v/hat is materially good ? R. Yes. But
(i.) Corrupt Nature hinders them from inclining, or enter-
taining an Inclination, to what is favingly good, or good in the
Eye of God's holy fpiritual Law. (2.) Reafon, fo tar as it re*
mains in the Fallen Creature, dictates to him much of his Duty;
a Senfe of the dreadful l^ndcncy of Sin, impreficd upon ilio
Confcience, may make a Man afraid to go on in this or that
finful Courfe, and incline liim to a Hated cuftomary Attendance
on this or that Duty, as a Means of efcaping the Wrath to
come j notwithtkinding which, while we continue Strangers to
the renewing Grace of God, we do not, will not, cannot, be
perfuaded to, " choofc the things that plcafe God. " Rojn. vii,
(2.) B"caufe it is produ'Rive o^ all Alannrr of Sins. All the
actual Sins that are in tiie WurlJ proceed horn i\\c Lujh of
Mci) J
4S ^k^ Do^r'me of Original Sin, Sec.
Men « ; as may be eafily inferred from, Mark yii. 21, X^^.
Gal, V. 19, 20, 21. and other Scriptures. All actual Sins
are the Offspring of fallen Nature, of which fome Buddings,
and weaker Efforts, begin to ihew thenireives in Children very
«arly.
(3. J Becaufe as cleaving to the beft, while living in thi?
World, it hinders them from doing their Duty as thorougiily as
they choofe to do it, and caufes them to fin in every religious
Exercife whatever. " For the Flefh lufteth againft the Spirit,
" and the Spirit againft the Flefh, and thefe two Principles are
*« contrary the one to the other, fo that ye cannot do the things
.*' that ye v/ould. " Even the befl Chriilians complain to this
Purpofej they cannot love, fear, trufl in, pray to, in any Re-
fpedi fervc, their Qod as they would do. Let them def:re ever
foearneftly, pray ever fo frequently and fervently, and labour
ever fo diligently, they cannot reach the finlefs Purity of Heart
and Pradice, which their Souls, as renewed, earneflly and
conftantly incline to. They feel finful Corruption cleaving tq
them, and mingling with their religious devout Exercifes, on
all Occafions, An Experience of this eafily difpofes them to
embrace the felf-humbling Do£liine oi Original Sin. For find-
ing, with Concern, that they fm in whatever they do ; that
*' when they would do good, evil is prefent with themj" that
with all their Deiires, Prayers, and utmofl Efforts, inbred Cor-
r«pf/(3B. is not to be eradicated) or fhaken off, at prefent; that
the more they improve in Grace, and Chriflian Experience,
their feeliiig Senfe of the Corruption of Nature proportionably
incrcafes, this leads them to confider it, not as confifl-ing of
acquired Habits only, but as a native hereditary Difiemper.
What Habits we bring on our felves by Cuff cm, and repeated
A6i:s, 'tis poflible for us, by Degrees, and with flrenuoui. En^
■deavours, to ihake off again. But the fmful Corruption tliat
Tincere Chriffians feci, lament, and abhor in themfelves, is fo
firmly radicated, that they can never get rid of it, on this fide
Death. According to that (h tiie Aponie,G^/. v. 17. (whicli
confirms v/hat I juft now mentioiiedj we are to interpret that
famous Paijage of the Apofllc, in Rem. vii. 14, 15, Isc. which
might be eafily proved to /tiate only to regenerate Perjons^ if that
was my prtfcnt Fiovince. 1 content myielf, now, with a itv{
{hort Hints.
I. The Apof^le ^11 along from ^vr. 14, fpeaks of himfoll-' not
in the Prefer "[enje^ as he had done in. fore, but in the Prefent
•^ Divines di'linguifh, aiTiual Lulls conrcnted to, actual Lufts fubdued
by Grace, and orii^inal Lufi, or corrupt Nature, called Luji in the fin-
guiar Number, JaTa. i. 14, 15. and, as tome think, Rom. vii. 7.
Tenfey
Explained and Vindicated. 4.3;
Ttnfi, (ignlfying thereby not what he \yas once, but what he found
himfelf ;o be at prefent.
V, 2. Each of the Particulars mentioned, fairly interpreted, is
j(tri(5tly true of the beft Chrillians on this fuJe Deatli. Every re-
generate Perfon might truly fay, " tlie Law is fpiritual, hut I
** am carnal, " m Part, or in Comparifon v/ith what God's
holy, fpiritual Law requires j I am fold under Sin. I do not
ftU myfelf to woric Wickednefs, as jibab did, i Kings xxi. 25.
but I dm fold under Sin, paflively, involuntarily ^or contrary to
the prevailing Bent of my Soul (is renetved) fubjedl to iuch
Frailties, and Imperfections in Duty, as are, in the Nature of
them, i'/wj. Contrarieties to the Law of God. That which I
do., I allow not. I do not thoroughly approve of any thing that
I do ; there being r<nful Corruption mingling itfelf with my
very beft Duties; x\;hat I would .^ that I do not \ I greatly fall
fhort of loving, of ferving, God, as my renewed Soul earnefUy
defircs to love and ferve him ; wh,>t I hate., that do I ; during
this prefent imperfect State I fee Reafon greatly todiflike what-
ever I do. The bell things that are done by mp on any Oc-
cafion, (as being, and fo far as they are, finfully defeSfi-ve^
greatly inferior to what the Law requircsj rhy renewed Sou!
diflikes, and is much difpleafed with ; in me., that is., in my
Flejli., in me fo far as I continue unrenewed, there diuelleth no
good Thing, nothing that God's holy Law counts good ; when
J would do good, when my renewed Soul, as Iuch, confents, in-
clines, chufes, earneftly defires, to perform that Obedience
which the Law requires ; evil is prefent with me. The Evil of
corrupt Nature, of which there are lamentable Remains in the
beft, is prefent with me, and is felt, lamented, abhorred by me
on all Occafions. / Jee another Law, a Law contrary to the
fpiritual Law of God, in my Members, in myfelf as remaining
in Part carnal, warring againjl the Law of my Mind, the Prin-
ciple of Grace rooted in my Soul, which is as a Law f, jequir-
mg, prompting, inclining me to do what the Law of God
prtfcribes to me, and forbidding me to fm againfi God in any
Inftancc, and bringing mc into Captivity to the Lwlu ■:[ Sin, Sec,
I am like a Captive taken, and prevailed againft ( <)\ one whom
he mortally hates^ much againft his Will : So th.t I an» ready
to cry out, O wretched Man that I cm, zvho Jhall deliver me
from this Body of Death f
f As the Apofllc applies the Word hanv to two oppofite Doctrines^
fuflfication by Faith, and fiijif cation by JVorks, Rom. iii 27. ac^ree-
ably to the Meaning of the HebreT.v Word for La'^v, forab, winch fj"-..
nifies Doi^rine, fo here he applies it to Shi and Cract.
■ ' ' ■ ' "Z. Several
44 ^"^^ Do3frine of Original Sin, Sec.
3. Several of the Particulars inferted in this PafTage before us,
are no way true of any but the regenerate. Such have a better
Senfe (a more affecting humbling Senfej of the remaining Im-
purity of their Natures, and the finful Defects of every thing
done by them in the Work and Service of the Lord, than any
others, be they ever fo learned and intelligent, can have. Such
only can fincerely profefs a Confent unto the holy, fpiritual, Law
of God, as good. Such only have a Right to fay, in regard to
the Evil that is done by them, '* 'Tis no more I that do it, but
«« Sin that dv^^elleth in me;" there being, as it were, another
Self in me that has no Hand in it, a Principle rooted in my Na-
ture that is oppofite thereto. This no unregenerate Sinner muft
pretend to. In fuch an one there are, or may be, repeated
Conflicts between Reafen and Inclination^ Confcience and Luft ^
but the in-being, and continual co- wot king, of two fuch con-
trary oppofite Principles as Sin and Grace, are peculiar to the
Regenerate, and are on all Occafions experienced by fuch ; who
may, and do, complain to this Purpofe : To zvlll is prefent with
me \ being made willing by a divine Power, I have a Will, a
fixed, fteady habitual Difpofition anfwerable to the Will of God,
and the Commands of his Law, but how to perform, or tho-
rouehly do, that which is good, in the Eye of God's holy Law,
/ Jjnd not. The moft perfect Chriftians in this World arc moft
feelingly fenfible of, and deeply aftedled with, their great De-
feats and Imperfe^lions. They find, with painful Concern, that
when, as renewed, they would do the good that God's fpiritual
Law requires, the Evil of corrupt Nature is prefent with them.
They do indeed *' delight in the Law of God after the inward
" Man, " ver. 22. where the inward Man is put for the Soul
as renewed, or as having recovered, by Grace, it's original Up-
rightnefs: Rut notwithftanding this their Delight in the holv
Spiritual Lavj of God, which is a Scripture-Characler of the truly
good, each of them finds " another Law in himfclf, warring
<* againft that Law of his Mind, IfSc. " By Reafon of this, he
looks on himfclf as, to a Degree, vjretched, or miferable. Li-
bred Corruption is Matter of daily Uneafinefs, and the principal
Burden, indeed, of the renewed Soul. 'Tis (o painful and
grievous to him, that he is always ready to crv out as one wea-
ry of an heavy Load lying upon him, who J})all deliver 7ne from
this Body of. Sin and. Death? There is this one Difference be-
tween the fmcere Chrijiian, and an Hypocrite. To the latter,
Afiiciion is more grievous than Sin ; to the former, finful Cor-
ruption {ticking ciofe to his Nature, and defiling whatever he
does, is more irkfome, and grievous, than JJfliSlion. But in
,5he midft of this Sorrow,- arifing noni a conltant Senfe of in-
d''veUiri£
Explained and Vindicated.^ ' 45
dwelling Sin^, there is Hope. While the regenerate Man cries
out as in ver. 24. (which fome have called, gemitus Satiftorum^
the Sigh, or Complaint, of the Saints, J he can, and does add, I
*' thank God,y<7r the Hope sf Deliverance^ thro' Jefus Chrift our
*' Lord. " Upon the whole, every regenerate Chriftian, and
in Truth no other, may and muft acknowledge; With the
Mind^ my new Nature, / myfelf jerve the Law of God, hut with
the Flejhy or corrupt Nature, the Law of Sin. It was former-
ly ooferved, that " none can rightly underftand P^«/'sDo6lrine,
*f unlefs they partake of Paul's Spirit. " This is as true of the
Paflage under Confideration, as of any other. An Experience
of the co-working and continual Oppofition of Sin and Grace^
.unfolds this Paflage, asjuftly applicable to the Regenerate in this
Life, which to others, in that View of it, may be dark and un-
intelligible.
"John iii. 6. *' That which is born of the Flefh is Flefh. "
Nothing can be more exprefs to our Purpofe than this. But as
this FafTage is already explained, and vindicated, in a Difcourfe,
on fohn iii. 5, 6. juft publifhed, I reter to that, and proceed
to
Rom. V. from ver. 12, to ver. 19. Let the Reader pleafe to
look over the whole FafTage very carefully, and keep it in his
View, while he attends to what follows. The Apoftle here
difcourfes of Adam and Chriji as two great Reprefentativcs or
public Perfons, comparing together the Sin of the one, and
the Righteoufnefs of the other. For explaining this FafTage, I
obferve,
I. The one Man fpoken of, ver. 12, and feveral times af-
terwards, is no other than the firji Adam, the common Parent
and Head of Mankind. TJie Apoftle remarkably afcribes the
Introdu6lioa of Sin and Death, not to the Devil, or Eve, but
to Adam only. 7'he Devil was the firll Sinner, i John iii. 8.
'John viii. 44. Eve, being feduced by that old Serpent, finned
before her Hufband, and proved a Tempter to him. But tho'
J})e was the firft Sinner of Mankind, and the Occafion of Sin to
our firlt Father; the Apoftle, notwithftanding, fays, ver. 12.
*' By one Man Sin entred into tl^ World, i!fc. " and, ver. 15,
*' through the Offence of one, many are dead;" and, ver. ib.
^ Some make a Jeft of this Phrafe, though it is facred, infpired.
Language. Others, as Limborch, Epifcopius, Sec. from the Ufe of it in
Rem. vii. 17. infer that the Apoftle there fpeaks in the Perfon of an
unregeneiate Sinner. But if the F/eJ^ and Spirit ftrive together in the
Regenerate,. Gfl/. v. 17. why may not each of them be ipoken of as
an ifid'welling Principle? To diftinguifh between peccatum inextjiens and
ptQcutum inhahitans, i— Sin inbeifrg and Sin indweilingt is very trifling.
tiie
4-5 The Do^rine of Original Sin, &c,
«' the judgment was by one to Condemnation ; " and, ver. iv.
*' Death reigned hy 0}2e \" ^nd, ver. i8. By the Offence of
*' one. Judgment came upon all Men^ ^c. " ver. ig. By one
«* Man's Difobedierice niany, &c. ". Now why fhould the
Apoftle lay all this on that one Man Adam, whofe Tranfgreflion
was really pofterior both to the Devil's and to Eve^s, if Adam,
■was not, by God's Appointment, the federal Head of Mankind,
in regard to which, the Apoftle points at him Jingly, as a Type,
or '* Figure of him, who was to come ? **
^. When the Apoftle mentions, one Man, as by whom Sin
and Death entred into the World, did he not include the Wo-
man ?
R. Some, even of the Orthodox, think he did. Both cur
firft Parents are fometimes t'poken of as the Reprefentatives of
Mankind^ ih whom all were confidered as originally made righ--
teous, and as finning in their firft Tranfgreflion. But to me^
this does not feem a ]\.\'i^, and proper, way of fpeaking j be-
caufe the Apojlle, throughout this Difcourfe, all along points at
one fingle Perfon, whom^ exclufivelv of any other, he mentions^
ver. 14.. as a Figure of Chrift. He does not fay, ver. 12. by
two Perfons, or by our firft Parents, but by one Man Sin en-
** tered, b'f." ver. t^. He does not fay ih^t Adam and Eve,
both, were Figures, of him who was to come, but he affirms this
of Adam fingly. Eve is elfewhere pointed at as a Type of the
Church, while Adam is here fpoken of as a figure of Chrijl.
The Devil, and Eve, each of thefe, was an Occafion of the
Death and Mifery of Mankind, as well as our firft Father :
Yet the Apoftle all along charges it only on him, thereby teach -
ing us to confider that firji Man, as ftanding in fome fpecial
Relation to all his natural Defcendants, and his Sin as in a pe-
culiar Manner afFetSting them. According to the Dodlrine of
fome Men, [JVhitby, Taylor, Szc.) the Apoftle might as well
have faid, ver. 12. " By the Devil Sin entred, i^c." or, " By
Eve fin entred, fs'r." ver. 15. " Through the Sin of the Devil,
*■'- in tempting our firft Mother, many be dead ; '* or, »* Thro'
*' the Offence of Eve, &c." '* By means of the Devil many
*' were made Sinners ; " or, ** By Eve's Difobedience many,
** b't." But inftead of fpeaking thusj he confines his Difcourfe
to our firft Father, as the Original of Sin and Death to his
Pofterity.
2. The Sin, Tranfgrejfton, Offence, Difobedience, fpoken of,
ver. 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19. was no other than the firft Sin
of our fitft Father Adam; ^;i eating of the forbidden Fruit;
the Foulnefs and Aggravations of which finful A6tion have been
pointed at before. 'Tis worthy of our Remark, that, as the
Apoftle
Explained and Vindicated. 47
Apnflle arraigns cue Man only throughout this Difcourfe of his, (ci
he aicribes ail the Mifchief done to one fmgle Offence, or Sin, of
that one Man, ver. 12. Death eiured by that firfl: Sin of his.
ver. 14. the Apoftlc docs not mention Adam's Iranfgrcjjionsy
in tile plural Number, but Adatns Tranfgreffion. So in the Ver-
fes fallowing: And left any fliould think that thefe fingufar Nouns
are put colle6tively, he fays, 'ver. 17. *' By one Man's Offence^
*« Death reigned ijy one ; " in the Original it is, " by one Of-
*' fence, Deatii reigned by one; " it was one Sin of Adam that
did all the mifchief: This fignifies to us, that as our firfl: Father
flood originally in fome fpecial Relation to his Defcendants (that
of 2i federal as well as a natural Head) fo that fpecial Relation of
his to them ceafed, upon his committing the firft Sin fpoken of.
3. The ^// mentioned ver. 12, 18. and the ?«««;', in "y^r. 15,
I9. are all the natural Defcendants of Adam. That one Man, by
one Offence^ or Act of Difobcdicnce, ruined, together with
himfelf, his whole Race. As thefe are undoubtedly meant by the
<?//, and many., whom the Apoftle points at , as related to, con-
cerned with, and greatly prejudiced by, their firft Father, io^
perhaps thefe are the IVorld fpoken of, Ver. 12. By one Afan,
fays the Apoltle^ Sin entrcd into the JVorld., &c. What World
does he liere mean ? Either it muft be taken, locally., or it muft
intend A/^;?X-/W as the Inhabitants of it. With regard to this
World of ours, locally coniidered, it can't be faid witli Truth
that Sin entred into it by che firft Man. For the old Serpent
brought Wickednefs with liuiifclf into tiie Garden, and in that
principal Part of our World Eve fsnned before Adam, l^he
World., tiiereforc, n\Ay {\^i^\iy A/Luikind : Tiiefe are often called
the World. " By Means of one Mjn, Sin entrcd upon, in-
*' vaded, feized this IVorld, and Death by Sin." For,
4. The malignant Influence of AdanCs, firfl Sin on all hiS- na-
tural Defcendants, the Apoftle reduces to two Heads, Sin and
Death. Bath thefe we have, '■aer. 12. '•'• ^y one Man Sin en-
" tred, and bv hij firft Sin Death entered ; and fo Death pafled
*' upon all Men, becaufe all have linned/' The laft Claufe J*,
taken by itfelf, might be literally rendred either, in xvhich^ or
in whom., or becaufe, all have finned. Some of late chufe
the firft rendring, and refer the Greek Particle to Death, as the
next Antecedent, putting on the Apoftle's Words this Con-
flrudlion, " Death palled upon ail Men," in Regard to wliich,
all have iianed ; or as One ' lately exprelTes it (v/hether with a
Defign to attack the DotStrine of Original Sin he beft knowsj
" E^ (J 'aa^.ii; x(*.u^rjy_
' Mr S. Chatidier^ in his Sermon on the Death of Dr Hndfeld, from
Rom. vi. ii-
" And
.- 48 the DaSinne of Original Sin &c.
*' Andfo Death pajfed upon all Men, for that^ under which Gore-
♦' dition, or {ubje«St to whicli Law of Adam, all have finned.'*
The Defign of this feems to be, to interpret, aill Mens finning^
t,o fignify nothing more thdti their being mortal, or liable to
Death. But though Sin is fometimes put for the Guilt of it,
and fometimes for the Punifhment due to it, the Words under
Coniideration belong to a Difcourfe in which the Apoftle evi-
dently diftinguifhes Sin and Death ; Sin as the Caufe, and Death
as the EffeSl. Now is itrefonably fuppofed, that, having diftin-
guijhed thefe two different things in the former Claufe, he would
in the very next Words confound them ? Was this confounding
Glofs to be admitted, it would not overthrow the Doctrine of
Original Sin imputed, which we are labouring to fupport. Ad-
mitting the Apoitle to talk at this obfcure Rate, *' All his Po-
*' flerity became liable to Death in Confequence of his Tranf-
*' grefiion and Mortality 5 luijecStto, or under which Penalty
*' of Death, all Men ha \re finned." This indeed, fuppofmg it
to be good Senfe, vs^ould not exprefs the whole of what we ga-
ther from the Apcftle's Words, neither would it be contra-
di£tory thereto 5 one Branch of our Do£lrine being this, that
all Adam's Pofterity become liable to Death in Confequence of
hisnrft Sin, as the Original of Death both to hi mf elf d^n^ all his.-
But the Coherence of the latter Claufe of ver. 12. with what
precedes, feems to forbid any other Conflru(£tion of that latter
Claufe than our common Tranflation gives us, " and fo Death
" paiTed upon all Men, for that, or inafmuch as all, Mankind,
" have finned," /. e. in, or with, their firft Father. This
Renderina; the Original does certainly admit of \ and it agrees
with the Context, (as plainly diftinguifning Sin znd Death) more
than any other, ver, 13. For until the Law, Sec. That all have
ii^.med, and are therefore liable to the Death originally threaten-
ed, is evident from this, tha.t until the Law, in early Ages that'
preceded the Lav/ of Mofes, Sin was in the IForld, all of the
World of Mankind were really Sinners in the Sight of God ;
but Sin is not imputed wher^ there is no Law, none can be Sin--
irers, or guilty, in the fight of God, if they are not Tranfgref-^J
fors of fome Law or other ; if there is no divine Law for theif
tranfgrefling of which they are juftly reputed guilty. Neverthe^'H
lefs, notwithftanding that, tho' it is certain that *' Sin is noO
" imputed to any when there is no Law," Death reigned in tbes<-
Times from Aiam to the Law of Mofes, over all of Mankind,**
even Infants tiiemfelves, who h:id not a£lually and perfonally-
tranfgreifed, as Adam their fiill Father had done. Now if Sin
is the' fole Caufe of Death, and none are liable to Decrth but for
Sin, ver. 11. If, again, " Sin is not imputed where there is no
*' Law," to tranf^refs, ver. 13. and if, notwithftanding ^/'o^
all
Explained and Vindicated. 4^
all of Mankind in every Age are treated as Sinners in being ad-
judged to the fufFering of Death, if this is true even of Infants^
not as yet capable of aftual finning, if fuch are, in every Age,
Sufferers of that which is the penal Confcquent of Sin j thefc
things put together may convince any ferious impartial Conflde-
jers, that Guilt is imputed to all for the Sin of Adaniy that
'* they finned in him, and fell with him in his firft Tranfgref-
•' fion." Why elfe are they treated as Sinners (in being ob-
noxious to that which is inflicted on none but for Sin) as foon as
they become his Offspring ? This is the purport of the Apoflle's
arguing in ver. 12, 13, 14. which having led him to the mention
of Adam as a Figure^ or Refemblance, of Chrijl^ he next itaies
the Similitude between thefe two ; and the Subflance of what he
fays upon this lies here. As through the Offence of Adam^ tjiany
are obnoxious to Death, and by his Difobedience the fame many
Axe made Sinners ; fo through the Righteoufnefs of Chrift, or by
his obedience, many^ all belonging to him, are jultified or made
righteous. The Queftion now is, how are, *' many^ dead,
*' through the Offence of their firfl Father ? " And how " are
*' they made Sinners by his Difobedience ? What does the A-
pofl-Ie mean by thefe things ? ^\\q former implies thus much, that
by Means of the Offence of Adam, or for his Sin as the merito-
rious Caufe of it (by Virtue of fome original wife, and julf,
Conflitution) all Adam^s Poflerity, as foon as they become fo,
are juftly obnoxious to Death. The latter which we have, ver„
19. fignifies to us that the many concerned with Adam, are by
his Difobedience involved in Guilt : His firft Sin is fo far impu-
ted to all his natural Defcendants as to conftitute them guilty, or
liable to the Death originally threatned, as including not onl)
Death in the common Senfe of the Word, but endlefs Mifery»
This fome except againft. *' To be made Sinners by Adam\
*' Difobedience, is, fay they, no more than to be mortal, or
" liable to Death, in the common Senfe of the Word, in Con-
*' fequence of, or on Occafionof, y/^^/n's D-fobedience." There
are indeed fome different Ways of fpeaking as to this. .ome
fpeak as though the Mortality of Mankind was the proper ge-
nuine Effeil of the Sin of A lam, or as though his Difobedience
was fo far imputed to all his Pofterity, as to render them mortal.
Others don't go quite fo far, acknowledging no more than this,
that " on Occafion of Ada7n% Fall, all his Defcendants are made
** fubje<5l to temporal Sorrows and Death." To be made Sin'
ners, is to be fubjefted to temporal Sorrows and Death . To be
made fo by Adam's Difobedience, is to be fubjedled to the Evils
mentioned, by the wife and good Providence of God, on Oc-
cafion of the Fall of our firft Father. Bur,
L ' I. Whatever,
^o '^he Donrme of Original Sin^ Sec.
I. Wliatever a bring made Sinners denotes, tlie Difobediencff
of Jdam had a proper caufal Influence thereon, as the Obedienc?
of Chrifl: has on Sinneis being made rigJiteous.
1. What it is to be inade^ o\ conltitutcd. Sinners in thrs Text,
muft be inferred from the oppolue to it, in the latter Part of
the Verfe. Now allowing tiie ApofHe to be his own interpreter,
u being jnade righteous is the fame with yujlification^ ver. i6.
and "Jujiification of Life^ ver. i8. Now what is this? The
Apoitle had treated this Subjeit at large in feme foregoing
Chapcirtj (hewing that all, both fevus and Gentiles^ being un-
der Sin, ch. iii. 9. or j!;ui!ty before God, ver. 19, none can be
juflificd in ihe Sight of God i)y tiie Works of the Law, VB>r. 20.
but whoever are juftilied, or ma'.le righteous, they are juftified
•freely by the Grace of God through Chrift, ver. 24. and by
Faith in him, fas Abraham their Father was, cli. iv.) ciy. iii. 25,
28, 30. ch. iv. 24. ch. V. I. Through the whole of this Dif-
courfe, to be jujiified., is to be acquitted from Guilt, or <^\^-
diarged from the deferved Condemnation of the Law of God';
and to he accepted as righteous in his Sight, or entitled to the
eternal Life promifed, in Confideration of Chrift's Obedience
to the Death, and through Faith in his BIoo J. To fay then,
that " to be made righteous, in ch. v. 19, is only to be reftored
" to Life at the lail Day, " is to make the Apoftle talk incon-
fiftently with himfelf, and bend a plain Text to a Senfe, which,
as compared with what goes before, it can, by no Means, ad-
mit of. To be made righteous, is to be jujiified., to be accepted
\vith God to eternal Life, or everlafting Bleflednefs : Coni^-
quently, to be made Sinners is to be condenmed by a ju(t God, t3
he " Children of Wrath, " as the Apoftle fpeaks elfewhere,
and that on Account of the Sin of our firft Father accounted
ours, or imputed to us, as the Sin of our federal Head. Let
the Scripture be allowed to be it's own Interpreter, and the
Language of particular Texts explained to a Confidence with
others, and the Do6frine of Original Sin will eafily prcfcnt it-
felf to ferious, impartial. Enquirers. Tlie great Apoftle did
certainly exprefs himfelf as darkly, and abfurdly, as could be,
if by this Paflage (Rom. v. 19. j he intended nothmg more than,
that' '< on Occafiun of y/is'^/z/s Fall, all his Pofterity are fub-
" jedtcd to temporal Sorrows aixl Death. " To put fo force^
a ConftrucStion on plain Words, f Words which the foregoing
Context fo well helps us to underftand^ is an Argument of
ftiong Prejudice, or Weaknefs of Judgment ; fince a being
mode Sinners by. Jda/ns Difobedience^ is oppofed to a being made
righteous by the Obedience of Chriji^ and a being made righteoui
here, muft he the fame with \hs. "Jujiification of Life ^iox^ infift.-?
ed on, and ihis^ throughout the preceding Di'fcourfe of the
Apoftle,
Explained and Vindicated, 51
Apoftle, is a being acquitted from Guilt, and accepted with
God, to eternal Life. •
I Cor. XV. 21, 22. " By Man came Dv°ath, in Jdam
** all die. Let the Reader pleafe to look over, and bear in
Mind, the whole of the two Verles and Context. By Man^ in
ver. 21. is meant Adam, as the next Verfe dirc6ls us to under-
hand it. The All fpoken of, aie ?ill Adam's natural Dtfcen-
dants : The dying of thefe all^ is their being, as Adam'^ Dc-
fcendants, from their Birth mortal, and not only fo, but liable
to a wretched miferable Death; as the being made alive, to
which it ftands oppofed, is not a meer Recovery of Life at the
fecond coming of Chriji, but a blejfed ReJurre£iion, a being raif-
ed up in Glory, and to an happy Immortality, The Greek
Particle that wc render, /«, might be tranflated, /«, or, by, or
through. To die in, or by, or through Adam, it is to be liable
to a miferable Death, a Death attended with fpiritual Mifeiy, as
foon as wc become Adam's Offspring, on Accour.t of his Fully
as the legal, federal, Head of Mankind. — -^ Our Argumcnc
from this Text confifts of the four Propofitions following.
Firfl, Man was originally immortal, as well as righteous.
In his primitive State he was no ways liable to Death, though in
himfelf capable of it. This we infift on, without defending
every Dotage that one or another has blended with it. The Soul
of Man, fay fame, was made at firft with fuch a Vigour and
Strength, as to be able to preferve itfelf from Sin, and it's Bo-
dy from every fatal Difafter. The Body of Man, fay others^
was fo framed by the God of Nature as to be by no Means paf-
fible, or alterable for the worfe. Fire could not pain, or burn
it. It might have ftood and walked on the Surface of Water
without finking. No ii'u'a/W could have wounded it, fei'r. The
Tree of Life, fay others, afforded both Food, and Medicine :
The Fruit of it was of fuch a Nature as to be capable of feed-
ing innocent Man, and preferving him in perpetual Life and
Vigour. Without attending to thefe Fooleries, we infill: upon
It, that as God made Man upright, fo he threatened Death on-
ly in cafe of finning, and was both able and willing to preferve
Man from dying while he continued obedient to his God. The
Body of Man did not become mortal, or liable to die, till he
became a Sinner. To fay with the old Pelagians, that " Man
*' might and would have died, though he had never finned ; '*
with Socinus, and fome of his Followers, that ". Man was made
** mortal, Death being not the Punifhment of Sin, but a ne-
** ceffary Confequent on his natural Compofiticn, " with Dr
J. T. " TbsU Jdam vfii mortal by N.nure is infinitely cer-
L 2 *' tain.
Si fhe T)o5fnne of Original 'Sin, &c.
** tain, and may be proved from his eating, drinking, fleep^-
*' ing, &c. " This is to enervate the Force of the original
Threatning, and to contradidl many exprefs Scriptures. For,
SecondU', Death is ccnjlaiitly ajcribed to Sin as the fole proper
Caufe of it. It uras,' as we have faid, threatened originally on-
Iv for Sin, Gen. ii. 17. Though Man was made of the Duft,
that Sentence unto Duji thou jhalt return.^ was not pronounced
againfl: him till after the Fall, Gen. iii. ig. Befides which let
Us recoileit, Rom. v. \2' ch. vi. 23. ch. viii. 10. It is indeed
appointed unto all Men once to die, but Sin is the fole Caufe of
it. Yet,
Thirdlv, All of Mankind are mortal from their Birth : They
are liable to Death, the legal Puniiiiment of Sin, as foon as they
begin to exift zvA live.
Fourthly, This is owing to, and the genuine Effe£i of, the fir fl
Sin of their firji Father. Obferve, The ApoftJe does not attri-
bute it to the Devil : Neither doth he fay, " In Jdam, and
" Eve, all die, " but as in Ro?n. v. 12, (s'c. fo here he men-
tions Adam fmgly. Him he fpeaks of as a Figure of Chrijl, ver.
45, 47, 48. and here as the fole Original of Death to all his
natural Defccndants. I/e does not fay, as fome do, that *' all
*' who fmned before Mofes were puniflied with Death for the
*« Sin of Adam {this they infer from Rom. v. 14. j and all they
*' who Itn lince Mofes, fufter it as a Confequent of the threat-
" ening of iiis Law ; dut to Infmts and Ideots 'tis no Punifli-
*' ment at ali, but a Condition of their Nature. " In /f dam,
or on Account of his Fall, all of Mankind in every Age die.
Confequently, in him all finned: " With him all fell in his firfl:
*' TianfgrtflioM. " 'Tis true, a Traytor may, and does, in-
volve thofe of his Family in Poverty and Difgrace, though none
of them are chargeable v.'ith his Treafon, and it cannot be le-
gally imputed to any of thtm. But the Cafe of a Traytor's
Family, and that of Adains Defcendants, are far from being
pariiHcl. Whatever Inconveniences the Children of a Traitor
iufJVr on account of thtir Father's Trcjfon, they are not liable,
for it, to the legal Punifhmeut of Traitors : Whereas all of
Ad<im''% Oft-pring are born liable to the legal Punifiiment of
Sinucrs ; M'hich proves that he is to be conlidered not meerly
as the Father, or natural Head, of a numerous Family, but as
a legal federal "Head, whofe Fall, as fuch, is fo far imputed to
us, and his other Defcendants, as that we and they, on account
of 11, are born lijible t* Death, -^-id, " Children of Wrath."
Th«s
Eicplalned and Vindicated. 53
Thus I have confidered a large Number of Texts^ as fo ma-
ny divine Teftimonies to the Do£trine oi Original Sin imputed^
and inherent. Some are more exprefs, and difficult to be evad-
ed, than others ; of which kind I reckon. Job. xiv. 4. Pf. li.
5. Pfal. Ivi, 3, Rorn. v. 12, ^c i Cor. xv. 22. Eph. ii. 3.
That in Ephefians prefents us with a Jiie6l Proof of tiie entire
Do6lrinc. Thofe in Romans 'And Corinthians relate directly to
Original Sin imputed, and are but confcquential Proofs of Or/-
gina/ Corruption ; while the reft refer particularly to this, and
are fo'many confequential Proofs of xhe former .
Befides thefe Texts, there are feveral others that have been
fometimes applied to the Sul :je6l in Hand ; as Jolt xv. 16.
" How much more abominable and filthy is Man, xvho drink cth
** Iniquity like IVater P " i. e. who of himfelf, in his fallen
State, ftrcngly inclines to Sin, and commits it with Greedlnefs,
with Pleafure, with Continuance, John i. 29. '* Behold, the
<« Lamb of God which taketh away the Sm of the World. '*
Where by the Sin of the World, fome undeiftand Original Sin,
that being not the particular Sin of this or that Man, but the
common univerfal Sin of Mankind, as Def'cendants of Jdam.
Matth. xxii. 35. " An evil Man, out of the evil Treafure,
*' bringeth forth evil things, " Thoughts, Words, AcStions.
Matth. vi. 13. and Lukex\. 4, *' Lead us not into Temptation,
^* but deliver us from evil, " i. e. fay fume, from our native
Corruption, called cllewhere, the evil Treofure of the Heart,
and the evil that is jrefrnt with us on all Occafions. Heb. xii.
■r. *' Let us lay afide every Weight, and the Sin that doth fo
" eafily befet us; " in which Text by the Stn that doth fo eafdy
hefet us, fome undeiftand, the Sin of Unbelief; fome, that par-
ticular Sin, of what kind fotver it is, which a Man is moft apt
to be overcome by, his Dalilah, his darling Lu/i, or moft be-
loved Sin, which the Pjalmiji emp'.iatically calls his Iniquity k •
others undcrftand it ot Original Sin. But I infift not on any
of thefe, efpecially the fecond and the two laft. Without thefe,
the others are fully, and indeed more than, fufficient for our
purpofe. We defire no plainer Atteftations to any DsxStrine.
We are perfuaded that no Ar:s or Lal'Our of Criiicifm can ever
overthrow our arguing from any one of them. While our
^'learned critical Antagonifts are foiced to ufc all their Cunning,
*iand to labour extremely, for perverting, or hiding the true
Senfe of, fome of thel'e Texts efpecially, " ive renounce thofe
"■ hidden things of Dilhonefty, not walking in Crattiiiefs, or
'• ha.idlinj: the Word of God deceittully, " but by a fair in-
genuous Expofition of the fa«.rcd Scripture, endeavouring to dif-
k pfal. xviii. 23.
L 3 cover
g4 7/&5 Do^rlne of Original Sin, &c.
cover and eftablifli the Truths of God, among which we can'fc
help reckoning the Do<£trine of Original Sin. This as it ftands
impregnable on the Bafis of Scripture^ (o it is perfcdly agree-
able to found Reafon. Every divine revealed Truth muft be fo*,
The Word of God, and right Reafon, cannot contradift each
other. Let nie put together the y/r^tt/w«^^ that common-
ly are, or might be, infifted on in Support of the Scripture-
jjo^rine we plead for. >
1, If Man was originally righteous, and by his Fall loft that
original Righteoufnefs of his, as has been made evidciit, and if»
confequentiy upon thaty each of his Pofterity is fent into the.
World void of fuch a Principle, this proves that Mankind are
now born, not with fuch a Nature as Man had at firft, but withf'
the Nature contradled by the Fall ; and that amounts to a fuffi-
cient Proof of what we call, Original Sin. ^t
2. If the fir ft: Man was, by God's Appointment, the legal,;
federal Head of all his natural Defcendanis, as we have beforj*,
proved, it undeniably follows, that when Jdam fmned and fell,
all they finned in him, and fell with him ; which if they did,
they muft: come into the World both guilty and unclean, in the
Sight of God. Some, perhaps, will objeit as follows.
Cbje£f. I. We had no Hand in ^(^^w's Sin, and therefore are
not juftly chargeable with Guilt on account of it.
R. This, JVe had no Hand in Adam'j Sin, is ambiguous.
It fignifies either, IFe were not in Being, and^ did not actually^
join therein ; or, We were wholly unconcerned in that firjl Sin of
our firft Father. The former 13 granted by all : The latter is
denied, and the contrary thereto already proved. We were re-
ally concerned in it, as it was the Sin of our federal Head.
Object. 2. Every Sin is voluntary. None can either ferve
God, or Sin, againft their Wilis.
R. I. 'Tis granted, that if a Perfon is forced to do what his
Will is utterly againft, 'tis no Sin in the Sight of God. If, for
Inftance, the old Serpent, or any other, had compelled our firft
Parents to eat of the forbidden Fruit, ffuppofing this without
granting it could have been foj that Adlion of theirs would have.
been faultlefs. But,
2. As the Nature of o//'was in Jdam, fo was the JFi II of eve-st
ry one of his natural Defcendants. His Will, as their appointed!;
federal Head, was virtually theirs. Confequentiy, his Original
Righteeufnefs was theirs while he preferved it, and his firjl Sin\
was theirs, when he committed it.
Object. 3. If God freely pardons the Sins of Men committed
by themfelves, bow can he riohteoufly impute the Sin of ano-
ther ?
R. I. God
Explained and Vindicated. r^^
R. i'. God no further imputes to us the Sin of our firft Fa-
ihej-, thait a» that Sin of his was, indeed ours. His imputing
il to us his Defcendants, is not his looking upon it as our per-
fonal Fault, or actual Tranfgrcflion ; but his reputing it the Sin
of one who way, juflly and wifely appointed to fland or fall for
US' his' Defcendants, as well as himfeif,
'-1. if God forgives a Man's own perfonal Offences, that is
owing to another, and a better. Covenant, than what was made
with yf/:/<7w in Innoceney. While God juftly imputes the ori-
ginal Fault of our federal Head, he freely pardons the many
Sins that are fincerely repented of, for the fake of Chrift.
ObjeSf. 4.. If Adani's firjl Sin is imputed to us, v/hy is not
his Repentance imputed ?
R. His fir/i Sin is imputed, for the Reafon often mentioned
already becaufe it was the Sin of our covenanting Reprefenta-
tive ; his Repentance is not imputed, becaufe a wife and gracious
God has ordained Righteoufnefs and Life to be by another.
"What the Ground of our Acceptance with a juft and holy
God i( fee, in Rom. v. 10, 19. cb. vi. 23. and many other
Texts, none of which exclude the Neceffity of Rcpentanccy
while they dire£l us to feek after Juftification by Chrifl ; for as
the Imputation of Jdains Guilt does not exclude, but rather
implies, a Corruption of Nature, fo Juftjfication by the Righ-
teoufnefs of another, does no vvay fliut out an inherent
Change, or render a Sandtification of the whole Man unne-
ctirary- »
'•3. Since y/<-/i7w's P'-Oerlty are " born unto Trouble," and
for the fufFering of Dcaih^ wiiicii '^ is the V/ages, and the
*' legal Punllhment of Sin/' it follows that they are born Sin-
ners. This plain Argument was much infilled on formerly
by Auguftin and his Aiiocjates, againft the. Pelagians. Since
that, our Divines have never failed to brandifii this Weapon,
which Our accutcft Arjtagonifts can, by no Means, blunt the
Edge of.
^'■-4. Another Proof of the Do6lrine we plead for, is the gene-
ral' -Corruption of Minds and Manners that has hitherto pre-
vailed throughout every Age of the World. This has been
foitt'i^What fpoken to from Gen. vi. 5. and ch. viii. 21. PfaL
xW.'''i,' 2i 3. and Pfal. Iviii. 3. — In every Age there
aVe'fome who truly love, and fincerely fcrvc, the bleiTed God ;
^{iV that the Scripture teaches us to afcribc to Jpecial dijiin-
guljlying Mercy., which every good Man is a figiial Monument
oU Gen. vi. 8. Pfal. xxiii. 3. Pjal. li. 6. I Cor. i. 27, 2g,
iSi'rih:V\.\\. 1 Tirn,'\.g. "Tit. iii. 5, 6, 7. bcfides which
arcJiuny other Texts fpeakmg to the fame Purpofe.
= •> -' • ^'4 5- ^^^
5^ ^he Do5lrine of Original Sift, &c,
5. The native Guilt and Corruption of Mankind fince the
Fall, we argue from what the Scripture tells us as to the abjo-
lute Need of Regeneration. Our Lord himfelf, of whom fome
boldly affirm that he never taught the common Dodrine of
Origmal Sin, has provided us with this plain invincible Argu-
ment in John iii. 5, 6. in a diftincSl Difcourfe from which juft
now publiihed, I ihow what the New Birth is ; on what Ac-
counts 'tis neceffary for every one of Mankind ; how from the
Neceffity of fuch a Change we may infer the native Corruption
cf Man J what that Corruption of Nature is which every one
of Jdam's Pofterity is born with ; why it is called Flejh ; and
how we may fairly account for the Souls becoming corrupt, in
Confequence of the Fall of Adam, even though it is not, can*
not be, corrupted, either by God's A6t, of creating it, or by
its Union with the Body, and, though it is not propagated, or
derived, as the Body is.
. . 6. We may ^rgue, from the Ordinances of Circumcijion,
and Baptifm. Circumcifion onCe was, and Baptiftn now is, a
Sign of Regeneration, a Token of God's taking a Perfon into
Covenant with himfelf, and a Seal of the Righteoufnefs of
Faith, or the Remiflion of Sins. The Jntipedobapti/is may
acknowledge the Force of this Argument, as taken from the
old Ordinance of Circumcifion. Why were Infants circum-
cifed, as well as others, if they had no Need of Regeneration^
which is defcribed as a " Circumcifion of the Heart ?" Dent.
XXX. 6. compared with^^. x. 16- and Lev. xxvi. 41. To what
Purpofe are the Infants of God's People, baptized, if not, in a
fpiritual Senfe, unclean ; fince wajhing prefuppofes Filth, and
Baptifm was ordained for the Remijfion of Sins ? Several Pela-
gians are of late pafled into the Tents of the Antipedohaptijls.
This is not at all 'marvellous. 'Tis rather to be wondered at,
that any fhould perfift in an oppofitionto Original Sin, and yet
continues Poedobaptijis ; or that any thinking confidering Perfon
of this Denommation fhould remain unconvinced of the
Dodlrine we are now pleading for ; which may be further
confirmed from,
7. The Redemption of Chrift as extending itfelf to Infants.
Either Chrift is the Saviour of Infants, or he is not. If lie is
not, how can he be faid in any Scnfc to fave all, or die for all ?
.2 Cor. v. 14. His fuffering of Death v/as only for Sinners, i
T/m. i. 15. He came to feek and to fave only that ivhich was
lofl, Luke xix. 10. His Name was called y*?/^^, becaufe he
came to fave his People from thdi '^\\\%, Muith. i. 21. If he
gave himfelf for the Church, it was '<• tliat he" might fanclify
^* and cleanfe ir, ijV." Eph. v. 25, 26; 7.-]. Tiie Queflion
then
Explained and Viridicated. "^
then is. Are Infants included in thefe charailers, or are they
not ? If they are excluded, why is Chrift faid to be the Saviour
of ail Men ^ and to die for all} which Scriptue-Phrafes relate
either to all Individuals .^ or Per fans of every Age^ Sex, Condi-
tion. Which way foever we taice them. Infants mull needs be
included ; from whence it follows that they are Sinners, that
they are /o/?, that they are Members of the Redeemed Churcliy
and without Chrift are undone for ever.
Objeil. If it is fo, why are Infants faid to' be innocent j and
why are the Children of God's People faid to be/^o/y ?
, R. I. Some Infants are fpolcen of as Innocents, in regard to
-them who cruelly and unjuftly put them to Death, fer. xix. 4.
Pfal. cvi. 38.
2. All Infants are innocent, comparatively to others, who
have contracted the Guilt of fuiful acquired Habits, and many
a^lual, perfonal Sins, which Infants are as yet clear of. Some of
the Lutherans, if not miftook or mifreprefenred,fpeak of Infants
as guilty of adtual Sins antecedently to their Births This is gene-
rally exploded as to the laft Degree abfurd. We pretend not to
determine at what age we began to fin actually : That, perhaps,
is not certainly known to any but God himfclf.
- 3. The Holinefs afcribed to fome Children, is not a Princi*
pie of faving Grace, but an external, relative, federal Holinefs ;
A Riglit to be dedicated to God in a particular Way, to par-
take of the initial Seal of the Covenant of Grace. Such may
be confidered either as the Defcendants of Adam, or as the
Children of prof ejfing Believers : In the former Rejpeii they are
Children of IVrath ; in the latter, federally holly : And thefe
-are no way inconfiftent, as a being really in the Kingdom of
Satan, and a vifible Relation to the Church, or Kingdom, of
Chrift, undoubtedly are not. - I might add feveral other
Proofs of the Dodlrine of Original Sin, but content myfelf with
one more.
8^. The Confequences from a Denial of this Do£trine are ei-
their monfroufy abfurd, or remarkably Anti-Chri/lian, and
Anti- Evangelical. After what has been hinted already, a bare
mention of thefe will be fufficient.
1. If Original Sin is not, it will follow that, either Death is
not the Wages of Sin, or there is Punifhment without Guilt:
God piinifhcs innocent, puililefs, Creatures; to fuppofe «;/>/V/;
is to afcribe Iniquity, or Injufiice, to the moft holy One.
2. If we are not Sinners by Nature, there are finful Actions
without a Principle, or Fruit growing without a Root; In
the natural World all Plants grow from fome Seed or Root.
Now there is an Analogy between the natural and morel
World.
^8 1'he "DoSfrine of Original Sin^ &c.
W^ttrldy. as fo thii. Mankind, fay fome, contradl finful Habits by
Degrees, and thtn commence Sinners. But from whence is it
that they fo eafily, and fpeedily, acquire fuch Habits ? from
whence is it that the Difcoveries of Reafon are not earlier than
tbofe of a corrupt Tendency^ or Difpofition ? The earliefl Dif-
coveries of Reafon are from a Principle of that kind planted in
our Natures j the earlieft Difcoveries of a corrupt Biafs, or Ten-
dency in our Natures, are from the Corruption of them, or a
Want of Original Righteoufnefsy contradled by the fall of our
federal Head.
3. If Jclam was not the appointed federal Head of Mankind,
and if Mankind did not fall in him, and if his Sin is not im-
puted to all his Defcendants, it will follow, that Chrifl is not^
the federal Head of all his, and that his Righteoufnefs is not im-^
puted to them^ fo far as to acquit them from Condemnation;'
and entitle them to eternal Life, Ram. v. 18, 19. Every Ar^
gument for Jujiijication by Chriji implicitly confirms our Fatl
in Adam. If we are hot ruined by our firft Father, we are
not recovered by Chrift : But can Chriftian Ears bpar fuch'
Blafphemy f ■
4. If we do not derive a corrupt Nature, as well as Guilt,
from our firft Father, it will follow that we do not derive a
n£'w Nature from Chrift ; as it is certain all true Chriftians do,
Rom. viii. 9. Eph. ii. 10. Tit. iii. 6, 7 .
5. If we did not fall in Jdam^ 'tis evident that we are not*
fallen Creatures at ail ; neither can we be charged as Ifrael was
formerly, Hof. xiv. i. For what is it to fall rrom God ? It is
to lofe the Intereft in his Favour, the Love to him, and the
Fitnefs for ConimLinion with him, which we formerly poflefr''*
fed. We pan't lofe what we never had. If we were riof?
righteous in yjdam., originally^ and if we did not lofe an In»
tereft in the divine Favour with hini, at his Fall, though we
are Sinners, we are not to be looked on as fallen Creatures, or
as needing a Recovery. But no where, that I know of, does
the Scripture fpeak of Sinners that are not. fallen Creatures, or
of any not as yet recovered by Chrift, who have no need of
fuch a Rejlorer, fuch a Redeemer.
6.A Denial of Original Sin tends to impeach the Wifdom of
God, in appointingluch an initial Sign and SeaJ of the Ccven/.nt
of Grace, as circumcificn Wdf. formerly, and i3aptirm is noiv.
•J. A Denial of Original Sin not oiiiy renders Baptifm need-r
lefs, in regard to Infants, but it rcprefents a great Part of
Mankind as having no Need of Chri/l, and the Grace of the
New Covenant. I now fp'i-ak of Infanis, who if noi. g7ii I ty
before God, have no more NrL.i wi :he Righteoufncfs and Grace
of the fecond /Idam^ thau the Brutes tl cmfeives.
8. A
Explained and Vindicated, 59
8. A Denial of this Dodrine thwarts and contradicts the
main Defign of the Gof^el, which is to humble the fallen
Creature, to guard agaiaft Creature boafting, and to afcribe to
God's free rich Grace ^ rather than Man's free Will, the whole
of his Salvation. See and attend to Rom. iii. in. and \er, 27.
I Cor. \. 30, 31. Ifa. xlv. 24, 25. which with the many other
parallel Pdflages, are Gail and Wormwood to the vain, conceited
Deniers of Oiiginil Sin, while they 2^xt fweeter than Honey, to
ferious, humble, judicious, Chriftians ; and are equally calcu-
lated to promote Comfort and Obedience. Thefe Confidera-
tions will, I imagine, have no Weight with fome. But the
Generality of the more ierious underftanding Chriftians will be
hereby confirmed in their Attacliment to a Dodrine, which
can't be di'carded without letting go moft, if not all, the main
efTential Articles of the Chriftian P^aith. — A late Book is to be
looked upon as not only an Attack on a particular Article of
our Faith, but as I'ubverfive of the whole Chriftian Scheme.
A Man can't confiftently oppofe the Dodlrine of Original Sifiy
without likewife denying Mw's Original Righteoufnefs, fujli-
fication by Chriji, the Renewal of our Natures by his Spirit, &c,
r— I now go on to
Prop. VI. The DoSirlne of Original Sin, here pleaded for ^
h not only true, but a Scripture Truth of the greatejl Importance
and Ufefulnefs. The eight Particulars juft mentioned, are a
Proof of this. Few Truths, it any, are more necefTary to be
known, believed, and confidered by every one, than tlw
Dodrine of Original Sin. For if we are Strangers to this
Truth, we don't rightly knowr ourfelves ; and without foi-ne
good Knowledge of ourfelves, we can't fufficiently know Chri/i
and the Grace of God, unto which, if we don't mifcarry, we
mufl: be eternally beholden for the whole of our Salvation.
That Remark of Auguftin, «' Chriftianity lies chiefly in the
»* Knowledge of what concerns Adam and ChriJ},'" has been
quoted with Approbation by feveral ; and that very juftly. For,
certainly, if we don't know Chrijl, we know nothing to any
Purpofe; and this Knovvledgeof Chi ift includes in it fomeKnow-
ledge of what relates to the firft Man Adam, who was a Figure
of him who was to come.
Obje^: 1. If this Dodrine is fo important, whv is there
fo little of it in the Scripture, and the Writings of tlic An-
tients ?
R. This proceeds upon a Mi/lake. We deny that the Scrip-
ture favs fo little of ir, as is pretended bv fome. " Thee are
** but five Paflages of Scripture, fays MrT.Xhzx. rcldtc phiin/y ■
'"■ anU
6o The Do^rine of Original Sin, &c.
f« and undeniably^ to the EfFeds of Mam's Fall." « There
*< are but two or three Texts, fay fame others y that fo much
*' as feem to aflert Original Sin." Theje appear to us vain
Imaginations. Many Scriptures diredlly teach us this Doctrine,
and many others deliver that from which it can be rationally,
and eafily deduced. The whole Dodrine of Salvation by
Chrift, and Divine Grace, does indeed imply this. Juftifica-
tion by Chrift, Regeneration, ^c. each of ihefe directly leads
to it. So does the Dodlrine of Man's Original Righteoufnefs,
than which nothing is more plainly revealed. If any could plead,
the Scripture fays nothing of it ; or there is little in the Scrip-
ture from whence it can be fairly inferr'd ; or, the Scripture
teaches us to regard it as ^ mere Speculation, as a Matter of
fmall Significancy, that would be to the Purpofe ; that would
forbid our contending fo earneflly for it, or taking fo much pains
to confirm the Faith of Chriftians herein, which is the main
Defign of thefe Papers. As to the Antients before Augujiin^
they are not altogether filent upon this Subjcdl ; and if they
iay little about it, 'tis eafily accounted for. The Remains of
fome of them are very fmall.-— The Occafions of their writing;
did not lead them to enlarge on this Subjedl.— -The Doc-
trine we plead for, had not been as yet oppofed : For, " who,
*^ fays one, ' before that mon(lrous Difciple of Pelagius^ Ce-
<« UJiiuSy denied all Mankind to be involved in the Guilt of
*' Adam's Tranfgreffion ?" Yet Irenaus fpeaks out this
Truth plainly and frequently. And fevcral others occafionally
touch it. Some of their Teftimonies I have had Occafion to
mention alreadv'. Several more might be added. T)r. IVbithy^ in
his Trc^tiie of the Jive Points^ as he borrows much from the
foreign Remonflrants, Sociniaris, and Papifts, fo |ie oft cites
Daillc (whom he corruptly calls' Dally) and G. "J. Vejjius.
But whritever thofe very great, and good, Men help iiim to
upon fome other Suhicdts, tl)ey are as clear as can be, both in
arfcnting; totheDoitrme of Original Sin as an important Truth,
and in maintaining, that it was always the Belief of the Chri-
jftian Church, from the Beginning.
OhjeSf. 2. If the Do£lrine, you plead for, is fo certain, and
fo weighty momentous a Truth, why is it rejedted by fo many
©f the Wife and Learned ?
' Quis ante prodlgiofum diie'pulum Pelagii Celenium reatu preva-
ricationis Adaomne genas humanum ncgavit aftridum ? Fine, Lirin.
cs'it. Harejis. .
R.i.
Explained and Vindicated. ' €i
R. I. Many who would be thought wondrous wife, are far
fjoin being truly fo. Whatever they knov/, they arc ignorant
of Chrill, the Grace of God and themftlves, Tl.cy are Gran-
gers to the Life of God. With the Bible in their Hands, fome
Skill in the Original Languages, ilfc. they know nothing of
vital, experimental Religion. On which Account, let them be
ever To conceited of themfelves, and fcornful of fuch as differ
from them, they are none of the moft competent Judsjcs of
fuch Scripture Truth, as Original Sin, Efficacious Grace, Sic,
2. A fufficient Reply to this Objedion maybe given from
thofe Words of Chrift, in A^at. xi. 25. and thofe of the Apof-
tle, I Cor. i. 25, 26, ^c.
3. The Learned of the World have been as ftronglv preju-
diced againft the whole Gofpel of Chrift, as dark in their Con-,
ceptions of Divine Things, and as uiifettled even in their Belief
of natural Principles, as any whatever. Who among the Jtbe-
nians more forward to cenfure the Apoftle, and his Doctrine
than the Pkilofophers ? Ads xvii. 18. Who among the Jewi
more prejudiced againft Chrift, and his Do^lrine, than the
conceited Pbarifces ? Job. vii. 4.8, 49. The Philcfcphers of
the Heathen World were not fo fully perfuaded of fome great
Points of natural Rcligioh as the Vulgar were. I defy any
to name that Philofophcr who was firmly, and fteadily perfua,-
ded of the Immortality of the Soul, with a future State of Re-
wards and Puniftimeins. To be fare, Socrates, Plato, Cicero
were not fo. TertuUian obferves, " that Philofophers were the
" Patriarchs of Hcretich.^' A young Lad being cnce afk'd,
Whether he pray'd for a Bleffing on his studies, and not giving
a fatisfaflory Anlwer, received this fmart Reply from an hontft
Scotch Divine, " Sirrah, unfandlified Learning has done much
** Harm to the Kirk of God." By whom, cliitfly, have In-
fidel Principles, and the moft dangerous Opinions been invent-
ed and propagated ? By Men of Repute for Learning, and S'.i-*
briety, at the fams Time, perhaps, neglctflful of fecret
Prayer, conceited of their own Wifdoin and Al>iliiies, and
Strangers to vital experimental Religion. A pLin lerious
Chriftian who feels the Truth of what the Apoftle fays,
Galat. V. 17. is a much competenter Judge of fome great
Truths, than any fuch, t Cor. ii. 1 5, I am ng Enemy to human
Literature, of any kind. The Minifters of Chrift can't be too
learned. But as Men of Repute for Lvarnine, if void of Difcre-
tion, may be exceeding mifchievousin the Pktces where they are
f«ttJed ; fo ftudious learned Men, if Strangers to the Renew -
6z The Do^frine of Original Sin, 8zc^
ing Grace of God, are very unfit to be Teachers of others,
and as Jikely as any to vent, propagate, and ruin preciouis
immortal Souls by, Unfcriptural, Anti-Evangelical, wicked
Opinions.
Upon the v/hole, there is no Article of our Faith better
attefted, and more honourably witnefled to, than this of Ori-
ginal Sitiy Imputed, and Inherent.
I. 'Tis what many Texts of Scripture plainly teach us.
Thefe have been ftated and explained.
2. Reajon, aflifted by Revelation, does not gainfay it.
There are indeed, Difficulties attending fuch Queftlonsas thefe.
Why did God ordain Adam to be a federal Head ? If fo^
Why did he permit him, and Mankind in him, to fall ?
Why are the Millions of Mankind SufFerers for the Sin of
one Man ? Why are they fent into the World without Ori-
ginal Righteoufnefs ? If human Souls are from God, and
God does not infufe Wickednefs into them, how come
ihey to be corrupt ? The Firji I have given fome Account
of, (proving it to be a juft, wife, good ConftitutionJ in the
Sermon on Gen, ii- i6, 17. That ht'xng accounted for, the
Secondy Third, and Fourth, become tolerably eafy : The /<?/?
I account for in the Sermon on fohn iii. 6. p. 33, 34, &c.
That fpecious Obje<3:ion, *' What is natural is necefTary, and
" what is necefTary, is not criminal," how much foever fome
make a Flourilh with it, will be defpifed by all, who are not
ignorant of fo evident a Truth as A/an' s Original Righteouf-
nefs, and who attend to the Scripture Account of Regeneration ;
of which fee my Sermon on John iii. 5, 6. p. 7, 8, <), 10, &c.
With the Jppendix.
3. 'Tis a practical Doftrine. Every Article of the Gofpel
is according to Godlinefs. So is this in particular. It leads
Alan to a due Knowledge of himfelf : It prepares him for,
or confirms him in, juft Conceptions of the Dependance of
his Salvation on the Righteoufnefs and Grace of the Second
jfdam : It humbles the proud Creature ; it forbids Self-Admi-
ration and Boafting ; it dire£ls Chriftian Parents to pity,
pray for, and give up to Chrift, their infant Off-fpring, ^c,
4. 'Tis an experimental Truth. The fincere Chriftian finds
that in himfelf conftantly which is enough to convince him of
it, or confirm him in an Adherence to this Dodtrine.
Pleafc
Explained and Vindicated i
Plcafe to look back on p. 4I, 43, &c. Dr Hill would fome-
times lay his Hand on his Breaft, and fay^, « The true Chriftia.i
has that here, which is fufficient to confute a Pelagian. *"
5, 'Tis a Truth that the Churches of Chrift have gttietiXiy
witnefled to from the Beginning. Some Teftimoniet of the
Ante- AugujUnian Fathers, I have cited already. Let a few
more be briefly hinted at. Jujiin Martyr fpeak* of ** Mankind
" as fallen under Death, and the Deceit of the Serpent "»; " of
*' all Adain% Defcendants, as condemned for his Sin, and all
" Chrift's as juftified by htm." Irenaus fpeaks of " Man as
*' needing the Laver of Regeneration, becaufe born in Sin ". *t'
The blind Man in John ix. was, he fays, *' blind from Adam °. **
He very often fpeaks of " Man's lofing the Image of God by
<' the Fall, and Believers recovering it by Chrilt. " Tertut-
" //^n fays, *' Man was in the Beginning deceived, andthere-
'* fore condemned to Death, upon which his whole Race bp-
*< comes infe£^ed, and Partakers of his Condemnation'." Cypri"
an is exprefs in his Epiftle to one Fidus^ who queftioned whether
Infants might be baptized before the eighth Diy. Origen fays,
*' The Curfe of Adam is common to all. " Again : »' No one
*' is clean from the Filth of Sin, even though he is riot above a
«' Day old, " — " The whole of me, fays Nazian%en, has
'* need of being faved, fince the whole of me fell, and was:
*' condemned for the Difobedience of my firft Father, through
" the Fraud of the Adverfary." Other Teftimonies of
Jthanafius, Bafil, Hilary of PoiSiien, &c. I omit j they be-
ing of the Fourth Century j yet they v/ere each of them prior to
Augujiin, who cites feveral of them in Support of his Doctrine,
and declares, for himfelf, he was perfuadcd of it from the Time
of his Converfion 1, and long before his being engaged with Pi-
Ingius, and his Adherents. Since Augujlin s Time, how gene-
rally it has been aflerted, and contended for as important Truth,
»' Ttito Sai'aloi' *:«» 'iv'>\a,vri» Tijv tb o^ew;. Dial, cum Tryph.
" £t quonium in ilia plafmatione qu«e fecundutn hominem eft
•• in lranfgre£ione fa8us eft homo, indigebat lavacro Regenerationis."
lib 3. C. I 5.
- o " Ab Adam C:ecus."
.; " " Exinde toturn genus de fuo femine infeftum fuje etiam damna-
•' tionis fecit."' Tertul. deteftimonio JnimfS contra Centes.
•1 *' Ego per unum hominem in mundum intrafle peccatum, &c. ab
"^ initio converfionis fic tenui Temper ut teneo. Extant libri, quos -■-
'^ conrcripfi -- -nondumficut pollea facris Uteris eruditus, tamen nihil
" de hac re jam tunc fentiens, & ubi difpatandi ratio popolcerat, di-
" cens, nifi quod antiquitus difcit & docct omnis Ecclefia. " cant, Ju'
linn. Pelag. lib, 6 cap. 4.
bv
(5 4 The 'DoSlrim of Original Sin, "&c.
by the beft Chriftians, is commonly known. Thefe Teftimo-
nies we value. But the Scripture is our Standard. This we
adhere to as the only Rule of Faith. This we read daily, con-
Verfe with much, endeavour to grow in Acquaintance with 5
humbly diffident of ourfelves, earneflly defirous of Divine Di-
redionj which if fome did more fincerely and ardently pray for,
in their daily^ frequent, fecret Addrefles to God, they would, it
may be, be no more " Children, tofTed to and fro, carried about
" with every Wind of Dodlrine, by the Slight of Men, and
" cunning Craftinefs, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. '*
God grant that Minijiers and Chri/iians may *' hold faft the
*« faithful Word, as they have been taught, that they may be
<« able, by found Dodrine, both to exhort and to convince the
*' Gainfayers. "
I'' I N I S.
THE
SCRIPrURE-DOCTR
OF I M P u T E d( , N0V9 1926
Sin and Right eousnes
S TAXED and DEFENDED:
Chiefly for confuting what Socinian Wri-
ters, (and the Reverend Mr J. Taylor, in his late
Books againfl Original Sin) have fuggefted, as to
" God's imputing no Sin or Righteousness but
" what is Perfonal."
With
A Vindication ofO riginal R ighteousness ;
Occafional Remarks on Grotius, Lccke, Emlin, Src. ;
An Apology for a particular Aflertion of Luther''^ ; A particular
Account of our Lord's Agony in the Garden ;
Some Thoughts on that Article ot the Common Creed,
" He defcended into Hell," i^c.
By Samuel ""Hebden.
LONDON:
Printed, and D u b l i n Reprinted, by E D W. BATE In
George' s-lane, Mdccxlvii,
^..
THE
WHATEVER Difficulties a Doarine is attended with,
if 'tis attefted by numerous exprefs Texts of Scrip-
ture, and if the plain undeniable Confequences from
a Denial of it, are manifeftly abfurd ; every one
who really builds his Faith upon the Scripture, and can reafon
confiftcntly, muft think himfelf indefpenfibly obliged to believe,
and adhere to, that Do6trine. Now this is the Cafe with re-
gard to the Do6lrine of Original Sin, or the native hereditary
Guilt, and Corruption, of Mankind fince the Fall. The main
DifHculties that this Article of our Faith is affedled with, are
thcfe two. Why J]:)ould God ordain Adam to be a federal Head?
And, If human Souls are from God i?nmediately, as is commonly
believed. How come they to he corrupt ? The Solution of thefc
difficult Quelliona, has been attempted by feveral ; and fomc-
times with good Succefs; ferious thinking Chriftians having been -
to a Degree fatisHed, the Wavering confirmed, and Obftinate
Gainfayers evidently perplexed. The former is confidered in a
Sermon on Gen. ii, i6, 17. fuhjoincd to another on Man''s O-
riginal Rightcoufwfs ; the latter in a Difcourfe on John iii. ^,
6. entituled, " Baptifmal Regeneration difproved," l^c. -
The numerous exprefs Texts that prefent us with the Doctrine
of Original Sin, and the abfurd Confequences from a denial of
it ; theL* witli a particular Explicatipn and Vindication of the
former.
PREFACE.
former, are ftafed in another Bot-k, the Title of which rurjs
tl)us: *' The Doctrine of Original Sin explain'd ; proved to be
*' agreeable to Scripture and Reafon, and vindicated as a Truth
" of the greateft Importance," ^c. One of the JrgumsntT
there ftateJ is this^ " If Jdam was not the appointed Federal
" Head of Mankind,— and if his Sin is not imputed to all his
** Defcendants, it will follow that Chrift is not the Federal
" Head of all his^ and that his Righreoufnefs is not imputed to
" tbew^ fo far as to acquit them from Condemnation, and enti-
" tie tliCm to Eternal Life." This Argument is particularly
infiiled on in the following Papers ; in which I condemn not Men,
but Opinions ; and thefe not without plainly proving them Jnti-
fcriptural. Irrational ^ and Pernicious. 'Tis not for me to at-
tack the Reputation of fuch eminent Pcrfons as Grotius^ Locke,
Pierce^ &c. But without detradlinz from their real Worth, or
queftioning the Integrity of tiie M^in^ what Should hinder my
tree Cenfure of their hurtful ATiJiakcs? I pretend not to Em-
b.llifhmenis of Stile, and Pomp of Language, which in a Con-
troverfial Traftfeem needlefs and improper : While the main Ex-
cellencies of every Writmg are Propriety and Pcrfpicuity of Ex-
pieflion, with Jujinefs of Thought., and Strength of Reafoning \ in
regard to which, I defire and hope, not to be found remarkably
deficient. — Iv/ould al'.v-iys conform r<> that Chiiftian Chara6ler,
tranfciiied into the Title Page of Mr T.\ Supplement, from
Eph. iv. 15. fpeciking the Truth in Love. If any thing in thefe.
Papers is usifuitable thereto, I renounce it with all my Heart ;
as knowing it my Duty both to contend earneftly for the Faith
of the Gofpel, and in M£ek}:efi to ij^flru6t thofe who oppofe
thcinfelves.
THE
r I ]
THE
SCRIPTURE-DOC TRINE
OF IMPUTED
Sin and PvIG hte ousxNess
S T A T E D, ^c.
IN and R'lghteoufnefs are throughout the Scripture, op*
pofcd to each other. To make way for clearlvftating the
Scripture Account of Imputed Si/jy and Imputed Righte-
teoufnefs^ 'tis proper to begin with enquiring. What Sin
is ; what Righteoufnefs is; what the principal Scripture Accep-
tations of theje twotivc ; and what it is that is properly orufuallv
intended by ihe Imputation of either^ in the facred Scripture
common Speech, and the Writings of Men ?
5/«, as the Apoflle John defcribes it, *' is a Tranfgreffion of
*' the Law, Avopa, a Contrariety to Law," or *« a Non-fulfil-
*< ment of any Law of God," that the rational Creature is
fubjedl to. Righteoufnefs^ accordingly, is "a Fulfilment of
*' or Conformity to, that Law of God." This is Sin and
Righteoufnefs properly fo called. But as Sin involves the Crea-
ture in Guilt , (a juft Liablenefs to threatned Punifliment ) the
Words and Phrafes, that properly denote <SV// itfelf^ are often
put to exprefb- both thefe, Guilt and Punijhment. So that to
he S inner Sy muft import, either (i.J A being Tranfo-refTors
M 3 "of
2 The Scripture-Do^rine of ^
of Law ; or (2.) A being guilty, /. e. juftly punifliable ; or
(3.) A being a(^ual Sufferers of the Punifhment due to Sin *.
On the other Hand, Righteoufnefs is not only a *' Fulfilment
*' of Law, " (any Divine Law that the Creature is fubje6l to)
but being oppofed to Guilty it fignifies a Non-liablencfs to Con-
demnation, a being under no Obligation to fuffer the defcrved
Puniftiment of Sin, a legal, or federal, Right to Impunity and
Life ; and Eternal Life itfelf, with the BiefTings promifed to
Righteoujnefs^ or them who are righteous, are often fignified by
this Name. Particularly the great Blefling of JuJIification ^
fecms to be called Right eoufuejs, Rom. iv. 3, 5. ch. ix. 30. ch.
X. 4, 10. I. Cor. i. 30. Gal, ii. 21. ch. iii. 21.
To impute Sin^ or Iniquity^ and to Impute Righteoufnefs^
What are thefe ? R. Imputation of Sin mufl be either of " Sin
*« itfelf" Sin properly fo called, or of " Guilt on Account of
" it." To impute Sin properly fo called, to a Perfon, is to
account him a TranfgrefTor of Laiv^ (any Law that he is under)
or to pronounce him fuch an one, and deal with him accordingly.
To impute Guilt to a Perfon, is to account him juftly obnoxious
» Rom. V. 19. There " to be made Sinners, " muft denote, *' a
*^ being condemned, " an having Guilt imputed, or " a being fub-
*' jedled to legal Punifhment : " And to be made Sinners 6y Adam\
Difobedimce, is, to be reputed guilty for if, as the Sin of our fede-
ral Head, or fubjeded to the threatened Punilhment of it, according
to the Capacity of the Sufferers ; as J prove, in my late Difcourfe on
Origifial Sh, p. 45 — 5 I . in[Oppofition to the wild 6V/«/«k Hypothefis
of Mr 7. who makes no more of the Apoftle's Words than this, that,
*' on Occafion of Jdam''s Fall, his Pofterity are, by the wife graci-
*' ous Providence of God, fubjeded to fuch temporal Sorrows, and
*' fuch a Death of the whole Man, as are not the penal EfFeds of
*• that Fall. " — Others fuppofe the Deaih originally threatned, to be
a total Deftrudion of the whole Man, but confider it as the proper
penal Fruit of Adani'% Fall.
b This is alfo expreffed by Atxatwo-K; and Aixai£ci/y,« ; the former is
ufed only in Rotn. iv. 25. and ch. v. j8. the other ch. v. 16. where
^t«at&)fA«, is plainly the fame with .^ik«(W£7k, n^er. 18. and d'»x«iot »<xla-
rafisvlE?, 'ver. i o. Both are derived from ^e ^(xai^pai, the preter Tenfe
of a paffive Verb, that fignifies either to bejujl, or to bejuflijied. In
Regard to the former Senfc, h'/.a.:u\i.a denotes that which is Juft, (as
the Law of Nature, Rotn. i. 32. or the Righteoufnefs of the Law,
ch v. 18. ch. viii. 4.) In Regard to the latter Senfeof the Verb, it is
derived from, it fignifie.. JuJ] if cation ■? Mr Locke had obferved thefe
different Ules of the Veth, and --oeihal Noun, fpoken ef, he could not
have afTerted as he does in his Note of Rom. ii z6. that " Aikcaui-^oi.
'■' is every where ufed in the fame Scnfe, both by the Apoftle Paul,
•' and in the Jpocalypfe, i. e. for that Rule which, if ccir.plied with,
^ juflified, or rendered perfed, the Perfon or Th/sg it referred to."
to
z'mputed Sin and Rlgheeoufnefs Jiated, Sec, 3
to fome threatned Punifhment, or to pronounce him (o, (to
condemn him, to lay Iniquity to his Charge by a judicial Sen-
tence) and treat him as guilty in the Eye of the Law. So, to
impute Righteou/fie/Sf properly fo called, to any one, is to re-
pute him a Fulfiller of the Law, he is fubjedt to ; or to pro-
nounce him fo to be, and treat him as fuch : And to i7)iputs
Righteoufnefs ^% it ftands oppofed to Gz////, fRom. iv. 6.) is
to repute him, o\ f renounce him, and deal with him as, a guilt-
lefs Perfon. This feems a plain unexceptionable Account of what
the Word of God, human Writings, and common Speech,
ufually intend by the imputing of Sin^ or Rightcsufnefs c.
Thai when " Abraham believed God, it was counted unto
" him for Righteoufnefs," Gen. xv, 6. Rom. iv. 3, g. Gal. iii.
6. Jam. ii. 23. and that " this was not written (recorded in
*' the Old Teftament) for his fake alone, but for us alfo, ta
** whom it fliall be imputed, if we believe," life. Rom. iv.
23, 24. That^ " to him who worketh, the Reward is not:
*' reckoned of Grace, but of Debt ; but to him who worketh
*' not, but believcth on him who jufiilieth the Ungodly, his
*' Faith is counted for Righteoufnefs.^' Rom. iv. 4, 5. That
God does not impute Iniquity to fome v.'ho have tranfgrefTed,
but imputes Righteoufnefs without Works, to them, fthefe
two, *' Non-Imputation of Sin," and " Imputation of Righ-
*' teoufnefs," being the f^ime, Pfal. xxxii. i, 2. Rom. iv. 6,
7, 8.) That " every one who does Righteoufnefs is righteous,
** even as he [Goa, or Cbri/i) is righteous," i John iii. 7. and
*'•* whofoever doth not Rigiueoufnefs is not of God," ver. 10.
as " every ore that doth Righteoufnefs is born of him." Ch. ii,
29. That " not the Hearers of the Law are juft before God,.
" but the Doers of the Law fhall be juftified," Rom. ii. 13.
That particular A61s of Righteoufnefs, Ze.il for God, ^r. are-
imputed., or reckoned^ to the Doers of them ; as in the Cafe of
Phinehai^ Pfal. cvi. 31. and in that mentioned, Nu?nb. xviii.
27, 30. That if the Ifraelites., as being under the Law of Mo-
fes, " obferved to do all the Commandments of it before the
** Lord their God, it was to be their Rigiiteoufnefs," Deut. vi.
25. That " Abraham our Father v^^as juftiiied by Works,
** when he had ofTered T/.W/c his Son upon the Altar ; and Ra-
*' hab the Harlot, whetf ^i,e had received theMeflengers," — and
*« Faith without Works> is dead," cannot fave, James ii. 2X,
c The Greek Words for to'^imp'Ste, are Aoyi^o-Sssi, EAXoystv, Rom. v-
I 3. PhileT/i 18, I?ava(, Aiis vii. n. Thefe anfwer to the Hebniv, '2x^T\
wh'ch fomet'ines fignilles to think or ejleemy but with a dative Cals
after it, to im.ute ; which the Latin Vulgate, and fomeantient Wri-
tcff, exf icis, by Reputare, as well as Im^tiiare.
JM 4 -So
4 • ^hs Scripture-Do^rine of
25, 26, 14, 20. That notwithftanding, "Jwith the Heart Man
" believeth unto Righteoufnefs," and '« Chriji is the End of
" the Law for Righteoufnefs to every one that believeth," Rom.
X. 10, 4. Thefe Things, as the exprefs AfTertions of Scripture,
are acknowledged by all, in fome Senfe or other. But the
^ejiion now to be difcuffed is this. Does God impute no 5/«,
or Righteoufnefs, but what is perfonal ? Mr T. is perfuaded
that he does not. " Tho' in Scripture, an Adlion is frequently
*' faid to be imputed, reckoned, accounted to a Perfon, it is
" no other than his own A6i: and Deed, which is accounted,
*' reckoned, or imputed to him, either for Righteoufnefs, or
" Condemnation." Supplement, &c, p. 3. To which Purpofe
he fpeaks again, p. 7. and elfewhere. The running Titles of
part of his Supplement are. No Sin imputed, but perfonal. Sins-,
of Parents not imputed to Pojlerity. Adam'' s Sin never faid to be
imputed. No Sin puniJJjed but perfonal. No Virtue rewarded
but perfonal. In Oppofition to this confident Talk of Mr 2",
"with fome others, I affert, and undertake to prove from the
Scriptures of Truth, that Adam's firft Sin is imputed to all his
natural Defcendants ; that the Sins of many were imputed to
Chriji ; and his Righteoufnefs for Juftification to them. Thefe
three Propofitions I propofe to explain, confirm, and vindicate :
Theory?, chiefly, as deducible from the two latter.
Prop. I. AdawL s firjl Sin, or the Guilt of it, is imputed fa
ell his natural Defcendants. For explaining this, and to prevent
Miftakes, I ©bferve as follows, (i.) It fpeaks not of both our
firft Parents, but of Adam ftngly ; as does the Apoftlc, i Cor.
XV. 21, 22. Rom. V. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. ^ (2.) It re-
lates not to all the Sins of our general Father, but his firft Sin
only. To this and no other, does the Apoflle attribute the
Mifchicf fpoken of, Rom, v. 15, 17, 18, 19. (3.) That firft Sin
of his is imputed, to whom ? To all who defcend from him by
ordinary Generation. Thefe are the World on which Sin and-
d The Writer of Ecdejiaflicm i^y%, chap. xxv. 24, "oftheWo-
*' man came the Beginning of Sin, and through her we all die. "
But \i that implies any thing more than this, that " her Sin was the.
•' Occafion of that Sin of Adam, unto which the Sinfulnefs and Death
" of Mankind are originally owing," 'tis falfe. Avguftin fays,
" Sive a muliere, five ab Adam dicatur, utrumque ad primum
*' hominem pertinet ; quoniam mulicr ex viro eft, & utriuique
*' caro una eft." De Peccat. Mentis, lih i. c. 16. But this, I think,
is notfufficient. Whatever the Apocryphal Writer meant, wc matter
it not; chafing to fpeak and think rather with the Apoftle, But we
dilTeiu not from Wifd. li. ^4.
Death
imputed Sin and Righleoufnefs Jiated^ &c. 5
Death entred ; or whom Guilt and Death invaded and fcized
upon by one Man. {Ro?n. v. 12) The Many pointed at, as being
tlead through his OfFence, [ver. 15.) and made Sinners by his
Difobedience, [ver. ig.) The y///, intended by the Apoftlc,
{ver, 12. 'ver. 18, former part) and i Cor. xv. 22. " In Adam
" all die." (4.) Unto thefc it isinipiited, hoiv.^ or in what Scnfe?
R. (i.) The actual Comniiflion of it is imputed to none befides
Adam himfeif : Neither can the aclual Commulion of any Sin,
or the adlual Fulfilment of any Righteuufnefs, be imputed
7«/?/)', and rightly^ to any befides the perfunal Doer, or Ful-
fillerof it. (2.) The Guilt of Adam\ firft Sin is not imputed
to any of his Defccndants, in the full Latitude of it, as it was
his^ or in regard to its attendant Circumfrances : It conftitutes
none of them equally guilty with h'wi : Yet (3.) both the Sin
itfelf, in fome Senfe, and a Degree of Guilt, on Account of it,
are really imputed by a wife, jult, and good God, to the Perfons
ipoken of. The Sin iifclf is imputed to them ; /". e. 'Tis ac-
counted tb.e Sin of their Federal Head ; And they, as foon as
thej' become his Off-fpring, are, as fuch, and in Confideration
of his Fall, reputed guilty ; in fome Meafure Children of
*' Wrath ;" legally obnoxious to the Death originally threat-
ned ; which Death I conceive to be " anendlefs Separation from
" the comforting Prefence of God, with a Degree of pofitive
*' fpiritual Mifery, befides everlafling bodily Death." The Pr/«-
ciples that this firfl Fropofition prefuppofes are two, " Man's
** original Righteoufnefb," and " Adani's Relation to his na-
*' tural Defcendants, as their common federal Head." ^
(l.) Aian^s original Righteoiifnefs. This I have proved from
Ecclef, vii. 29. '' God made Man upright ;" from Gen. i. 26.
as compared with, and inteipreted according to, Eph. iv. 22, 24.
and Col. iii. 9, 10; from Gen. i. 31. as applicable particularly
to Man ; from the Dominion granted to Man, Gen. \. 28 ; from
there being no M'ediun^ between the Love to God of a Ratio-
nal Being, formed with a Degree of Divine Knowledge, as Man
originally was, and fuch an one's being an Enemy to his Maker,
which Man originally could not be ; and from our Lord's Ac-
count of the original State of Angels, John viii. 44. To re-
conlider this lafl: Proof, (it bavins; been touch'd before but very
briefly, and occafionaily only) with the Addition of one more,
yahn viii. 44.. *' He was a Murderer from the Bcginninti, and
" a'jode not in the Truth, C5V." Thf Truth, heie mult rignity
Original Aioral Rectitude, or the original Uprightnei's or this
now wicked Spirit. \Jprightr.cj\, as being a practical Confor-
mity to Truth, or Difpofednels to pradtife agn:e;d)ly to Divine
Truth, is fitly enough called by thii Name, i Ojr. v. 8. Phil.
I.
6 The Scripture-'Do5irine of
1. 18. 2 John ii. 4. 3 John 4. " " The Truth that dwelleth In
** us," who are fincere Believers, is Godly Sincerity : To *' walk
«* in Truth," is to pradife upon Principles of Divine Truth, or
to live anfwerably to the Truths of God manifefted to us ; and
this is the fame with walking in the Light as God is in the
" Light," I John\. 7. *' If we fay we have Fellowfhip with
<« him, and walk in Darknefs, wc lye, and do not the Truth."
Sin is a pradical Denial of Divine Truth : 'Tis therefore called
Darknefs. Uprightnefs^ on the other hand, is a pradical Ac-
knowledgement of Truth, and is therefore called by Truth's
Name. " He, the Devil^ abode not in the Truth." /. e. He
" kept not his firft Eftate," the Dignity of which confifted
partly in Uprightnefs : He foon turned afide from his original
Integrity, which, as fignified by the Truth, muft import (i.^
Some Knowledge of Divine Truth, and (2.) A Difpofednefs to
praftife agreeably thereto. With both thefe the mifchievous
wicked Spirit, fpoken of, was formed at hrft : Otherwifc our
Lord would not have given this Defcription of his Fall, that
<« he abode not in the Truth, ^c." The primitive Inno-
cence of the Angels, whatever it included in it, was foon
loft : For the Devilvvas a Murderer of Mankind, (fo the Word f
il^nines) foon after the Beginning of their Exiftence ; and an-
tecedently to that he finned, or began to fin not long after the
Bec^inning; of his own Exiftence, i John iii. 8. ^ 'Tij notfaid,
he fell ftioit of the Truth, or Uprightnefs, but " he abode not
" in it, " or he did not long fland in the Truth ; of which
there arc now no Remains in him. The Truth does not now
dwell in him, as it does in the Upright, and as it once did in this
now wicked Spirit; as the next Words plainly intimate, " be-
'* caufe there is no Truth in him." Now if the vf«^^/f were
made by God upright, fo was Man too. For as we read, Pfal.
viii. 5. " Man was made a little lower than the Angels." How
antieut thefe heavenly Beings are, we cannot fay. But this we
know from the Scripture, that the Creation of them was prior
to that of Man, and to the very firfr of tiic ijx Days pointed at.
Gen. i. For when the Production of this World of our's (the
« To thefe Inftances might be added feveral more, as JuJg. ix. iij,
16, 19. IJa. lix. 4, 14, 15. To this Senfe fome interpret Truth,
John iv, 24.
f Av8pw7ro;iiov'^. ^ Att' ap%»??, muft denote cllher from Eterftity,
as fome underftand it, 2 ficjf n. 1, or from die Inftant ac which
Creatures began to exiil. Gen. i. 1. Jobn i 1. o,- from the firft For-
mation of our Earth out of the Chaos mentioned Gen. i. 2. or, which
feeiMs to be the Meaning of it here, *' from the Beginning of his own
*"- Exiftence, "
Formation
imputed Sin and Righteoufmfs ftated^ Sczl 7
Formation of it out of the Chaos mentioned Gen. i. 2. ) began
to take place, then did thefe *' Morning-Stars fing together ;
*' and thefe Sons of God fhouted for Joy," Job xxxviii. 7.
Now this infers their *' Knowledge of God. " and the Since-
*< rity of their Love to him." Yet when God made Man at
firft, his State was nearly equal to theirs : He was inferior to
them indeed, but not much. Therefore he was both Rational
and Holy. For between an intellIo;ent Being fmcerely afletfled,
to God, and another not fo, how great is the Diftance! Mr T.
with the Soclnians., takes it for granted, that " M<in was for-
" med at firft without the Knowledge of God." That I have
tlifproved before ; and here is a Proof of the contrary, as to the
Angels that fell. *' He abopie not in the Truth ;" the Mea-
ning of which is not, he continued not in the Knowledge of
Truth, but he rtood not in his original Love to it, or in a prac-
tical Conformity thereto; of which Nature is the Principle of
Holinefs re-implanted in the Soul by Regeneration, and concrea-
ted with Angels, and Mankind, at firft.
To the foregoing Proofs of Original Rightcoufnejs, let me add
an Argument od homiuem. Suppoilng, not granting, that the
Son of God, in regard to the Conftitution of his Perfon, is no-
thing better than the excellenteft of Creatures, or fubordinate
Ueings ; I argue thus : Either he was originally righteous, or he
was not fo. If ti:!e latter be fuppofed, what follows ? Time
was when he was not the Holy One of God; and pofiibly he
might never have become fuch an one, or righteous at all; but
inftead of that, guiltier, ungodlier, and wretcheder, than the
Devil himfelf now is. For the beft Creature, if left to itfelf,
is alterable for the worfe ; (as Mr T*. himfelf muft grant) and a
Creature brGujht into Being, without a Principle of Moral
Re6litudc planted in his Nature, muft be liable to fall into Sin;
and Corruptio optinii ejl pejftma^ " The beft Beings when cor-
*' tupted become the worlt." The ^on of God, therefore, if con-
fideied as a mere Creature, and made by God without Righte-
oufnefs, (as Mr T. fays every one muft be) was not, could not
be, at firft, as good, as perfonnlly amiable, as like to the Holv
God, as Angels and departed Saints nozv are j or incapable oi
becoming of all God's Creatures the moft vile, abominable,
and wretched. But if thefe Suppofitions are monftroufly abfurd»
and the Zon of God was never uniighteous, was not ori2;inal!y
inferior to the Spirits of juft Men made peifedl, never capable
of finking down into tlie lowed Degree of Wretchednefs, and
Guilt ; Mr T's Hvpothefis, tliat " Rightecufnefs muft be tl)c
*« Effect of a Creature's antecedent Choice and Endeavour,"
falls to the ground of courfe. Now if one Creature, hov/ dig-
nrfied
8 'The Scripture-Do5irlne of
nified foever, might be made by God originally righteous ; why
not Man F As indeed he was, and has been plainly proved to have
been. But has not the acute Mr T. enervated fome of
thefe Arguments ? Not in the leaft as, I hope, will appear pre-
fently. For fiiifting the j?r/?,he pretends (Supple?nement^ p. i c6.
that '* though in our Language an upright Man is a Man of
*' Integrity, or a righteous Man, the Hebrew Word {jajhar)
•' which we render upright^ doth not generally fignify a moral
Charadler." Now if iox generally, he had put always, his Re-
mark had been right enough. But to fay it does not generally
fo fignify, is one of the numerous critical Miftakes of this Gen-
tleman's Books. Of the more than 150 Texts, in which Ja-
jhar, or the Subftantive Jofljer fcommonly rendred Uprightne/s)
prefent themfelves ; there are but very few that confirm not
our Interpretation of Ecclef. vii. 29. 'Jajhar, is indeed applied
to various Things not capable of moral Adlion, ffo are the
Englijh Words, good, upright, fincere, Sic.) But what does that
argue ? Many fuch Applications of the Word are neither yir us,
nor again/? us: And fome of them are plainly favourable to our
Caufe ; as when 'tis applied to the IVords, Ways, of God or
Man. — The Queftion now is, not what it fignifies when
*' applied to things incapable of moral A<Stion," but v^hat is
the true Meaning of it, when 'tis ufed either of God (his Word^
JVays, Judgments,) or of moral Agents as fuch, and by Way
of Oppofition to a vicious Charader and Condudl. Can Mr
1 . think that it is fo applied in Judg. xiv. 3. and 2 Kings x. 3.
fto which he might have added, Jer. xviii. 4.^ or can he deny
fuch an Ufe of it, Ecclef. vii. 29. ? Is it not there applied to
Man as a moral Agent, by Way of Oppofition to a corrupt
Charafterand ConduiSl ? — Adam, is both a fingular, and
plural Noun. This is obfervable. Gen. \. 27. and elfewhere.
Solomon's 'Text, then, might be rendered either God made Man^
the firfl Man, ^c. or, God made Mankind, the firfl human Per-
fons, upright; but, he. Either our Antagonifts muft prove tiiat,ya-
JImr,whcn oppofed to a corrupt Condu6l and Charadterjas here, does
not fignify righteous, which they can never do, or they muft come
intoan Acknowledgmcntof this Truth,'-' Godoriginally madeMan
" upright, or righteous." ^ This Confcicnce, and Honouroblige
^ For upright, Mr T. would put right, meariifig thereby, ** rational
*' with a Capacity of becoming righteous ;" but let him produce one
Text to fupport that Interpretation of Jajhar, which our Tranflators
render righ rometimes, but mean thereby righteous, or agreeable to
the Law of Right or Equity, Jer. iii. 15, and in many other Places.
them
imputed Sin and Righieoufnefs fiated^ he, ^
them to. Agaln^ For evading our Argument from Gen. i. 26. as
interpreted by Ephef. iv. 24. and Col. iii, 10. MrT'. firft interprets
the Old Man^ to be an Heaiheni/h Life., afterwards, that being
ru2o;cfted vvliich plainly evinces the Abrurdity of fucli a Glofs,
he fays, *' The old ami new Man do not Tis^nify a Coiiverfation,
" or Courfe of Life ;" Whnt tht-n ? " Tlie new Man includ-
*• ed two Sorts of People, believing ^Jews and Gentiles ; and
'* was created [Ephef. ii. 15.) when Chrifi aboliihcd in his
*« Flefh tlie Enmity -for to make, or create («1i<J»)) in him-
*' felf of twain one new Man." " The old Manj
'•^ fays /;f, relates to the Gi'«//7^ State ; and the new Man is
*' either the Chrillian State, or tiie Cliriftian Church, Body,
*' Society." Why.? Becaufe he finds one Place, Eph. ii. 15.
where one nevj Man denotes the Chriflian Church. The Apo-
ftle there fpeaks of believing favs and believing Gentiles, as
making up one myllical Body ; and taking them collectively, he
defcribes both together as " one new Man.'* Therefore the
netv Man, which all profefling Believers are exhorted to put on
(by Way of Oppoiition to the old Man which it concerns them
to put off) and which fincere Chriltians have really began to
put on ; this muft now fignify the Chrillian State, or Church j
and the old Man, the Gentile State. A moft weighty Argument
this ! In profecuting of which ^dr T. feems a little to contradict
himfelf. For, p. 150. he fays, " tlie old and n^w Man do
*' not fignify a Couife of Life." But, p. 152. " The old
" and new Man, and the new Man's being renewed, and the
*' renewing of the Ephefians, do all martifeftly refer— —to their
*' Gentile State, and wicked Courfe of Life, from which thev
*' were lately converted to Ch.riiHanity." But to excufe ihat^
it will be (ufficient to point out his Contradiclion to Trutl), and
the Apoftle. What tiie old Man \i, we find Rom. vi. 6. " Our
*' old iMan is crucified with Chrijl, Sic." The Pronoun, o«r»
includes himfcIf. Befdes, is it (o proper to fay, The Gcntilt
State, or any unq^odly Courfe of Life, is crucified with Chriji^
as to underftand tiiis of corrupt Nature, called in the fame Veife,
the Body of Sin, and Sin, (which lafl Name occurs in feveral
other Tcxtsj in regard to wliich he fays of hinifeif, Gal. ii. 20.
" I am crucified with Chrijl."'' I, i, e. in regard to my cor-
rupt Nature, &c. / am crucified, and, my old Man is crucified
tvith Chriji, are of the fame Import. As all true Chrillians
have began to " crucify the Flefh," i^c. Gal. v. 24. As in-
«' Itead of living after the Flefh." tlu-y " mortify the Deeds
*' of this Body of Sin," Rom. viii. 11^. As all profefling Be-
hevers are exhorted *' to put on Chrilf," and this is the fame
with " putting on the New Man" (Grace m the Suui, being
J o *The Scripture-Do^ rim of
as it were, ChriJI formed in us^ or an Lnage of Clirifl:, a Con-
formity to him, a kind of Divine Nature, or a Godlike Tem-
per of Soul, Gal. iv. ig, 2 Pet. i. 4. i John iii. 9.) So when
the Apoirle, fpeaking of himfelf and the believing Romans, fays,
*' Our old Man is crucified with Chrift, that the Body of Sin,
'* i£fc." his Meaning is. Our corrupt Nature is already mor-
tified in fome Meafure, (and fo we are conformed to a crucified
Saviour, or partake of the falutary Virtue of his Crucifixion)
that the B«dy of Sin might be gradually, or more and more de-
ftroyed, ^c. To «' put off this Old Man," it is, taking fome
Defcriptions of it from the Apoftle himfelf, to «' crucify this
Flefli with the Affedions " and Lufts," that may be confidered
as the various Members of this Body of Sin, Gal. v. 24. It is
to " make no Provifion for it," ilfc. Rom. xiii. 14. Jgaift,
To " put on the New Man" (with which a putting on the
Lord Jefus Chrift, Rom. xiii. 14. coincides) it is to cherifii and
cultivate this Divine Principle, formed in their Souls by the Spi-
rit of Chrift : It is for fincere Believers, as the Ephefians
and Coloffians were, by renewed Exercifes of Faith, Love, Re-
pentance, ^c. in Prayer and other particular Duties, to ftrength-
en and encreafe this New Man in them, or this Hidden Man of
the Heart, as the Apoftle Peter calls it, i Pet. iii. 4. In nei-
ther of the two Texts which oppofe the New Man to the Old
Man (elfewhere faid to be << crucified with Chrift") is there
any thing, [but what is juftly, and properly applicable to this
new Principle, this " Divine Nature," this " Hidden Man of
«< the Heart." (r.J 'Tis created \ and in regard hereto, all true
Chriftians are faid to be *' created unto good Works," Ephef
ii- 10. (2.) 'Tis renewed, Colof. iii, 10. This new Principle is
renewed, it being original Righteoufnefs reftored. (t^.) 'Tis
after God, or his Image and Likenefs, loft by the Fall, re-im-
printed on the Soul. (4. j It confifts of Righteoufnef and Holi-
nef;, or ('what anfwers thereto, and comprehends bothj Know
ledge, Colof. iii. 10. the Truth, 2 John ii. When thofe two,
Righteoufnefs and Holinefs are diftinguifned, ihcfortner is a Prin-
ciple of Conformity to fecond Table Duties ; the other, a dif-
pofednefs for thofc Duties that directly concern the great God
himfelf, and for the ferving him in fuch a pure, fpiritual Man-
ner, as he invariably requires of his rational Creatures. Now
both thefe, prefupppofe fome Knowledge of God, might,
taken together, be defcribed by " a fuitably affedting prac-
" tical Knowledge of God, and are really called b;'
this Name. Again, Mr T. having been told, that, '« eithei
" Man was originally framed with Principles of Love and
*' Obedience to God rooted in his Nature, or he was made at
firft
imputed Sin afid Righteoufnefs Jlated^ &c.
I r
£rfl: an Enemy to God :" In reply to that Argument, as urg-
ed by R. R. he contents himlelf with this fhort fuperficial An-
iwer, *' Man cou'd not love God before he knew him," with-
out vouchfafing the leaft Notice of what had been annexed to
that Argument elfewhere, ' for proving, that Man was not form-
ed at firft without the Knowledge of God. To thofe Hints of
Argument already offer'd, I now add. Whereas God forbad
Man to eat of the Fruit of a certain Tree, Gen. ii. i6, 17.
was not Man fenfible of his Maker's Pleafure in that refped, at
his firft Creation? But could he know that^ without fome Know-
ledge of God, his natural Relations tohim, Dependance on him.
Concern with him, and the like ? The ingenious Mr IVhiftorty
to a Defcription of the Conftituiion 01 Man in his Primitive
State, ^ adds, " The other terreftrial Animals feem to have
'' been in a State of greater Capacities and Operations; nearer
*' approaching to P^eafon and Difcourfe, and Partakers of high-
" er Degrees of Perfection and Happinefs than they have been
" everfmce." This appears, he thinks, fi.j From the Ne-
ceffity of a diftindl Confideration of each Species of Animals,
before Adam was fatisfied, that none of them were an Help-meet
for him. f2.) From the Serpent's Difcourfe with the Woman;
in 'vhich though the old Serpent, the Devil, was principally
conce.ned, the particular Subtilty of the Serpent is taken No-
tire of, ^c. (-J^.) From Rom. viii. 19, 20, 2i, 22. Now if
this arguing is valid, or Mr //^'s Opinion well grounded, 'tis
the lefs probable that Man^ the Lord of this lower World, was
formed by God without fome Knowledge of himfelf. Indeed,
none but the Ignorant, or Men of Learning flrongly prejudiced,
can furmife he was. Let Mr T. attend to our Proofs, both of
//;;V, and the Original Righteoufncfs that implies it, and either
honeftly yield to the Force of them, or ingenuoufly confute
them, if he is able to do fo. But as the Doctrine of Ori-
ginal Siriy prefuppofes this^ " Man's original moral Reditudc,"
fo it is founded upon this other Principle aifo.
(2-) Adam'5 being ordained by God, the federal Head, or le-
gal Reprefentative of all bis natural Defcendants. Of this I
have given fome Proof already. 1 At prefent I no further confider
this Principle with theDodirine of Original Sin founded thereon,
than as they are fairly dcducible from the Scripture Account of
tlie " Imputation of the Sins of many to Chrift," and the
" Imputation of hrs Righteoufncfs as a Surety for Juftification
*' to them;" which two-fold Imputation I now proceed to.
' At p. 14. of my Sermon on Alans Original Righteoufnejs.
k In his Nenv Iheory of the Earth, p. 240 Edit. 3.
' In inv Scrmrn on Qgn, ii. 15, 17,
Pyst>,
12 .' 1'he Saipture-Bo^rim of
Prop. ir. The Sins of many^ or the Guilt of them, were im-'
.puted to Chriji ; he confcnting to be refponfible for them, and
tfufter the Punifhment due to them. For explaining and con-
-£rmin.g //;a, I begin with thofe Paffages of Ifaiah^ ch. liii. 4, 5,
fee. which contain a Summary of the Scripture-Dodlrine upon
.this Head, and are alluded to, or copied after, in the New Tef-
tacnent. .
Jfaiah liii. 4, 5, 6. << Surely he hath born our Griefs, and
-<* carried our Sorrows ; yet, &c. He was wounded for our
*' Tranrgreffions, he was bruifed for our Iniquities ; the Chaf-
*' tifement of our Peace was upon him, and with his Stripes
*' we are iiealcd. All we like Sheep are gone aftray ; and the
*' Lord hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all." There is an
Emphafis, fome think, in the Word Surely r^'^ Aken. It oc-
curs in the Hebrew Bible about ten or twelve times. ^ 'Tis
twice (Job xxxvi 8. Pjal. Ixxxi;. -^.) rendred But ; once (Ifa.
xlv. 15.) Verily \ In other Places, Surely, or Truly. Here it
ieems not merely a Particle of affirming, as it generally is, " but
a caufal Particle, o To account for what juft before is mentio-
ned ; to affign a Reafon of our Lord's appearing in fo low,
mean, contemptible a Condition; his being a Man of Sorrows,'*
feV. the Prophet adds, Surely be hath., &c. He. This too feems
to be emphatical. ^ The Apoftle Peter feeming to have thisj
with fome other parallel Texts in his Eye, renders it, (i Pet.
ii. 24. j aJl©!-, his own Jelf. So it might be here, furely his own
felf, or he himfelj ; The great Perfon whom I have begun to
fpeak of ; He, in Diftindion from the legal Priefts, and all o-
thers, will do, or has undertaken to do, what none of thetn
were capable of, i. e. " He hath borne our Griefs, ^c. borne.
This Verb Nafa, occurs in the Hebrew Bible feveral hundreds
of times. The Ufes made of it are various( but the principal
of them are three. It fignifies (1.) To " take up fomewhat,"
"' Mariu! a Calafio, in his Concordance, puts down, eight places
only ; but I have cbferved two or three more, and perhaps there are
fome others. " So we are told by Mariui, and other learned.
Hebricians, ° This is the judicious Remark of the great Calnjin,^
I add, whether it is, or is not a proper caufal Particle, it may denote
both the Reahty, and the Weighunefs or Importance of the Matter
to which it ftands perfixed. ^ What I mean is, that whereas
the Pronoun he, is inferted diftindly from the Verb born, (hu nafa)
this may be particularly fignificant ; fome will have it that hu,- is one
of the peculiar Names of God in fome Texts ; and indeed there is
one at leaft(P/fl/. cii. 27.) in which it may feem to be fo. We render
it, " Thou art the fame.'*. But the Septuagint has it, wvl©- n and
the Hebrew is, Ve atfa hu, thou art he.
as
imputed Sin and Righteoufnefs Jlated^ &c. 15
as oh one's Shoulders. (^.) To " bear the Weight of a thing,''
br not only take up, but " carry fomewhat that is weighty ;'
as a Porter Bears a Burden ^3 J To " remove, or take away."
In this third Senfe fome Texts ufe it of God, as taking away
the Sins of his Creatures, by forgiving them ; and to this third
Senfe fome would confine it here^ taking Occafion for it from
Mat. viii. 47. ^ *' Himfelf took our Infirmities, and bare our
*' SicknefTes." But though the Evangelijl there quotes the Text
we are upon, as in part accomplifhed by Chri/i's healing the
corporal Miladies of many ; or mentions this as an Evidence
of, or the EfFeft of, his having undertaken fomewhat greater ;
'tis, notwithltanding, evident enough, what borne fignifies, it
being explamed by the Word carried, which in the Original is
much leis ambiguous, ^ He bare, or canied them, as a ftrong
Man carries an heavy Burden laid on him. Sorrows, This W ord
denotes " any Trouble of Body or Mind." Some diftinguifh
Sorroius and G>-iefs, as here di{}in6ily fpoken of. But that, I
think, is needleis. As borne and carried, fo Griefs and Sorrows
are equivalent. The Sufteri: gs of various Kinds, due to us for
Sin, as laid on Chrift, and willingly endured by him, are hereby
expreffed. 'Tis not faid only, *' He .are Griefs and he carried
" Sarrows." That a Man may do who is no Sufferer for the
Faults of others ; but, which is a more emphatical, fignificanC
*' Way of fpeaking, Himfelf bear our Griefs, and carried our
" Sorrows-" This muft be meant not of a meer affedlionate
Sympathy, or of his taking away our Troubles, or of his en-
during Sorrows that are not properly penal, but his bearing the
Weight of the Puniftiment of our Sins. Tet, we did him ejieem
himjlricken, [mitten of God, and affiiSled ; i, e. We, for want
of knowing; him better, look'd upon him as punifhed by God
for Sins of his own. But, whatever many who beheld him ig-
norantly fuppofed, the Cafe was really this, He'^ wis wounded
for our Tranfgrejfions, and bruifed for our Iniquities. IVounds
and Bruifes, are put for the v^hole of his Sufferings, as his
Death and Blood frequently are. He was mortally wounded,
for What? For our Tranfgreflions: Hj was hxu\^cd, for What ?
For our Iniquities ; not for Sins of his own ; not for the Trial
*! Here again aJl^ feems to be emphatical, and to point at, Hu,
in I/a liii. 9. ^c.
^ All muft own that Sabal is lefs varioudy ufed than Nafa ; the.
Meaning of which therefore is hereby limited in fuch a Text us this,
and fo guards fair ingenuous Enquirers againft the perverle Socinian
Inference, from Matt. viii. 17.
<" Hu, is again infertcd diftinflly from ;he Verb. So in vtr, 7,
II, 12.
N pf
j^ '2 be Scripture-Do5frine of
of his Virtue^ and his becoming a moft perfect Pattern of Sub-
rniiTion, only or chiefly; not for fignifying God's Hatred of
Sin, or his Readinefs to forgive repenting Sinners merely i but
he fufFered for our Sins as the proper impulfivc Caufe "^ of his
various, and muf> grievous Sufterings. For^ exprefles not an
Occafion only, or an occafional Caufe^ as fome fpeak, an im-
proper Caufe^ but " the proper procuring Caufe of the Sor-
*' rows asid Griefs pointed at. " Our Sins were the pro-
per procuring Caufe of all Chrijl''& Sufferings; and thefe the
penal EfFe6ts of our Sins. 'Tis not faid merely, " He
'« was wounded for us, and bruifed for us, " but for our
Tranfgreffions. The Meaning cannot Le, " He was fubjedled
*' to manifold Sufterings, by the Will and Providence of God,
** on Occafion of our TranfgreiTions and Iniquities ; " but **he
*' endured grievous Sufterings for thetn, as the proper proctir-
*' ing Caufes of thofe Sufferings of his. " Thit, for, denotes
thus much, and Chrift's being " wounded for our Tranfgref-A
*' fions, " " was nothing lefs than his enduring the deferved Pu-
niihment of our Sins, is as clear as the Sun, to any who do not
{hut their Eyes, from what follows : The Chajiifement of our
Peace, the Correction, or Puniflimenr, necefTary to procure for
us every dcfirable kind of Peace, was laid 'on hirn, he volunta-
rily fubmitting to bear it ; and by his Stripes, (a part of his Suf-
ferings is again put for the whole of themj ive are healed; Par-
don, Sanilification, and a compleat final Salvation, fall which
are elfcwhere iignified by healing) were purchafed for us by
' This Way of fpeaking is fometimes ufed by CrelUus, and other,
Socinians, but fallacioufly ; as they alio on Occafion fpeak of Chrifl,
as " God Man, a Propitiaiion, an exp'atory Sacrifice," iSc. Mr
Locke fometimes fpeaks of " Chrift as punifhed for others ;" which
Creliius , that molt accute Socinian,^ Mr Emlin, and Mr T. with others
ftrongly oppofe.
" Some, as Socinus, Grofiui, in his Annotations, (or fome-body elfe
for him render this place, " by ourTranfgreffions, and by our Iniqui-
♦« ties." But (I ) The prefix to the two H^^r^w Nouns, or the par-
ticle mitt, for which it is ufed, oft denotes '* a procuring, impi3:five
"Caufe," P/al. xii. 6. Ifa. i. 29. Obad 10. Zec/p. ix. 8. (2,) Jf
infiead of, /or, we read by, that might imply, our Sins being the pro-
caring Caufe of the Sufferings of the molt innocent Peifon fpoken of.
- — ^ To fufFer /or Sins, to die^or Iniquity, or in it, thefe^ with fuch
Irke ExprefTions, always import fulfering, or dying, for the bins or Ini-
quities i'pol;en of, as the proper procuring Caufe of them. See Jer.
XXX. i^.ch xxxi. 2)0- Le-v. xx\\s 18, 24,28. The //i3;Yw particle
.,'/, oft figRifies/ir, as in Pful. xxxii. 6. Prov xxviii. 21.
his
imputed Sin and RighteGufnefs jlated^ Uc. 15
his Sufferings. The Word wc render Chajllfement^ (Mufar) w
imports not only paternal but vindictive Corrections, Jer. xxx.
jg. Every kind of Correction is for fome Fault, or Faults,
committed. That laid on Chrift was not for Faults of his own,
but the Crimes of others ; and in regard to Divine Holinef": and
Juftice, was needful to reconcile an ofFended Lawgiver, and of-
fending guilty Creatures, to each other j as we Ihall further prove
in the Sequel of our Difcourfe.
Ffi-Je 6. " All we like Sheep, " Cffr. At the Beginning of this
Vcrfe theProphet acknowledges theuniverfalDegeneracy of God's
People, with the reft of Mankind. y^II we, Jews as well as Gen-
tiles, God's People as well as others, lih Sheep have gone ajiray-y
we have wandered out of the right Way, and in the Way leading
to cndlefs Deftrudtion ; in regard to which we have been like filly
Sheep, who are very apt to wander, and never of themfelves return
to their proper Fold, or Pafture, We have turned^ from God,
every one of us, to his own Way, the Way of his Heart, or the
Way that our corrupt Hearts chofe, and were impetuoufiy in-
clined to. This Confeffion then intimates fi.j The Folly of
Sinners, as fuch. (i.) Their Indifpofednefs to come back to
God, whom they have forfaken, with a ffrong Propenftty to
what is fmful and deftrudfive. ('This I have proved to be
** Natural to Mankind fmce the Fall " from Gcfi. vi. 5. Pfal.
xir. 3. Prov. xxii. 15. and feveral other Texts) (3 j The
Irrecoverablf-nefs of fallen Creatures, but in, the Way contrived
by Divine W^fdom, and revealed in the Gofpcl. Somewhat of
this next follows. Jad the Lord hath laid on him the Iniquity
of us all. Which Words, as clearly as well can be, aflert
the Imputation of our Guilt to Chriff, and the Jutlice of God's
punifhing him, though mcll: innocent in himfelf, for the Sins of
many others. ' Fis not faid, " the Jews perfccuted him, or
** Satan and his Agents raged againft him, " though all that
was true, but the Lord himfelf confidered as an ofFended righ-
teous Lawgiver, has laid on him, confenting to fland in the
Sinners Place, the Iniquity of us all. The prime Agent in the
Sufferings of Chriji v/as the " Lord himfelf. " What did he
do, according to this Text ? " He laid on his own Son, or
*' tnadc^ to meet together on him, fo the Word fignifies, the Ini-
*' quity of us all. " 'Tis not faid, " the Lord oppofed *■ by
^v Agreeable hereto is the Ufe fometimes made of tke Verb from
which It is derived, as Lev. xxvi. 18, 28,
" Socinur fays, It might be rendered, " Jchova occurrit per eum,
»r, *■' cum eo, iniquitaci omnium nollrum , " or, " occurrere fecit ci
*' iniquitatcm omrdum noiimm, " De Chufio Mediatcre, p. ii. cli 5.
N 2 " him,"
1 6 1/je Scripture-Dotfrine of
" himj"^£'. (The Original admits not of that rendering)
Or, "the Lord thought fit for wife Ends to afflidl him, " but,
*' the Lord laid. on him the Iniquhy ef us all. " Where Ifiiquity
jnufi: fignify either Sin itfiU\ oi Guilt and Pimijhnient , and the
Iniquity of us all muft denote the Guilt of, or PuniOiment due
to, the iniquities of all thofe in whofe Name the Prophet here
fpeaks. In the Style of Scripture, Iniquity is faid, *« to be oti
*' a Perfon " when Guilt is imputed to him, or he is juftly
puniflied for fome Sin or other. Thus Numb. xv. 31. i Sam.
XXV. 24. " Upon me, my Lord, upon me let this Iniquity be,"
/'. e. I take the Fault of this Man, Nabal, on myfelf . Let it be
charged on me : I confent to be punifhed for him. So 2 Sam.
xiv. 9. There the Iniquity be on nic, and the King be guilt-
lefs^ are oppofed. --- 'Tis true, as Air T. tells us, Suppletnenty
p. 8, 9. Iniquity and Sin fignify Suffering., or ylffii£llon\ in
Proof of wi.ich trite Obfervation, he quotes feveral Scriptures.
But why are Words that properly denote Sin iifelf ^ut for Jf-
Jliction, or Suffering ? Becaufe 'tis ufual for a Caufc to give De-
nomination to its Effect. Thus the Bleflings that God promifcs
and grants are called, Goodnefs^ Grace., Mercies, Righteoufnefs,
y becaufe Gooclnefs, Grace, Mercy, Righteoufnefs in God are the
Springs of them, and are nianifelfed by them. Jgain, Tlie
Punilliments that God threatens and infiicSls are for a like Rea-
son denominated. Wrath, Indignation, iffc. ^ So Sufferings as
the Efre£is, or juft penal Confequences of Sin, arc called by
this Name. Thus the Judgment inflicled on Sodcm, as being
the penal Confequent of the Iniquity of its Iniiabitants, is called
Gen. xix. 15.) The Iniquity .^ or Pimijhnieyit o'i the City. Mr.
y's Remark, then, tho' juft, is dlii'erv:cc-able to his Purpufe,
rather than otherwife. With no Proprietv could Sufferings be
called by Sin's Name, if they v/ere not the proper EfFeits o^
it. Man, while originally innocent, or righteous, was liable
neither to Death, nor any kind of Sorrow and Suffering.
He was indeed tried, but not by Suffering. All Sorrows, even
trying and cofiigatory ones, were introduced by Sin. If " Alan
" is born for the fufFering of 7V< uMc, " it is becaufe he i«
born a Sinner, as has been irrefragaM) proved^. God docs in-
y I put down one Inftance of each, Jer. xxxi. 14. Eph. iv, 7.
Ifa. Iv. 3 Hof. X. 12.
^ See Eph. u. 3. 1 which Text has been fuHy vindicated againft
Dr Whitby, Mr f. and ail other Denier^ ot Original Sin, as affording
a full Proof of that Doftrine/i Nah. i. 2. 1 JLeJ i. 10. ch. v.. 9.
Heb. X 27. and many other Texts.
* In my late Difcourfe on Oiiglnal Sin, p. 28, ^c.
\ deed
imputed Sin and Righteoujnefs ftated^ &c.
17
-deed often fend Afflictions for the Benefit of his Crcarurcs:
Death itfelf is a Friend to the Believer, 'tis m ide fo by ipecial
Mercy ; yet in itfelf 'tis an Enemy, and the EtF::6l of Sin, {'ilofi.
V. 12, 21. ch. viii. 10.) " Ail ihings come alike to all : " And
all Occurrences^ of every kind, work together for good to vac
Effectually called., {Rom. viii. 28. j Yet none would have be-n
con„fted, or tried by Afflidtions, had they been fmlefs : E)n-
phatical is this Language of the Prophet, the Iniquity of u^ all;
which muft fignify either (i.) The Sins them/elves of all of us ;
or (2.) The Guilt contracted by al! of us ; or (3.J The Punijb-
?«!?«/ due to all of us; or (4.) 5K^r/«^j equal to what we (all
of lis) were liable to undergo. Ihai the Lord imputed to his
Son the Commifflon of fo much as on2 Sin, or transferred the
lea;! Degree of moral Pollucion from any one Sinner to bim'y
we deny as earneftly as any whatever. Both thefe were im-
polfible : And cs to the three latter Senfes affigned, they all co-
incide, or mutually imply each other : Any one of them is to us
fatisfa6iory, and fcems to exprefs the true Meaning of the Holy
Ghoit, wiicn he fays, " the Lord hath hid on him the Liiquity
" of us ali : " In which there is a manifeft Allufton to what
was prcfcribed as to the legal Sacrifices {Exod. xix. 10. Lev. i.
4. j and particularly the Scape-Goat b. The Offerer of a Sacri-
fice was to lay his Hand on the Head of it, as thereby acknow-
ledging his own Defert of Death, and defiring that his Guilt
jnight be transferred to the Sacrifice to be flain in his ftead. Par-
ticularly does the Text allude to what was ordered as to the
" Scape-goat." Lev. xvi. 21, 22. That Goat was a proper
Sacrifice; the two Goats provided for the People, on the great:
Day of general Atonement, being exprefsly called a Sin Offer-
ing., ver. 5. Whereas two Goats were provided, that was the
better to prefigure a Saviour dying., and rifing again. Which
was to be JJain, and which to be the Scape-goat., that was de-
termined by Lot ; to prefignify, perhaps, Chrift's being *' de-
*' livered by the determinate Council and Foreknowledge of
*' God," Ai^s ii. 23. As to the Scape-goat., the High-prieft,
with laying both his Hands upon the Head of it, and " confefling
*' all the Iniquities of the Children of Ifrael., and all their
*' Tranfgreffions in all their Sins, " was to put them upon the
Head of the Goat., and then to fend him away into the Wilder-
nefs, ds't. This could not be intended meerly " for flgurative-
ti This is called in Hebrew, Hazazet, which feems to be a Com-
pound of H.'z, a Goiic, and Azal, to go away. The Greek Bible
therefore renders it, A7ro7rop7rai©-. But feme of the Rahbhn fuppof«
it to be the Name of a Mountain^ near Mount ^inm, whither the
Goat was fcnc away.
N 3 »< i/
iS TPje Scripture- Do^rine of
** Iv fignifying the total Removal of Guil'^, or Obligation to
" Punit'hment, from the penitent Ifraeiites. " Supplement, p.
8.j The Sins of the Children of Ijrsel were fiift put en the
Head of the Goat, and then carried away. Thefe two were
reaily difFercnr, and both prefcribed, to fignify (i.j Ail the Ini-
quities of God's Ijrael being laid on him, whom the Scape goat
prefigured in fo'Tie meafure, and (2.) Their being taken away,
or forgiven in Confequence of that, fo as never more to be re-
jTismoered againft ihem. What was it that the High Prieft put
upon the Head of this Goat ? " All the Iniquities of the Chil-
" drtn of Ifrael," &c. Not fome only, but all their Sins of
every kind. Thefe were to be both confejfed over, and put iip-
on, the Head of the Goat ; to teach us the Infufficiency of Re-
pentante without an Atonement, and the Neceffify of pcnitenti-
ally acknowledging our particular numerous Sins, witii Faith on
a crucified, rifen Saviour. How could the Sins of the People
be laid upon xheGoat, and borne away hy it? li\\eGoat, properly,
was incapable of finning, of contra61ing Guilt, or of fufFering
the Punifliment due to it ; all that being peculiar to Rational
Beings, who alone are capable of Holinefs, or Sin, Right eoiif-
nefi, or Guilt, with the Reward oi the one, or Punijhment of
the other. But the A<5lion of putting, &c. and the Creature's
^^i2r/«^ upon him, &c. ^'^r. 22. were typical, and prefigurative.
<' The Goat, fays Mr 7". was to fuffer nothing." ''Thatxsz
grofs Miftake : It was of the Nature of a Sin-offering, ver. 5.
It " was to bear upon him all their Iniquities, mto a Land not
*' inhabited," a L.nd of Separation; and being let go in the
Wildernefs was there to pcrifh, and to fuffer a violent Death
by way of Punifnment, inftead of the People, or for their many
^\ns put upon him. Yet fays Mr T. " Here was no Imputa-
*' tion ot Sin, i3'c. " (p. 7.) But does not the Text exprefsly
fay, There was Jot'ne kind of Imputation of all the Iniquities of
the People on this Goat ? If the Word commonly rendered Im-
puting, had been inferted in the Text, it could not have been
plainer to our Purpofe, than as we really have it. What Diffe-
rence can this critical Gentleman fairly ailign between imputing
Iniquities to a Creature, and putting them upon it ? A Sin-
offering that fuffered nothings a Creature turned loofe into a
Land not inhabited, yet the properefl for its Subfiilence, while
bearing upon him all the Iniquities of God's People ; are Do-
tages not capable of being entertained by any but thofe, who
are refolved to believe, " no Sin imputed but perfonal," and that
e So faid S'ocinus, whofe corrupt Glofles on Ifa. liii. 4, 5, 6, ^c. are
elaborate!)' confuted by the learned Ludov. Cappel, in his Jnnotalions
$N the Old Teflament.
the
imputed Sin and Righteouftiefs Jlated^ &c. 19
the Sufferings of Ghrift were not properly penal^ or infi.c^ed on
him by Divine Juftice, for the Sins of others. The typical
Scape-goat was to ** bear upon him all their Iniquiiia. "
Whither ? Into a Land greatly diftant from the Tabernacle, as
the Seat of God's fpecial Refidence with liis People Ifrael; ana
there he muft perifh, or fufFer a penal violent Death, as the
Hebrew Dodors, and our learnedeft Divines unanimoufly hold.
Now this was a very lively Emblem of <* the Lamb of God's
*' taking away the Sin of the World," or " puttiiigaway Sin
*' by the Sacrijfice of himfelf, " in Confequence of the Lord's,
judicially^ laying upon him the Iniquity of us all : From which
1 pafs on to
f^erfe'j, 8, 9, 10, II, 12. " He was opprefTed, and he was
*' affli<Sted." (this refers to the cruel Treatment of his Ene-
mies^ his being feized as a Malefa6lor, buffeted, fcouiged, rail-
ed upon, faftened to a Crofs with Nails, ^c.) '• Yet he opened
*' not his Mouth, " either in Expreffions of Impatience, or any
Manner of Complaint: ^ " He is brought as a Lamb to the
*' Slaughier, and as a Sheep before her Shearers is dumb, fo he
*' opened not his Mouth" All the Indignities and Affronts of
his enraged Enemies, did not extort one Complaint from him.
*' He was taken from Prifon, " (fome underfland it of the
Grave) ** and from Judgment, and who fliall declare his Ge-
*' neration ? For he was cut off out of ths Land of the Liv-
*^ ing, " ('this repiefents him as not only dying, but put to
Death, and fuffering by the Violence of Enemies; though he
fuffttred mofl willingly.) " For. the Tranfgreffion of my People
*' was he firicken." 'This (i.) Explains the Jll, pointed at
•^ A^. B. From Pfal. xxii, and Pfal. Ixix. with fuch like Prophefies,
we mull not infer, tWt he did ever fpeak to God all thofe Complaints,
or exprefs the ieaft Dread of his Sufferings from Creatures ; becaufc
as PiediSlions are oft delivered in the form of Exhortations and hijlo-
rical Narratives, fo the Pfalmift's Complaints of the cruel Treatment
of iiis Enemies, fo far as they concern Chrijl, were on!y prophetical
of what he fliould fufFer from fuch.
* Jujiin Martyr quotes it thus, u-ija r»v u'jo^/au)v th hcc^ usrsi n? ^acvai.-
Toi/. p. 86. 230. Paris Edit. ( Mere, as elfewhere, pretty nearly fol-
lowing the Sefiuagint, which perhaps Jnfiin, though by Birth a i^y-
rian, could better read than the original Hebre^v ) As to the Tranf-
lation of th:s Texf, by " aTrj, iJc " E;t!ier they miifcok ih^ tri;e
Me;ining of the Original ; or a.iro n put for the procuring Caufe, (as
tlie Hebreiv Particle min, with the Prefix anfwering thereto fometimes
are.) But fome {.ly it never is fo ufed. See next Note. — i jull now
recollect that Clevtim Romanus quotes ^he Text as 'Jufiin djes, ch.
l6.
N 4 ver
20 the Scripture- Do^rine of
ver. 6. (2.) Defcribes the Death of Chriji as properly penal.
— ver. 9. *' And he made his Grave with the wicked, " ^r.
luer. 10. " Yet it pleafed the Lord to bruife him, he hath put
*' him to Grief: " Ict^ though he had done no Violence, ^c.
ver. 9. it pleafed the Lord,, it delighted him. Though he af-
fli£teth none of his Creatures willingly {Lam. iii. 33. j yet he
delighted in the Sufferings of his own Son, as {landing in the
place of Sinners, and undertaking to anfwer for their numerous
Crimes. *' He hath put him to Grief:" He has not only
given him into the Hands of his Enemies, and fuffered them
to work their Wills againft him, but he has tormented him, or
■will do fo, by his own immediate Power. The Wrath of
God, or his hot Difpleafure, burned like Fire againft his own
Son, confenting to be " ftricken for the Tranfgreffion of the
<* People of God. " He fuffered not only very acute bodily
Pains, but more intolerable Hv>rror and Diftrefs of Soul. His
holy Soul endured an Extremity of Grief, not only in Sympa-
thy with the Body, but immediately in itfelf, as falling into the
Hands of divine vindictive Juftice, and conflidting with the
Wrath of a Sin-avenging God, in a Manner to us inconceivable.
What lefs than this^ could make fuch an one as Chrift was,
(the Holy One of God, the moft perfedl Pattern of Patience
and Submilfion to the Divine Will that could be) to complain
fo paiiietically as he fometimes did. Of his Soul-Agcnies, we
read John xii. 27. Matt, xxvii. 46. Lu^exxli. 44. Heb. v. 7.
Thefe acuteft Sufferings of our Lord came upon him by De-
grees. Somewhat of them he felt when he faid jfohn xii. 27.
<« Now is my Soul troubled ; I begin to be feized with an un-
ufual Horror and Diftrefs of Mind ; " and what fhall I fay ?"
I am in a ftrait what to defire. Now nothing lighter than a
tormenting Senfe of Divine Wrath, could reduce the mofl
Holy Jcfus to fuch a ftrait. Shall I fay, " Father, fave me
" from this Hour," deliver me, if it may be, from that mofl
terrible Conflict I find approaching ? " but for this Caufe came
" I to this Hour." Here (as afteiwards in the Garden,) there
v-as a fort of Struggle, not between a corrupt Will, and a fpi-
ritual Will, or the FleJ/j and Spirit fpoken of Gal. v. 17. but
between an innocent Dread of the fharpeft Sufferings, and the
j-noft perfeCl: poiTible Refignation to the Will of his Father.
After this our Lord being in the Garden, he became more
painiully fennble of Divine Wrath than ever before. Alatt/jew
fays, CO. xxvi. 37. «<• He began to be forrowful and very hea-
** vy." Mavk.^ ch. :i;v. 23- *' He began to be fore amazed."
^c. The Wricer to the i/^^-^z^i attributes to him " ftrong
*■' crying
imputed Sin and Right ^oufnefs ftated, &c. 2 r
« crying and Tears, with Fear f , ch. v. 7. layf^ fays, ch. xxii,
45, 46. " There appeared unto him an Angel from Heaven
" flrengthening him : And being in an Jgony he prayed moft
<« earncftly," (this probably is leterred to Heb. v. 7 J " and
«< his Sweet was as it were great Drops of Blood falling to the
" Ground." As to this^ I meet with different Accounts.
Some take it for a proverbial Speech, exprefling nothing more
than a grievous extraordinary Sweat. Some talk of an Hy-
perbole in th.s Language of Luke. It imports, they think
i^pa/l^ Bavi^uro'j oaov, a very marvellous kind of Sweat, but not,
really, a bloody one. Becaufe the Evangelift puts in, as itwercy
they fuppofe that the Matter of this Sweat, was not Bloodi
fo much as in part, and that thefe Sp/^t^ot ii.\^jua\<^ were only
*' Drops of Sweat uncommonly large, and vifcous, like thofe
" of Blood." Butfi.) The Particle &'?, or wo-Et, as it were, is
not always a Note of Similitude : It fometimes expre/Tes the
Truth, or certainty of a Thing ; as Luke xxiv. 11. 2 Cor.
ii. 17. Jgain, Both Antients and Moderns tell us of bloody
Sweats J not only of what Diodorus Siculus terms, " a Flux
" of Sweat, bloodlike," po-K aifAoloti^y? idpal©-, but of large
Quantities of Blood iiTuing thro' the Poies of Human Bodies,
in fome Cafes. Befides fome of the Jritients, modern Hiftori,-
ans, Philofophcrs, Phyficians, affert the Reality, as well as Pof-
fibility of fuch bloody Sweats. (3.) The Particle, foo-si, as it
were, may fignify nothing more than that the matter of this
Sweat was not Blood meerly, but Blood and Water mingled
together. Now what could put the Holy One of God into
fuch an Agony as this \ What could extort iuchjirong crying
and Tears, with an inward Dread from that " Man who is the
*« fellow of the Lord of Hofts," but the Sword of God's vin-
dictive Juftice awakned againft him ? Zech. xiii. 8. It was
this therefore that fniote him : Otherwife nothing- could
have put fuch an one as he was into fo violent an A<'-ony ;
or made him afterwards cry out fo mournfully on the Crofs,
" my God, my God, why haft thou forfaken me ?" While
in the Garden, none but Friends were near him j and tho'
while hanging on the Crofs he was a SpecStacle to Men, Angels,
f Etl^«?£l«. This Word denotes a " Fear of Reverence," or, "a,
" Dread of fome great Evil-" Some take the Meaning of the Apo-
ft!e to be, he nvai heard for his Piety, or goM^ Fear ; as tho' the
Words had been ek axau-^Et? ^la rrjv tv'Ka.Qnavj wJiereas inltead of that,
the Text has in all Copies, «7ro t»j? iv^xQaocc, which can admit of no
rendring but this, from Fear, Atto never fignifies the procuring Caufc
of a thing. Vid. CaiulP s Qhfcrvat. in N, T. p. i 50,
Devils,
1^'"
22 The Scripture-T)o5frine cf
Devils, nothing was fo grievous to him " as being forfaken
by his God." The EvangeUfts record not one Complaint of
anv Part of his SufFcrings, befides this. As to his corporal
Sufferings, or what his Enemies inflicted upon him, thefe were
fcatcely outdone by the cruel Ufage of fome of the Martyrs^
who however fuffered joyfully. The cruelleft Deaths that their
moft enraged Enemies could devife, fetched not a Groan, or
complaining Word from jome of them. Dr. Lightfoot there-
fore fuppoles, that our Lord's Agony in the Garden was occa*-
fioned by the Devil's appearing to him, and wreftling with
him, in fome frightful vifible Form. But tlio' mention is
made of " an Heavenly Angel's appearing to flrengthen
*' him," there is not the leaft Hint of old Satan's putting on
Tome direful formidable Figure to terrify him : And had he,
God permitting it, taken upon him to aft fuch a Part, 'tis
unworthy of our Lord to fuppofe him capable of being terrified
thereby, or of being put into fuch Horror, Amazement, and
Confternatioii, by a Profpeft of the cruelleft bodily Death, or
by the utmoft pofnble Rage, and Efforts of united Men and
Devils. If not only ** a furious enraged Devil, as the Do6lor
** fpeaks, but all the Devils in Hell, had been loofed from
*' their Chains, and permitted without any Check or Reftraint
" from Divine Providence, to exert their whole Force and
*' Rage againft him," I can't conceive how it could have
*« worked him to fuch an extraordinary Grief, Amazementy
Heavinefs, and Horror ^, as the Evangelifts give an Account
of. This, with his after Complaint on the Crofs, on a Sup-
pofition of his being tormented by his Enemies only, and not
buffering immediately from the Hands of God, as a Sin-aveng-
ing Judge, are to me, perfeftly unaccountable.-' 'Tis indeed
reported of Alexander the Great and Scanderbegg, that while
eagerly engaged in Fighting, (the one againfl: the Perfians, th6
other againlt the lurks,) Blood has been feen to ftart out of
their Lips ; and that the fwcating Sicknefs has made a blood-
like Humour to ifl'ue out of the Bodies of feveral. Ai ijioile,
too, fpeaks of one who, being much out of order did fometimcs
iweat a kind of bloody Excrement. The like is related by
FemeliuSy Rondeletius, and others. A'laldorate, likewife fpeaks
of a ftrong healthy Man at Paris, who on being condemned to
fuffer Death, was bedewed with a fort cf bloody Sweat. B t
* Putting together the different Accounts of his -^geny in the . Jar-
den, it appears to have confirted of thefe four Things together, \vh.. h
might well produce the '* ftrorg Crying v/iih 1 ears/' aid" the
•' bloody Sivcat" recorded by the Lvungeliils.
greatly
imputed Sin and Rigbteoiifnejs Jlated, &:c. 23
greatly different from thefe Cafes was that of Chriji in the
GarJen. The two firji, if true, were nothing like bloody
Sweats : Jll the others ex'cpt the laft, wcic owing to fome
particular ill Slate of Body : The laji v/as the EfFccl of Sur-
prize and Fear. So indeed was our Lord's bloody Sweat ; which,
however, confidering the Circumflancesof 71;W and Place^ his
being under no antecedent bodily Diforder, and his nioft extraor-
dinary natural Magnanimity, as the Son of God in our Nature,
mult have been produced, by fomewhat much ntore formidable
than the utmoft Rage of Men and Devils. But to return to
Jfciiah, " When, if, thou fhalt make his Soul an Offering
** for Sin," ^c. The original of this might be rendered,
either *' If his Soul fhall make an Offering for Sin," or,
*' If he (hall make his Soul, hrnfelf, an Offering for Sin," or,
as our common Tranflation has it. JJJoam, the Word we
render Offering for Sin, denotes three or four Things, (i.] Sin
;itfelf. {2.) Guilt and Punifljment as the Effe6ls of it. (3.)
A Trefpafs Offering, Lev. vii. i, 2, 7- and elfevvhere, or (4.)
Any expiatory Saciifice, ©r Ofr'ering for Sin, as here.
The Law prei'cribed divers kinds of Expiatory Sacrifices, as
Burnt-Olferings, Sin-Otferings, Trefpafs-Offeiings : All thefe
were prefigurative ot Chrifl:. Ihey we:e not of the Nature
of Eucharijiical Oblatiofis, or Petitionary Offerings meerly, but
Typical Offerings for Sin : The Defign of which wa-j to make
fome kind of Jionement for the Offerers ; or to avert from
them fome legal threatneH Penalties. As fuch they were fub-
Jlituted, by God's Appointmenr, in the room of the Perfbns
by, or for, whom they were offered. So was Clirift in the
Place of the People afore-mentioned, ver. 6, 8. Now
** Chrifl's making his Soul an Offering for Sin," was his
freely piefenting himfelf to be a Sacrifice of Expiation and
Atonement, for the Sins of others; and " God the Father's
*' making liis Soul 5;«," or an Offering for Sn, was nothing
more nor lefs, tnan imputing their Guilt to hiniy or laying their
Iniquities upon him j or ordaining him to be offered in their
flead.-— '* He (hail fee hs Seed, feV." He ihall enjoy a ver\''
numerous Off-fpring ; and the Purpofe of God, in ren-ard
to the Salvation of Sinners, fnaU be acconiplifhed by hi?
Means.
Verfe n. He JJmll fe of the Travel of his Soul, &c. He
fliall poffefs or enjoy the Fruit of his Soul-Agonies, and other
Suffermgs, to compleat Satisfadtion . By his Knowled'ye JJoall
my righteous Seriiant ju/lify mariy, &c. Wavin;: the different
Jlxplications that tend rather to throw Darknefs on a plain
Text,
24 ^he ScHpture-Do^rine of
Text, his KnovAcdge is either the Gofpel^ as making Chrift
known, or what the ApoOls c^lh the Faith of 'Jejus Chrift^
Rom. iii. 22. Gal. ii. lb. ^f means of the Gofpel as beget-
ting Faith, or by Faith in himleif ; (the fiducial Knowledge
of which he himfelf is the Objeci) fhall^ Chrift, 7ny righteous
S.ervant jujiify the ^ tnatiy., for, becaufe, he fljall bear their Ini-
quities. What God the Father laid upon him, that did he
willingly bear. An innocent faultlefs Perfon can't be juftly
punifncd but with his own Confent, and in Confequencc of
hii. voluntarily taking on himfelf the Guilt of others. To fay
that " all proper Punifhment mult be involuntary," as
Emlin and other Secinian Writers fay, is to contradi6i Fact,
and to oppofe plain Scripture Truth by bold daring Nonfenfe.
Have not feme generous Patriots of Antiquity confented to be
put to Death, or to devote themfelves to Deftrudtion, for ap-
peaung the Anger of their Gods, and preferving their dear
Countries ? Did not Julius Cc^far^s Soldiers, on a certain
Occafion, not only acknowledge their Male-condudt, but
requeft ' that they might be punidied for it ? ^untilian too,
gives us two Inltances of a like kind : A certain Alan for pro-
curing Liberty to his Friend, fubmitted to hard Labour in his
Friend's flead, and a Son did the like for his dear Father.
The great Chartiier, likewife, from fome Hiftorians, tells us
of Paidinus of Nola's voluntarily becoming a Slave to the
Vandal King, for redeemmg the Son of a certain Widow :
And Gregory the Great, (or whoever was the Author of the
jPialogues, commonly afcribed to him J fpeaks of SanStulus., a
Pft'fbyter, who, when a certain Deacon w^as to be put to Deattj
by the Lombards., did freely fubftitue himfelf in his Place,
contenting to fufFer Death for him. None indeed can lawfully
give away their own Lives, to procure Deliverance for others,
without a particular divine Warrant. The A^^-i^v^'^i of the An-
tients were blameable in. this, that they took upon them to
give away what was none of their own. However, thefe
Inftances prove, that real proper Puni foment may be confented to,
h Larabbim, the mam, the fame with us all, v. 6. God' s People, v.
8. hii Seed, ver lo. the many. Matt, xx- 2^, ch zfS, 28. Rom. v. ig.
latter part, i Tim. 2. 6. all which, (with matiy more Texts) demoii'
Hrate our Lord's being a Redeemer not by Ponver only, or hy Poiver
and Price imerJy, but by Swetijhip or ^uhjlitution, alfo, the Redeemer
putting himte'if in the Place of the Redeemed.
' Adveifo femel apud Dyrmchium prselio, pnenam in fe ultro depo-
pofcerunt : ut conCo'andos eos magis Imperator, quam. puniendos .la-
'(^Beri(. Sue!on„ Fita, J. C<cfa'is, ch. 68.
er
imputed Sin and Righteoufiiefsftaied^ tec:. 25
er voluntarily undergone by the Patients. Piimjhment^ indeeJ,
(as Grotius defines it) is, " Malum paiTionis quod infligitur ob
malum aitionis."- Some evil of jujfer'ing infiiSied for evil do-
ing. And all proper Punijhnwnt implies an Imputation of Guilt
to the Party, on whom it is inflidteJ ; fo that none can be
legally punijhed, without feme Friult being legally charged on
hifriy or the Guilt of fome Crimes being legally impiiicd td
him ; yet what renders it impoflible for a Perfon, iiinoceiit in
himlelf, to take on himfeif the Guilt of others, and confeat
to be charged with the crimes oi fuch^ as tho' they had been
committed by himfclf ? And if this innocent Perfon, is abfo-
lute Mafter of himfeif, (as Chrilt was, John x. i8.) why may
he not freely part with his own Life, and fubflitute himfeif in
tlie Place of guilty OfFenders, confenting to fufFer legal de-
ferved Punljhment In their fead ? Accordingly the Sufferings
of Chrift really were both voluntary and penal. If we muft
take thefe PafTagee of Ijalah, either in the plain obvious Senfe
of them, or in fuch a Senfe as an endeavouring to interpret
Scripture by Scripture diredis to, we muft believe ('whatever
fome fuggeil as to *' God's imputing no Sin but what is per-
" fonal") that the moft Holy Jefus confented to ffand in the
Sinner's Place, and under&o in himfeif the Sinner's PuniH-)-
ment. 'Tis not faid, *' He fhall bear Sufferings, or trying,
exemplary AfKi6lions ; but " he fhall bear their Iniquities :"
Not merely Iniquity., or a Degree of penal fuffcrings, but their
Iniquities^ the full Punifhmcnt due to all their Sins : I fay,
the full P iinlfbrnent of them all : The Sufferings of our Ernma^
nuel.y as endured by hlm^ being at once commenfurate with
the moft rigorous Demands of Juftice, the Threatnings of the
Law in their fulleft Senfe, and the ftridlly endlefs PuuinimcnE
of Chriftlefs Sinners. Nothing Icfs than this fcems to be liicr-
gefted by the plain ftrong Teftimonies of the Prophet^ which
I have now confider'd, particularly that of ver, 6. and this of
ver. II. To which the next Verfe adds, " He bare tlie Sin of
** many," [the Sin of many anfvvers to the Iniquity of us ally
ver. 6. and their Iniquities^ ver. ii.) " And he was num-
ber'd with the Tranfgrcffors," ti^c. not only treated as a
Tranfgreffor, and a moft vile one roo, by ignorant enraged
Men, but punlfl}cd as fuch an ove hy divine fufllce Itfelf Re-
markably different were his Enemies imputing of S'jis to him,
and God's. The former ignorantiv, or maiiciouflv, imputed
to him, the Commifnon of very foul Ciimes, or charged hiin
with numerous Sins, wliich they could never prove : God the
Father, as infinitelv merciful, and therefore ready to forgivq
on honourable Terms, but equally holy and juj} to himfeif^
imputed to Chrift the Guilt of otheis ; «' laid on him all their
** Iniquities," and he did willingly bear, or underj^o, the
Puiuflimcnt
2^ 7^e Scripture-Do^rine of
Punifhmentof them, agreeable to thefe plain Texts of IfaUh *
from which
I might now pafs on to fome other OIJ Teftament Texts,
as Pfal. xxii. i, ^c. Pfal. xl. 6, 7. Pfal. Ixix. 4, 9. Dan.
ix. 24. Zech. xii. 10. ch. xiii. 7. But as eacu ot thofe Texts
will coincide, 01 fall in, with numeroiis Paflages of the New
Teftament to be cited, I chufe tc. enter on thcfe immedi-
ately, ranging them under diftindt Heads, correfponding to
the feveral Particulars of the prophetick Paflage already ex-
plained.
I. The Sufrerings and Death of Chrift were, not for himfelf,
hui for others. He lii'xtd for the ungodly. Rom. v. 6. for Sin-
ijerSi V. S. for all. 2 Cor. v. 14, i^.for every one. Heb. ii. g.
for the Church. Ephef v. 25 for bis Sheep., John, x. 1 1, 1 5,
17. The Particles prefixed to thefe, and fuch-likc Charadlers k,
commonly denote Sub/ihution. So they do here : They re-
prefent Chrift as a Vice-SufFerer, whatever Secinus, CreUiuSy
Emlin, and others, allege to the contrary.
2. He fufFered, and died, for their Sins. Rom. iv. 5, ** He
«* was delivered for our Ojfences, " ha. to. 7r*pa7rIft»/:A«V jjftwv, i .
Cor, XV. 3. *' He diedy^r (?Kr Sins., " vTrsp lun a,i«.ct^iuvnyi,u)i^ ac-
** cording to the Scriptures, " the Types, Prophefies, and Pro-
njifes of the Old Teftament, Gal. i. 4. i Pet. iii 18. "He
** once fuftered for Sins, the Juft for, " or inftead of, *' the
*• Unjuft. " This teaches us how we are to underftand his dy-
" i^g/^'' Sinners." It is his dying^ir their Sins. To die for
Sinners as fuch, and to die for their Sins are equivalent : Both
ways of fpeaking defcribe him as the Sinner's Subjiitute.
3. He died as a Ranfom, to procure Deliverance for Sinners,
as wretched perifhing Captives. Matt. xx. 28. " The Son of
^ They are ■ro-tpt, uTrsp, \a, avii. The firji we have in Matt. xxvi.
iV/«r/C'xix. The feconi/ in Luke xxn. 19,20 fohnxvii.ig. Rom. v,
6, 8. 1 Cor. xi. 24. T.^ie tbirj, in i Cor. viii. 11. The laji,m
Matt. XX. 28. Mark x, 45. Some, who are in the main Orthodox, diftin-
guifh as to Chrifl's aftive Obedience, pro and proptor. He obeyed
the Law, fay they, pro fe. not pro nobis, fed propter nos, not in our
Head, but lor our good ; but all of them maintain, that he fufFered not
for our Benefit only, but in our (lead, as the Ram [Gen. xxii. i 3.) was
facrificcd inftead of Ifaac, and the legal Sacrifices inflead of the
OlFerers,
«' Man
imputed Sin and Right eoufnefs Jiated^ Sec. i y
*< Man came,— to give his Life a Ranfom for many," Xt;7p9» as/T*
•aoy^ifj. So I Tim, ii. 6. oi,v\i,>.vi^o'' ' vinf mx'^.aiv.
4. He became a proper Sin expiating, or propitiating Sacrt'
fice. See to this PurjBofe, Ephef. v. 2. Rom. iii. 26. f/?. v. ii.
with a good Part of the hpiftle to the Hebrews^ particularly
ih. i. 2- '" f^. ii- 17. f/^. vii. 26, 27. t^. viii. 1,2, 3. ch. ix.
26. in which Texts he is faid to *' purge our Sins by hunfelf ; '*
to " reconcile the Sins of the People, " or as we render it,
*' to make Reconciliation for them ;*' to *' do what was prefi-
*' gured by the legal High-Pricft's offering a Sacrifice both for
*' his own Sins and the Peoples, when he once ofJer'd up hlm-
" felf ;" to << difcharge the Office of our High-Prieft ;" and
*' to put away Sin by the Sacrifice of himfelf. " All thefe Texts
are remarkably to our Purpofe. The Expreflions of purging our
SinSy and reconciling Iniquities , with that of redeeming Tranf-
grejjions, (Heb. ix. 15.) may fecm a little odd ; but they arc
proper facrijical Language. To '« purge our. Sins by himfelf,
*' or the one offering of himfelf," is *' to cleanfe us from our
" Sins by his own Blood : " 1 John i. 7. To " reconcile Sins,
*' or make Reconciliation for them, " is " to reconcile an of-
*' fended Lawgiver, to them who have finned : " To redeem
*' Tranfgre(fiotts " is to redeem Tranfgrejfors ; the Abflrail be-
being put for the Concrete. To go about to evade all this, by
pretending that the Priejfhocd zr\d Sacrifice of Chrrft, wtre figu-
rative and metaphorical only, as the Socinian Writers, ^c. do,
is moft abfurd. 'Tis eafily difproved (i.) From thf Pafra^es
of Ifaiahy " explain'd before. (2.) From his being defcribed, as
a Prieji and Sacrifice often, and in very exprefs fignificant Lan-
guage. ^3.) From his being prefigured by the legal Priefts and
Sacrifices. Heb. v. i, &c.ch. vii. 27. ch. viii. i^&c. ch. x. i,
b'f. Now is it reafonably prefumed, that an improper figurative
Priefthood and Sacrifice, were forefhadowed by real proper ones?
(4.) From the Services of good Chriftians being defcribed as
*' Jpiritual., and acceptable to God thro^ Chriji ;" in Diftinc-
tion from the carnal Ordinances of the Law, and the one OiTer-
ing of Chrift himfelf, as acceptable to God for its own Sake
\ '
' Chrift is not only called xJlpov, but «!^^^i1pol;, a vicarious Price,
He was our Avli-^vxP- As Clemens Romanus fays, ch. 45. " he pave
" his Blood for u , his Flefli for (-jTrfp) our Flefh, and his Soul for
^ (t/TTEf,) our Souls." a.Ch and vrep, are equivalent.
"' Her.?, ^j ta-Sia by himfelfi, is explained, ch. viii. 27. and ch. x.
14. 10 fignify by the one offering of himfelf
" And to thefe, the Scriptures afore-ciced to prove his being a Vice
SuJFirer, a Sufferer, fier Sims, and a Ranfim.
I Pet.
4$ The Smpture-Do^rine of
I Pet. ii. 5. Heb. xiii. 12, 15. (5.) S ime further Proofs of what
we now aflert, will prefent themfelves in ^he Sequel of our Dif-^
courfe.
5. Cbrift, in his Sufferings and Death, hare the Sins of many ^
I ]^et. ii. 24. " His ownfclf bare our Sii.s in his own Body on
** the Tree. " His ownfelf ayl^. This feems to be a Tranf-
lation of the Pronoun, hu^ rendered He, Ifa. liii. 4. and em-
phaticall/ repeated feveral times in that Chapter. By our Sins
are meant the Guilt and Punijhment of them. Thefe he hare^
or carried, as the Parallel Hebrew Word is rendered, Ifa. liii.
4 — in his own Body, or Human Nature, a Part being put for
the Whole, as in fohn i. i^. Heb. x. 5, 10. When, and
where ? On the Tree, or while hanging on the Crofs. This
feme • ignorantly, or inconfiderately, term the Altar of the Crofs;
not confidering, that the legal Akars fancStified the Gifts or Sa-
crifices, laid, or offered upon them. {Matt, xxiii. 19.) Where-
as the Wooden firofs was far from iiinclifymg, or adding the
leaft Degree of Efficacy to, the Sacrifice of Chrift. The Truth
is, as he was our great High-Prieff, and acSted as fuch, in the
fuffering of Death, (whatever Socinian Writers, Emlin, Pierce,^
fuggeft to the contrary) and as his entire Human Nature
was the Sacrifice that he offered ; fo the Altar that fanftified thi»
Offering of his, could be no other than his own Deity. With-
out this, there had been fome Truth in that horrid Paffage of
Socinus, *' Whatever Chrifl fuffered, of itfelf it can have no
*' greater Virtue in it, than if any meer Man had fuffered the
" fame. " Buttf«r Zor^ being God and Man inonePerfon (not
in ttvo Pcrjons but one') the A6tions and Sufferings, even of his
Human Nature, were really the A6fions and Sufferings of an
infinite Perfon ', on which Account they were infinitely valua-
ble. — Heb. ix. 28. *' Chrift was once offered to bear the Sins of
«* many ; and to them who look for him, will he appear the
*' fecond time without Sin ; " where two Things to our Pur-
pofe are confiderable. (1.) He was offered, by himfelf as a
o Not only Papiftt, but Protefiants alfo, alledging in Support of
\t,Heb. xiii. 10. whereas the Meaning of ^mc have an Jltar, is, w^
have a Sacrifice on an Altar, (or that which was prefigured by the legal
Sacrifices and Altars both) in Chrijl, asofFeringa Sacrifice fandified, or
made acceptable and efFeftual, by his own Godhead.
P See M. Pierce" ^ Nate on Heb. viii. 4. Here, as on fome other
Points he falls in with the Socinians, as the great Grotius did in his
latter time, being mifled, as 1 fuppofe, by the fophiltical Reafonings
of Crellius, as Mr T. properly was, partly at leaft, by the weaker Ar-
euines of fome others.
^ ^ Prieft,
imputed Sin and Right eoufmfs Jfated, &c. 29
Prieft, te bear the Sins of 7nany. (2.) He will appear the fecond
Time luithout Sin j which, as a diftin£live Chara6l:er of his fe-
cond Appearance, intimates, that at his firfl coming, he, in
fome Senfc or other, appeared with Sin. At his former coming
he was *' a Sacrifice for Sin, " and had all the Iniquities of ma-
ny " put upon him; " but in rcfpedl to that, he will, at his fu-
ture coming, " appear without Sin; " /. e. without having Gw//^
» imputed to him, or the Puni/hment of the Sins of others laid
upon him.
6. Chrifl was '' the Lamb of God that taketh away Sin, and
*' our PafTover that was facrificed for us. " John i. 29. i Cor.
V. 'J.-— The Lamb of God., Whether this Character ^iven to
Chrift alludes to the Pafchal Lamb, as a Figure of him ; (which
feems not improbable from i Car. v. 7.) or to the Morning and
Evening Burnt- offerings that were Lambs, ^ as Lightfoot, and
fome others, choofe to fuppofe, I enquire not. In Diftin6i:ion
from both, with all the other legal Sacrifices, Chrift is the Lamb
of God, and the only Sacrifice that did, or could, take away
Sin. Pfal. xl. 9, 8. Heb. x. 4, 5, 6, ^c. The Word, ai^iy^,
which taketh away, anfwers to Nafa, of which before, on Ifa.
liii. 4- it fignifies to " take up, " to " bear or carry, " and " to
*« take away. " This Lamb of God took up our Sins, and bare
them, " that he might put away Sin by the Sacrifice of him-
*' felf. "
7. Chrift was for others, *' made Sin, and a Curfe. " Of
both thefediftindlly.
I. He tuas made Sin, 2 Cor. v. 21. former Part ; Where two
Particulars prefent themfelves : The fpotlefs Innocency of Cht ift
in himfelf, and his being, fubjiituted in the Place of Sinners not-
wichftanding. Tho' he knew no Sin practically ^neither did
nor could commit the leaft SinJ yet " he was made Sin " tor o-
thers ; /. e. v/ithout becoming finful inherently, or praftically,
the Sins of others were charged on him ; he voluntarily taking
the Guilt of them on himfelf; or, the Puniftiment of the Sins
of others was julily infilled on him i or, he was ordained to be
'5 Whatever JVhiJInn, Soclnian Writers^ Sic. alledge in Oppolition
to manifold '7j/)fj, or PrefiguratioriS of vvliat relate;; to Chrill, in the
Old Teftament, or for confining them to the great Day of annual
Atonennent ; the Pafchal Lamb was a Type of Chriil : So were the
/egai Priejis, Sacrifces, Altars, kc as might be argued from the Epif-
Ic to the He brews. Col. ii. 17. and othef Texts.
O a Sa-
^O 5^'^<? Sc?-:pture-DcS?rine of .
a Sacrifice for Sin, a proper Sin-expiating Sacrifice, as the Word
Sin fometimes fignifies. "■
2. He was made a Curfe, Gal. iii. 13. " Chrift hath redeem-
" ed us from the Curfe, by being made a Curfe for us. " &c. —
(r.) 1^0 redeem, in this Text, is to purchafe Deliverance for
Cie.itures wretchedly enflaved. All God's People '* are bought
*' with a Price." i Cor. vi. 20. ch. vii. 23. This Price was
" the Blood of the Lamb of God." i Pet. i. 19. '< the Blood
" of God," J<^s XX. 28. the Blood not of God, as God, but
of him who is God ; the SufFerinf^s of Chrift's human Nature
being the Sufferings of an infinite Perfon, as was hinted before,
and is provable from the laft Text with i fohn iii. 16. To
whom was this Price, this Ra>ifom, paid ? Not to Si)i, or Sa-
tan, as fome, (Locke, Szc.) fay it muft be, according to our
Notion of an Equivalent ; but to the fovereign Lawgiver, for
buying us out of the Hands of Vindiiiive Ju/Iice ; which being
redeemed from, we are thereby delivered from Sin, Satan, and
the World. (2-) The Curfe hinted at, was the " Curfe of
God," or the Curfe of the Law, the Voice of which is the
Voice of the fovereign Lawgiver. Of this the Apoftle had fpo-
ken before, ver. 10. He didinguiflies two Parties among pro-
fefling Ciiriftians : Thofe which are of Faith, and fuch as are
of the JVorks of the Law, or of the Law^s Party, in Oppofition
to Faith. The former zxo. fmcere Believers, who feek to be
jufiificd by Chrift, or by Faitli os) him. The latter are ignorant
conceited Legalijis, v.'ho with the Pharifee, ('Lwi^ xviii. ii.j
hope for Acceptance, bicaufe they are (in their own Account)
lefs guilty than many others, or for fomewhat done by them-
felvcs. Thefe, how conceited and felf-confident foever, are
under the Curfe. Mr T. when he wrote his late Books, was not
apprized of the ufual Scripture-Meaning of this awful Word,
Curfe. 'Tis oft put to fighify '' the legal punifnment of Sin. "
What the Law of God threatens againlf Tranfgreflors, or tiie
Threatning itfelf is frequently called by this Name. What fig-
nifies then liis trifling Obfervation, that '* God inflicted no
" Curfe on our fiiil Parents ? " Gen. iii. 16, 17, 18. /. ^. he
does not fay in {^d many Words, " Curfed art thou, O Man, "
or *' O Vv'oman." But as "God's curfing the Ground for
'* Man's Sake" was really a Curie pronounced ag.unil him, and
r So the Water of Separation fpoken of Nufuh. xix. is ca'Ied Sin,
" litis a Purification for Sin, " being in the Hebrew or it it Sin)
and the Money expended fot Trefpafs and Sia-Offerings, which we
rendsr the Trefpa/s Money and Sin Money, 2 Kings xii. 16. is call'd,
" th- Money of Trefpafs, and the Money of Sins."
as
imputed Sin and Righteoufnefs ftated^ Sec. 3 1
as what the Lord faid to the Woman, ver. i6. was really of the
Nature ot a Curfe, or a Penalty legally infiifted on her ; (o God
is faid to curfey when he either threatens, or a6lually punilhts
his Creatures for Sin. See Deut. xxvii. 15, b'r. ch.xxvVu. 16,
^c. Jer. xvii. 5. 2ech. v. 3. with many other Texts. (3.)
For redeeming Sinners from the Curfe of God, as a risihteous
Lawgiver, or, which is the fame, " the Curfe of his Law,"
Chrift became, zvas made a Curfe for them. Now this anfwcrs
to the Text laft explained. To be Sin, or to be made Sin for
lis, and to be a Curfe, or to be made a Curfe, thefe two are indeed
the fame. Chrift " was made a Curfe for us" accurfed Sin-
ners ; /. e. for purchafmg Redemption from the Curfe, which our
Sins had rendred us legally obnoxious to, or for procuring for us
Deliverance from the Wrath of the great Lawgiver, he endu-
red the Weight of it in himfelf, and that in our ftead. f What
we deferved, and the Juftice of God threatned, that he confen-
tedto undergo for us. The temporary Punishments that he
fubmitted to, as endured by fuch an one as he was, were no-
thing lefs than a full Equivalent with what we, his People,
mufl have fuffered for ever, if he had not interpofed between
us and the curling, damning Law, or the Wrath, Indignation,
hot Difpleafure, of the Holy God infinitely difpleafed with Sin.
If our Interpretations of the foregoing Texts can't be difproved,
as I am perfuaded they cannot, this of the Text before us muft
hold good. C4J In Proof of his Aflertion, the Apoflle adds a
Qliotation from Deut. xxi. 23. " Curfed is every one who
" hangeth on a Tree," or, *' He who is hanged is the Curfe
" of Cjud." As to which two or three things fecm very plain
to me. (i.J The Curfe fpoken of was appropriated to fuch real,
or fuppofed, Malefactors as were hanged. 'Tis not faid, " He
" who is fioned to Death, " which kind of Punifhment did
ufually prece e Hanging among the Jews, or " He who is any
*' otherwife put to Death," but, " He who is hanged is
" accurfed of God." fl.) The faid Curfe confined itfelf
to the Land of PVomifc, the Lord's Land : For it follows, " that
'< thy Land be not defiled, which ihe Lord thy God giveth
" thee." (3, j It was appropiatcd to him who was there hanged,
during the Space, or Period, that intervened between that Pub-
lication of the Liw by Mofes, and the Death of Chrift inclu-
fively ; fo that (4. J Tiiis Cuife was ceremonial and typical, or
by God's Appoi'itmeiir, prophetical and piefigisrative, of Chiift's
fufi.ring the moral Curfe for Sinneis. Wds every one hangcJ
*" Here recolledl the three kinds of Redemption afore hirued at,
L) Potuer^oi which v/e read, Geti, xlviii. i6. Ifa. xlix. 35, and cUe-
whcre) by Price, by Self fubfitiition. The two latter are exprefTed in
this Text, and many otJieis.
O 2 on
32 7 he Scripture- Do^rine of
on a Tree a greater Criminal than all other condemned execu-
ted Malefadlors ? No. Was hanging on a Tree in the Land and
during the Period mentioned, more deteltable in itfelf, than
the fame kind of Puniftiment inflicted in other Times, and eife-
where ? Why then fhould he that was hanged be pronounced
the Curfe of God, in Diftin6tion from all others ? To me it
feems unaccountable, but on this Suppofition, that it had a pro-
phetical Reference to the Crucifixion of Chrifl, who confenting
to be refponfi'ole for the Sins of others, and to purchafe Re-
demption from the Law's Curfe by fufFering it in himft-lf, was
given up, by divine vindidive Juftice, to the fufFering a moft
painful ignominous Execution. His being put to this kind of
Death, was not the whole of what his " being made a Curfe '*
implied in it. The Apoftlefays no fuch thing as that ; but hav-
ing alierted what we find in the former Part of th'isver. 13. he
immediately adds what follows, to fignify that one particular
kind of Punijhment had been, by the Law of Mofes^ declared
to be accurfed, and our Lord had willingly fufFcred that^ in To-
ken of his enduring the Curfe aforementioned, ver. 10. 1
might now propofe and reply to the following Queries :
3, I. Where the Sufferings of Chrift properly penal P
R. Undoubtedly they were ; being not only permitted by di-
vine W^ifdom, but inSi6led by divine Juflice ; not only ap-
pointed for the Benefit of others, as the Jinal Caufe of them,
but laid on him^ for the Punifliment of their Sins, as i\-\e pro-
per procuring Coufe of them. This Socinus^ and his Followers
ftiffly deny ; fo do Mr Emlin^ and Mr T. likewife, ' in Op-
pofition to whom it has been, I think, plainly prov'd, from a
l;iro-e Number of Texts ; to which T might add others, particu-
larly, Z^c/j. xii. 10. A (^jfFering Saviour was pierced by theSinners
whom he died for. To him it is applied, ^ohn xix. 37. Li a
literal Senfe he was pierced by one of the Soldiers, ver. 34.. but
fpiritually by the Sins of them whom he undertook for. Our
Antagonifts pretend indeed that we difhonour Chr[(i by afcrib-
ing to him hhputed Guilty and penal Sufcrhigs. But indeed they
aie the Men who at once derogate from " the Dignity of his
" Perfon," and " the Riches of his Grace j" from ihe former
in that fuppofing him no more than a dignified Creature, they
' But net the great Mr Locke, who exprelTly calls " the Sufferings
" of Chrift the Punifliment of our Sins" (in this Paraphrafe on 2 Cot .
V. 21.) as elfevvhere he feems to confider the Death of Mankind as
the proper penal Confequent of Adarni Fall. Herein he was confillent
with himfelf, though he follows Dr Whitby in his iixpofuion of Rom.
V. 12, 19. which 1 have elfewherc difproved.
can't
imputed Sin and Righteoufnefsjiated, &c. 33
can't confiftently regard him, with us, as abfolutely impeccable
in himfelf ; from the latter, in that having but low Apprchenfi-
ons of xho. Evil of iS/«, and being blindly infenfible of the vin-
dictive juflice of an infinitely Holy God, thty apprehend no
Need of the penal Sufferings of our Surety ; and gainfay that
which is indeed the flrongeft, and moft afFedling, Inflance of di-
vine infinite Mercy poflible, namely, " Chrifl's being made Sin
znd a Curfsf for guiltv, condemned, periihing Creatures, " as
all Sinners arc, wherhci* they are fenfible of it, and can feelingly
acknowledge it, or no.
^. 2. Was Chrift in any Senfe guilty y or a Sinner ?
R. Though moft holy, and abfolutely impeccable in himfelf,
he became legally guilty ; i. e. he took the Guilt of many others
on himfelf, and confentcd to undergo what was a full Equivalent
to the Demands of Juftice from them. *' Chrift, faid Luther,
*' was the greateft Sinner in the World." That way of fpeak-
ing is indeed unfiife ; 'tis not eligible, becaufe very liable to be
miftaken : But the Meaning of it is a Truth. This Word Sin-
ner may denote either a real Tranfgrejfor of Law, (\n which
Senfe, to afcribe it to the Lloly One of God, is horrid Blafphe-
my,J or one who \s chargeable with the Sius of many others. So
the Term, Debtor, is applicable not only to one who has con-
trailed Debts of his own, but to a Surety, taking on himfelf i\\t
Debts of others. Chrift really became anCwerable far many
more Sins, than any other was ever punifliablc for; and on that
Account was declared to be the greateft Sinner, by Luther, who
was a ftrong, waim t. irited, and (ometimes inaccurate, and un-
guarded Aftertor of Evangelical Truth j but not the firft Devifer
of this way of fpeaking, which fomc, in the main Orthodox,
are fo far from approving, that they fcruple to fay, " Chrift
*' bore the perfonal Guilt of others. " But certainly if perfonal
Guilt is the Obligation of Perfons to fufFer for Sin what the Law
threatens, and if Chrift freely involved himfelf in a Liablenefs
to legal Punifhment, and adtually fuffered for others, or in their
ftead, what was due to them ; 'tis proper enough to fpeak thus,
*' He bore the perfonal Guilt of many others. " We are in-
deed to diftinguifli the Guilt of Sin itfelf, and the Guilt of Sin-
ners. The former is indelible : Notwithftanding the Death of
Chrift, the Sins of God's People are guilty, in the Nature of
them worthy of endlefs Puniftiment ; but perfonal Guilt is quite
different. This may be transferred : So it was from Sinners to
Chrift, according to the many Texts already confidered.
^ 3. Did Chrift fuffcr tlie JVrath of God, and ;he Torments
of Hell ?
O3 R.{i.) As
24 , '^/^^ Scripture-Vo^lrine of
R. (i.) As Wrath is an Hatred of Perfons, and the fame
v/ith Reprobation, Rom. ix. 22- Chrift was not, could not be,
the Object of divine Wrath. When the Lord laid on him the
Iniquities of others, he was the Son of God's Love notwith-
ftanding. But as TFrath is God's hot Difpleafure againft Sin,
and Sinners as fuch, or his vindi£live "Jujiice, in that Senfe he
did really undergo the Extremity of it. He had to do with
God as a Sin-avenging God j as the foregoing Texts fairly in-
terpreted ( fome of them at leaft) render demonftrably evident.
(2.) Several of the Torments that guilty, damned, Sinners
endure, the Holy one of God was abfolutely incapable of; as,
the " Worm of an accafing Confciencc, " The " Agonies of
*' Defpair, " An " Hatred of God, " ^c. But we diftinguifh
the EJJentiah and CircumJIantlals of the Law's Curfe : The_/or-
7ner, fo far as a mod innocent holy Perfon, freely ftanding in
the Sinner's Place, was capable of it, he readily underwent.
But as there was no Need of his continuing in the Hands of
Vindl^'tve Jujiice always, or very long, becaufe the temporary
fhort Sufferings of fo glorious a Perfon as our Emmanuel,' wttQ
fufficient fully to anfwer the Law's Threatnings ; fo the parti-
cular Accidents or Circumjiances, that unavoidably accompany
the continued Sufferings of Creatures in themfelves guilty and
imo-odly, thefe he could no more be puniflied with, than be
polluted by Sin itfelf : Notwithftanding which we might truly
fay with Calvin, *' He luffered in his foul the dreadful Tor-
«« ments of a damned, or condemned and undone Man ; " and
*' He endured that Death which by an angry God is infliited
*« on the Wicked ; " with Uficr, Bilfon, and other famous
Divines of the old Church of England, that he " fuffered fuch
*' Pains as the Damned in Hell feel ; " with Oecumenius,
*' Chiilt was a great Sinner, in that he took upon him the Sins
*' of the whole World, and made them his own. " With
Augujlin, *' He made our Sins his own Sins, " ^c. With
Cyprian, " He was cendemned, that he might deliver the Con-
" demned. " And, " Chriff carried us all when he bore our
*' Sins. " All which Expreffions are equivalent to thofe of Lu-
ther, io fiercely condemned by fome, both Papijh and Pro-
trjlants.
' ^ 4. Did Chi ift fuffcr the ferond Death ?
R. This Queftion, after the foregoing, is needlefs. Certain-
ly he became not fpiritually dead, or dead in Sin, fo much as
for a Time ; neither could i)e iii any Senfe die eternally. ' But
it being more for a Pcifon of iiofinite Dignity to fuffcr a few
Hours, than for ail Creatures to fuffer Millions of Ages; what
Ciuift could, and did undergo, was mure than equal to the
lon^ell:
imputed Sin and Right eoiifnefs fiat ed^ &c. . 95
Jongeft poflible, and the acuten: poflible, Tortures of all the
Damned. He tafted the Bitterncfs of the fccond Death, though
r\Qt for ever, yet fufHciently for fatisfying the ftricteft Demands
of Juftice, from fuch an one as he w.s, willingly Handing in the
Place of Sinners.
^. 5. Did Chrift fuffer GocVs Wrath in the proper Place of
Hell 5 and what are we to tiiink of the common Article, " he
*' defcended into Hell ? "
R. I. The Scripture no where points out a proper local Hell.
It dire£ls us to confider the Hell of the D tanned -ds a State, ra-
ther than a paiticular Place.
2. If there was a particular Place of Hell, there was no nceJ
for Chrijfs dpfcending into it. Place is not of the Efience of
Punifliment. Wherever the Guilty are, divine Juftice can find
them out, and infli£t proper hellifli Tortures upon them. Chrift
might, and did, iindeigo fuch Pains in the Garden, and on the
Crofs.
3. The common Article of " Chrifi's Defccnt into Hell, "
is either abfurdly exprefied, or falCe, or impertinent, or need-
Jefs, though anticnt, and by fome warmly contended for. (i.)
'Tis indeed Anticnt, as anticnt as the fourth Century, when it
was firft inferted in the Creed of the Churcli of Aqwleia, but
not diftindly from, " his being buried. " (2.) When it be-
came inferted diflinitly from that^ I know not, (3.) As un-
certain am I about the true intendment of it when firft inferted
diflinPJy. (4.) The Learned are at prJcnt divided in their
Sentiments about the Meaning of it. I have met with five or
fix, but take Notice only of three or four. Some underltand it
of Chrifi:'s going to Paradife, which they think is included iji
Hades. Some understand it of his fubmitting to undergo heliifh
Tortures. Soriie think that' his defcending into the Grave is
meant ; Nnw taking it in the frjl S^nfe, 'tis only chargeable
with Impropriety of Expreffion. Jn \\\q Jccrtid Senfe, 'tis unr
fcriptural, as it would be eafy to (hew : In the third, 'tis an
impertinent Tautology, unlefs the Word we render buried,
might be underllood of the Funeral Rites that prepared dead
Bodies for their Interment. " Whatever this Article means, 'tis
no
" OxttIeiv and S«7rI;<rSa.i, denote not only Sepulture, but preparing a
dead Body for it. This Dr J. Ed--waids learnedly proves in his
♦« Difcourle on this Article. " So the EvangeliUs put iflsccpma-ca and
tflcdpioca-'^'^', to fignify funeral Treparation, particularly embalming.
This is evpreffed by Sa7/]£n', in the Septuagint Tranflationof Gni. 1. 26.
in a PafTagc of Athanafui quoted by Dr Ednvards, and by iy]a.!fiacron
P 4 with
36 The Script ure-Do^rine of
tio Part of the Rule of Faith that the Scripture prefents us
with. 'Tis therefore not worth any one's while to contend
about it. Confidering the Obfcurity and Unprofitableiiefs of
it, it feems much more ehgiblc, either to throw it out of all
Creeds and eftabliflied Articles; or to put it into fome plainer
and fcriptural Form ; for Inftace, fuch an one as this, " He
" was crucified, dead, prepared for Burial, and defcended into
*' the Grave, "
^ 6. What does the SatisfaSfion of Chri/i import ? Is the
Phrafe infinite SatiifaSiion allowable ? And how did the Suffer-
ings of Chrift differ from all others \
R. I intend nothing more than a very fhort Anfwer to thcfe
Qrieries ; which, after what has been offered, is fufficient.
1. The Satisfa^lio?! of Chrijl imports nothing lefs than Suf-
ferings fully fatisfaitory to the Law's threatning, the Demands
of Juftice, and the Demerit of Sin ; w which, as an Offence
againft God, is infinitely guiltier than any Tranfgreflions of the
Laws of Men, or Injuries done to Creatures, as fuch. What
the Law threatened againft Tranfgreffors ; what fujiice demand-
ed from fuch ; and what the Sins of many deferved, that Chrift
fuffered. This is not only hinted before, but proved too, I
think, from feveral of thp Texts infifled on. Nothing lefs
than this, is the true DocStrine of Chrift's Satisfaction, againft
which have wrote Socinus, feveral of his Followers, particular-
ly the acute Crellins^ Mr Emlin^ l^c. and in Defence of it, Tur-
retin^ Dr Owen, Mr J. Norton of New-England, Dr Watts,
and feveral others.
2. Every Affertor of the fupreme Deity of the Son of God,
which the Do6trine juft now hinted, evidently implies, muft
acknowledge the Phrafe, Infinite SatisfaSfion, ftridly proper,
for the Reafon afore-mentioned.
3. The Sufferings of Chriji greatly differed from thofe of all
others, as rhey were the Sufferings of an infinite Perfon, un-
dertaking to be a Ranfom, Subftitute, and Satisficr for Sins.
He died indeed as a Martyr, John xviii. 37. as an Example,
with its Subflantive, Matth. xxvi. 12, " She did it, -ro-.-o? to svlatpistirxt
^' jM,3, to prepare me for Burial. " Mark xiv. 8. " She is come — to
*' anoint my Body, ektov svla^iao-ftoi', to prepare it thereby for Burial."
John xii. 7. " Againft the Time of my Embalming," fo we migiit
read it. Ch. xix. 40. •' As the Manner of cfre y^zyj is, tvlaipka^EH', to
'■'• prepare for Bjrial. "
w Some of the Orthodox te!I us, that the SathfaBion nf Chrijl was
afTerted hy Dr .9 Clayk, &c. But no Denier of the fupreme Deity of
the So.-, of God can confiftently affcrt /.', in the true Senfe of it here
pleaded for, or ever d:d iiwix. i ivuow of.
I Pei.
mputedSinand Righteoufnefsjlated^ Sec. 37
I Pet. ji. 21. and as a Malefadtor in the Account of his Ene-
mies ; in regard to which he might fay, as he did to the Sons
of Zehedee^ Matth. xx. 23. *' Ye fhall drink indeed of my
*' Cup, " ^c. from which 'tis perverfe for any to infer, that
their Sufferings were, in every P^efp ft, to refemble his\ or
that his Agony in tlie Garden, and what he complained of on
the Crofs, were nothing more dreadful than what the Rage of
Men and Devils might inflift. John Hufs is reported to have
cried out, " JVIy God, my God, why haft thou forfaken me.'*
But whatever he meant by that^ were not his Sufferings, and
thofe of the moft tormented, deferted Martyrs, greatly inferior
to, and different from, the Agonies of Soul that Chriji felt,
when he gave himfelf to Death, as a Ranfom^ as a Purchafer
of Redemption from the Curfe, as a Suhjiitute, and as a Satisjier
of infinite Jujiice for the Sins of many.
Prop. III. The Righteoufnefs of Chrifi^ as a Surety^ is imput-
ed^ for fujiif cation^ to all true Believers. The Subjefi of this
Propofition is. What ? " The Righteoufnefs of Chriff as a Su-
*' rety, or Subjlitute :" Not his eflential Righteoufnefs as God;«
not the habitual Re6litude of his human Nature as fuch ; not
the whole of his mediatory Obedience, or his entire Fulfillment
of the peculiar Law of the Mediator ('of whom it was required
particularly that he fhould take upon him the human Nature) but
his *' Fulfillment of the Demands of Law and Juftice from
" guilty Tranfgreflbrs as fuch, his Obedience to theDeuth, ac-
*' tive and paflive, as the Sinners Subftitute." l^his our Di-
vines call his furetiJJv.p Righteoufnefs ; which (as diftinguiflied
from his SuretiJJjip itfelf, and as including the whole of his O-
bedience and Suffering, as freely fubftituting himfelf in the Place
of Sinners,) is imputed, or reckoned, to whom ? All true pe-
nitent Believers : For what ? Not for San6lification, or making
them inherently juff ; not for making them equally juft with Je-
fus Chriff the Righteous ; but for Juftification in the Siiiht of
God, as a righteous fatisfied Lawgiver. But the Alcaniyig of
this Propofition, and indeed the Truth of it too, are evident e-
nough from v/hat precedes. Every Proof of the next forcgo-
^ This Opinion that " the EfTential Righteoufnefs of God is our
•' juftifyingRightcoLilnefs", is imputed \oOfiander, in Oppofition to
whom Staficarus approached too near to the Arian Doi^lrine of Jufiifi-
cation by Evangelical Works, which formerly was peculiar to Pap'Jis
and Socinians, but has fincebeen maintained by the Remonftrants, Bull^
moit of the Englifh Clergy (in dired Contradidlion to their own Arti-
cles and Hoipilies, as is acknowledged not only by fuch Writers as
Dr fohn EdiK'ard:y but by Whi/Jon) and not a few Proceflant Dif-
fenters.
38 The Scripture-'Do5lrine of
ing Propofition, carries with it a Confirmation of this alfo. But
as the Scripture abounds with diftin£l Proofs, I chufe to produce
them ; and being lefs follicitous about either the Embellifhments
of Stile, or Accuracy of Method, than a plain ftating, and vin-
dicating of important Evangelical Truth, I begin with a Text
that has been in part explained already, and that indeed gives
us a Summary of what the Scripture teaches us, as to the Im-
putation of the Sins of many to Chiift, and of his Righteoufnefs
to them. 2 Cor, V. 11. *' He hath made hitr. to be Sin for
^' us, that we might be made the Righteoufnefs of GuJ in him."
In this Text the Apoftle oppofes, (i.^ Sin and Righteoufnefs.
(2.) ChrifPs being made Sin, and Believers being made Righte-
oufnefs, even the Righteoufnefs of God. (3. J His being made
Sin, for them, and their being made Righteoufnefs in him. The
latter Ciaufe exprefTes the End of what is declared in the former.
" Chrift was made Sin for us" Believers, " that we might be
*' made the Righteoufnefs of God in him :" Where Righte-
oufnefs is put for righteous Perfons \ the Abftraft being put for
the Concrete, which is not unufual. To be, then, the Righte-
oufnefs of God, is to be his righteous Ones ; and to be made
fo, is not to be fan6fified, or inwardly renewed, but to be ac-
cepted with hin) as righteous j to be accounted, or pronounced
guiltlefs ; to have Righteoufnefs without Works imputed to us.
The Scripture directs us to diftinguifh a two-fold making righte-
ous, SanSl I fixation, which puts a Principle of Righteoufnefs into
a Man, and Ju/iification which imputes Righteoufnefs to him.
Tiiefe two, though infeparable, are diftincl. The latter ftands
oppofed to accufing and condemning, Pr^Ji;. .xvii. 15. Ifa. 1. 8,
9. Rom. v. 16, J 8. ch. viii. 33, 34. 'Tis a Law Term, deriv-
ed from Courts of Judicature, in which when a Perfon, inftead
of being condemned, is acquitted from Guilt, or declared guilt-
lefs in the Eye of the Law, he is faid to be juflified, to have
Right oufnefs imputed to him. As ChiilVs being made Sin did
not render him inherently fmful ; fo our being made the Righte-
oufnefs of God, is not his putting a Principle of Obedience in-
to us, but his imputing Righteoufnefs to us. -"The laft
Words o.f the Text admit of three Rendrings, in him, by him^
through him; which three Rendei ings, as fuggefting fo many diftmct
Truths, merit a diitinit Confiderati'^n, and with divers oth r
Particulars, ftated in the Scripture, offer themfelves for confirm-
ing our third Propofition.
I . Tijey who are juflified are juftifipd inChrij?,-3.re accepted in the
Beloved, Ephef. i. 6. So the Phrafc vj u-Jlu^ properly fignifies, and
is very often rendred. Now this Language of the Apoftle feems
to be taken from If/?, xlv. 17, 24, 25. '* Surely fhall one fay,
" Li Jehovah hivc I R^hicoufncfs and Strength.- ■^ — Tn
'* Jehovah
imputed Sin and Righteoufnefs ftated^ Sec. 3 9
«* Jehovah fhall all the Seed of Ifrael be juftified, and fliaU
'' glory." Where obfeive, (i.) That moft proper, incomr
municable Name of the moft high, Jehovah, is attributed
to Chrift ; of whom ver. 23. is underfiood by the Apoftle,
Rom. xiv. II. (2-) Righteoiifnefi^ as diflinguifiied from
Strength^ evidently refers to 'Jtijllficat'ion. f 3.^ To have Righ-
" teoufnefs in Jehovah," it is, as the Prophet expreiles it, ver.
25. *' to be juftified in him i" whom therefore Believersmay
glory in, and boaft of, as Jkhova their Righteous-
ness ; of which more afterwards, (i^.) This, <* In Jehov^
*' have I Righteoufnefs," was to be the genuine Acknowledg-
ment of New Teftament Believers. " Surely (hall one fay,
*' In Jehovah have I," ^c. It might be rendred either thus,
or " he hath faid to rne," ^"r. or *' he fliail fay of me, la
*' Jehovah are Righteoufnefs," ^c (^.) The latter of
thefe two Verfes admits of no other Rendrmg but this, ** In
*' Jehovah," &c. This then is one Branch of the Scripture-
Doiflrine of 'Juji'ification. If we are accepted with God as
righteous, 'tis in Chrijl \ by Virtue of our Relation to him, on
Account of our belonging to him, or in Confideration of our
being /;/j-, the People whom he has undertaken for. All grant
that if the iS/«, or Righteoufnefs^ of one, is imputed to others,
'tis on Account of fome fpecial near Relation between them.
An old V/riter ^ ('fpeaking therein the common Senfe of M:Ui-
kind) fays, *< If a Man fins with his Hands, his Backisjuftl'/
*' punifhed." By which Simile he illuftrates the Equity of God's
punilliing Subjects for the Faults of their Piinces.- — ■ If
then Chiift was the Sinner's Sub/Jltute and federal Head, the
Sinner's Guilt was legally imputed to him, and his Righteouf-
nefs to them. Agreeably to tiiis we muft underftand. Gen. xii.
3. fquoted by the Apoftle, Gal. iii. 8. Pfal. Ixxi. 17.^ And re-
remakably to this Furpofe fpeak fome of the Antients. One
nearly contemporary with Jujlin Martyr.^ ^ f<iys, *' He gave
*' his own Son a Ranfom for us, the Holv One for Sinners,
"*■ for what could hide our Sins but his P..ightcournefs ? In
" whom was it pofliiile for us Sinners and Ungodly to be jufli-
" fied, but in the only Son of God ? O fzvset Commutation f
*' That t%- Sinfulnefs of many fliould be hid in one righ-
*' teous One, and the Righteoulhcfs of one, juflify many Sin-
<' ners I".^ Jerom. " Chrift being offered for our Sms,
y Queuion et Reponf. ad Orthodoxos. (>i. 138.
^ 'i'he Writer of the Efiflle to Dh^netus, a very excellent Work,
but not "Jujlin Martyr s ' as Mr Larilner, and Others, judicioi'fly oh-
fervc, neither elder than him, as feme fuppofe, but fome I'ime aficr
him
received
40 The Scripture-DoSlrine of
*« received the Name of Sin, that we might be made the Righ-
" teoufnefs of God in him; notour own, in ourfelves." Au-
gujlin, *' All who are juftificd by Chrift are righteous, not in
*' themfelves but him." * Again^ " The Apoftle having faid,
*' we befeech you for Chrift to be reconciled to God, he im-
*' mediately adds, Him who knew no Sin, ^c. He does not
*' fay, as it is in fome faulty Copies, He who knew no Sin,
*' made Sin for us, as though Chrift had finned for us ; but him
*' who knew no Sin, God made Sin for us, that we might be
'' the Righteoufnefs of God in him." He thcreiore was Sin
*' as we are Righteoufnefs, not our own, but God's, not in
'' ourfelves, but in him ; as he was Sin, not his own but ours,
*' not inhimfelf, but in us." To the fame Purpofe fpeak Se-
dulius^ ^ and others, particularly Bernard who quotes this Paf-
fage of the Apoftle, with fuch an Explication as this. " Thus
*' we are the Righteoufnefs of God in him as he was Sin for us,
*' namely by Imputation." But think not that this Wk of the
Term Imputation was begun by him. Long before Bernard we
find it in Athanaftus^ and what is equivalent in many others.
2. They who are juftified, are juftificd by Chriji. So we
render the Phrafe, tv «tJIw, Gal. ii. 17. where a*' being juftified
*' by Chrift," is mentioned as the fame with " Juftification
" by the Faith of Chrift," ver. 16. This fecond Head then
may include two things: A being juftified by Chrift, as theFul-
filler of what Law and Juftice demanded from us in our ftead,
and a being juftified by Faith as receiving Chrift, and refting
upon him folcly for Acceptance with God. Both thefe are plain-
ly and diftindly ftated, particularly in the Epiftles to the Romans
and Galatians. " To be juftified by Chrift," it is,
" to be juftified by his Blood," iv m ki/aoIj aJIa. Rom. v. 9.
*' to partake of Juftification by the Righteoufnefs of one," or
as fome chufe to render it, " by one Righteoufnefs," Rom.
V. I, 8. " to be made righteous by the Obedience of one," "t^^r.
19. " to be healed by his Stripes," i Pet. ii. 24. all which Ex-
prefiions are equivalent, and reprefent Ciirift as a Fulfiller of the
Righteoufnefs of tlie Law for us, in Confequence of which,
what he did as a Fulfiller of the Demands of le^al Juftice in our
Stead, 'tis accepted for us, and v/e are dealt with as righteous in
Confideration of /V, or in other Words, it is imputed to us, 'tis
placed, or put ^iown, in God's Book to our Account. With
this perfectly agrees the "Jujlification hy Faith., fo plainly and
ftrongly pleaded for by the Apoftle. Of what Nature \s jnjli-
fying Faith as fuch ? 'Tis called " the Faith of Jefus Chrift."
* Auguft. in Jobanem. kHis EucbiriJio?!^ ch. 41.
Rem,
imputed Sin and Righteoufnefs Jtated, &c. 41
Rom. iii. 22. Gal. ii. 16. ch. iii. 22. " the Faith of Jefus.'*
Rom. iii. 26. (where what we render him who believeth on Jefusy
is To» IK WK £w? Intra him who is of the Faith of Jefus) " the
<« Fiith of the Son of God, as of one who loved us and gave
" himfelf for us." Gal. ii. 20. " the Faith of Chrift." PbiL
iii. 9. *' Faith towards, or on our Lord Jefus Chrift," J^s
XX. 21. ch. xxiv. 24. ch. xxvi. 18. " Faith in him. Gal. iii.
** 26. 2 'iim. iii. 15. Faith in his Blood, Rotn. iii. 25. a be-
" living on him who juftifieth the Ungodly." Rom. vi. 5.
" or on him who raifcd up our Lord from the Dead," ver. 24.
So that the proper Obje6l oi juftifying Fa'ith^ as fuch, is not
every divine Truth, but Chrilt as a fuffering dying Saviour ; or
God as reconciled to Sinners, and fatisfied for their Sins, by the
Blood of Chrift ; or the Gofpel as prefenting fuch a Saviour,
dying in our Stead, and fuch a reconciled, fatisfied Lawgiver,
to the View of our Minds, in refpe6l to which 'tis called, " the
*' Faith of the Gofpel," cRhil. i. 27. *' A Belief of the
*' Truth," 2 Thef. ii. 14. as well as his Knowledge, the Know-
*' ledge of iiim, as one who bare our Iniquities." Ifa. liii.
10. What a Stir has there been about the Nature of
jujhfying Faith^ or the Influence of Faith on our Juftification ?
I content myfelf with briefly hinting a few Particulars, which
are to me very plain.
(i.j Juftifying Faith is not *' a bare AfTent to Evangelical
" Truth." Such a Faith can fave none. Jam. ii. 14, ^c.
(2.) 'Tis not the fame with " godly Sincerity :" 'Tis not
fmccre imperfedl Obedience to the Gofpel as accepted by a gra-
cious God in Lieu of a perfect Right. oufnefs. For 'tis plainly
oppofed to every kind of Law Works, Gal. ii'. 21. " If Righ-
" teoufnefs come by a Law," (fo it might be rcndred) then
*' Chrift is dead in vain." Chap. 3. 21. " If there had been
*' a Law given which could have given Life, verily Righteouf-
*' nefs (hould have been by a Law." But that neither of thcfe
could be, he ftrongly infinuates there, and argues thtoughout
that Cly.ipter, as well as in ch. ii. 16, '^c. and Rem. iii. 20, ^c.
For JForks of the Laiu there, and elfewherc, we might read,
JVorks of Law^ or Law I'Forks ; every kind of Law being in-
cluded, and every kind of Works done in Obedience to a Law,
being fliut out from a Concern in our Juftification before God.
Abraham, indeed was in fome Senfe or other juftifieu by Works:
c So the pretended Bamahas calls it, Triris tT^xyyiy.io.-,. " the Faith
" of the Promife," ch. vi. But in a Sentence that aflbrds one Proof
of the Spurioufnefs of that Epiftle ; which however contains fome
very good Sentiments, as to the Perfon of Chrifl Faith ou him, corrupt
Nature, the Influence of the Spirit, ^V,
So
^2 "J^^^ Scripture-DoBrine of
So W3S Rahab^ and fo is every true Believer. Jam. u. 21, 11,
25. But how that was, is hinted by the Apo/ile, thereby helping
us fairly to reconcile James with himfelf upon this Subject. Rom.
iv. I, 2. " If Abraham was juftified by Works, he had
" whereof to glory, but not before God." Now this intimates,
that in fome relpe6l he was juftified by Works ; (fo (ays James.,)
but, not before God^ fays Paul., thereby forbidding us to afcribe
Juftification in the Sight of God to any thing on our Part but
Faith., ^ as it depends on the Promife of God [ver. 3, 5.) or
has Chrift, as a fufFering dying Saviour, for its Object, (ch, iii.
22, 25. j Accordingly,
(3.) Juftification by Faith is nothing elfe but Juftification
by a crucified Jefus humbly depended upon, or by a merciful
and juft God fatisfied by the Blood of Jefus. If the Sins of ma-
ny were laid on Chrift, and he fulfilled the Demands of Juftice
for guilty Sinners, as has been proved : If Faith, as it juftifies,
is defcribed in fuch Language as implies him., or God the Father
as appeafed and fitisfied by him, to be the proper Objedl of it;
if likewife, in fome other Cafes, to attribute a thing to Faith is
the fame with afcribing it to Chrijt hhnfclf \ if io^ no other Juf-
tification by Faith can ftand on a Scriptuie-Bafis, but this. The
Power and Grace of Chrift having been exerted in the Cure of
a certain Woman, (Luke viii. ^6.) he, notwithftanding, faid to
l4er, " Thy Faith hath made thee whole." vcr. 48. The
fame he fpuk-e on fome other Occafions. So the Cure wrought
on the impotent Man, Ai^s iii. is remarkably attributed both to
Chriji and Faith, ver. 16. *' And his Name, through Faith in
*' his Name, hath made this Man ftrong, whom ye fee and
*' know ; yea the Faith which is by him, hath given him this
'* perfedl Soundnefs," in Imitation of which Word* we
might fav, as to a guilty perifhing Creature juftified by Chrift:
** His Name, (Chriji) thro' Faith in his Name, (himfelf) hath
** made this Sinner righteous before God; yea, tiie Faith which
d Teftimonies to this, or Jufiihcation by Faith alone, might be cited
from Clemens ^omatius, Irennus, Orlgen, with the eminentelt Writers
a!l along down to the Times of the Schoolmen, to deteil the Ralhnefs
or Strength of Prejudice in fuch Writers as Bull, Grabe, Waterlan^,
who plead for " Jaftification by Evangelical Works," on the Foot cf
Scripture interpreted by Catholick Tradition. Erafmus was not To
blind when he obCerved. " Vr&o. vox, fola fides, tot clamoribus lapida-
*• ta hoc ieculo In L?^/<^f/-ff, reverenter legitur & ariditur in Patribus."
This Word, Faith alone, io much inveighed again ft in Luther, is heard
and read with Reverence in the Fathers ; who indeed are in nothing
more exprefs and unanimous than on this Head.
«' is
imputed Sin and Righteoufnefsjlated^ &c. 42
^'^ h by him, as the Worker of it, and in hitn, as the ObjetS
*' of it, hath wrought this wonderful fpiritual Cure." Thefe
different Propofitions, *' we are juftified by his Blood," and
*' we are juftified by Faith in his Blood," are equivalent. •
'Jujiifying Faith is not feated in the IJnderJianding only, as the
Romanjjis ^xeicnd, but in the JVill alfo. <= "John v. 40. Rom. x.
10. 'Tis an humble Truft or Confidence in him, who is the pro-
per Obje6l of it, and in regard to whom 'tis called the <' Faith
*-^ of Chrijl, Faith in his Blood,'' he. So that i^^/V/j* does not
j'jjiify, as it is the Principle of Obedience, or as it virtually con-
tains good Works in it. It has indeed Repentance, Love, ^c.
for it's infeparable Companions : And it evidences itfclf in Works
pleafing to God. 'Tis the Faith, or humble Confidence, of a
truly penitent Soul, that we are now pleading for as juftifying
Faith. The fincere Believer returns to God with his whole
Heart, and is ready for every good Work, while he fecks to be
juftified by Chrift, As when the Ifraelitfs were ftung by the
fiery Serpents, it was not their Sorrow for what they had done,
or any thing elfe, but their looking up to the brazen Serpent,
that, by Virtue of God's Appointment, healed them ; fo a poor
Sinner, being wounded by a Senfe of Guilt, and findino- him-
felf undone without Chrift, 'tis not his godly Sorrow, or Love
to the Redeemer, but his Faith, as looking to him whom his
Sins have pierced, that the Gofpel afcribes his being juftified toj
thereby plainly and ftrongly afcribing it to Chrijl hitnfelf.
(3. j If we are made the Righteoufiiefs of God, or accepted
with him as righteous, 'U'&thro' Chri/i, or for his Sake, as the
fole meritorious Procurer of this great BleiTing for us. So the
Particle tv, is fometimes rendred, as Heh. xiii. 29- f Rom. iii.
*' 26. ch. vi. 21. Eternal Life is the Gift of God, bv xi'-r^ h-cs,
'' "Je/us Chrijl.'" That Juftincation, as it includes Forgivencfs,
* ;. e. Witli /Jfent, it includes Cc7ifent and Reliance. 'Tis the
humble Reliance of a Soul afTeiiting to Evangelical Truth, and con-
fenting to be fav'd in Chrill's Way. That it is feated in the U ill
thief';, this, ' with Jullification by Faith alone, and by the Righteouf-
nefs of Chrift imputed) is attefted by the antientell Church Writers.
Some of whofe Pafiages are thefe, " riirK sriv jxho-i©- rri ? ■V'^X'i? (^w
*' zu7:t.ii:a-\,q. Fidcs fine voluntate non potell eiVe," ti^c. Numerous
Colle(?^lions are made on this Head, fwith the other Subjefls juft now
hinted at)by the moft learned Eifliop Do-u;;/^^?, and feveral of the Icar-
ned<;ft Pfoteflants ; againd v.hcm upon thefe Heads fland. Papills,
Sociiiian?, Remonlbants, Bull, cum inultis aliis,
f Ev uiiA.uTi l.u^-ox.-/.<; aiuHti, thro'' the Blood of the E-vcrlafting Co've-
vant. So the Blood of Chrift is called, as the fiiedding of it confir-
med the Promifes, and purchafcd all tjie proniiied Blcffinjjs of tlie Co-
venant of Grace. Compare ZtcZ'. ix. 11.
which
^4 y''^^ Scripture-Do5lrine of
with the Eternal Life, that it gives us an unalienable Title to, is
thro' Chri/J, or merited by him, purchafed by his Blood j the
following Texts affure us, Ephef. i. 7. ch.W. 13, 18. Co/, i. 14.
i?ow?. iii. 25. rZi. V. 21. f^. vi. 21. Tit. iii. 7. i?^z;. i. 5. c^. vii,
14. of which, or fome of them, as equivalent to many others,
1 chufe to fpeak diftindly.
Ephcfians i. 7. Col. i. 14. "In whom we have Redemption
*' thro' his Blood, the Forgivenefs of Sins." Here, in kirn, and
through his Bloody art diiUngmCned. And the diftincSl Mention
of both direds us to confider the Blood of Chrift, or his Obedi-
ence to the Death, as both the Matter and Merit of our Juf-
tification. Through his Bloody is the fame with in his Blood, ^
Rev. i. 5. " He hath walhed us from our Sins in his own
<' Blood, " /. e. He hath, by the ihedding of his own moft pre-
cious blood, procured, and deferved, for us the infeparable
Privileges of Forgivenefs^ and SanSfification, both which are the
fpiritual Cleaning promifed, Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 29, 33. and
attributed to Chrift (i Cor. vi. n.) or to his Blood, i John i.
7. " the Blood of Jefus Chrift, his Son, cleanfeth from all
*« Sin :" From the Guilt of it by fufiification ; from the Do-
minion of it by SanSiif cation ; and from all Danger of falling
into it by Glorification ; all which Bleffings are the Fruits of a
Redeemer's Purchafe, and what he fhed his Blood to deferve
for dying Sinners. Ephef. v. 25, 26, 27. Tit. n. ij^, ch. iii.
6' 7- . . .,
Rom. iii. 24. '' Beingjuftihed freely by his Grace, through
" the Redemption that is in Jefus Chrift, "---Here, and in
what next follows, the Apoftle diftinguifhes, but puts together,
as harmonious, and mutually eftabliftiing each other, three
Things. (1.) Juftification by Grace mojl free. (2.) Juftifica-
tion thro'' Chriji. (3.J Juftification thro' Faith in his Blood. —
<< his Grace" is not the Grace of God in usy as the Papifts
pretend, but " his free Favour or loving Kindnefs towards us,"
•which a Variety of Texts plainly points at, as the fole funda-
mental Caufe of the whole of our Salvation, Ephef. ii. 4, 5. 6.
2 Tim. i. 9. Tit. iii. •;. Grace is free Favour ; yet the Apoftle
for moft ftrongly alferting free Juftification, fays, " Freely by
^ So, tv «i_w,(xii, ^'C. and oia l',^^ Xpt-a, Heh. xiii. 13, 20, 21, an-
fwer to each other. — The B!ood of Chrifl is alfo called, Ai/^a ts Oek,
the Blood of God, Ails xx. 23. (it being the Blood of him who is God,
©£<^, which made it efFeftuul to purchafe a Church for himielf.) To
To Aifta T'/7? oici^YiKY.c, &c. the Blood of the Covenant, Heb. x. 29. AtfAc*
pvlo-fAa, the Blood of fpr'inkling, that fpeaketh better Things than th?.t of
Abely i. e. it Ipeaks or procures Paidon, Peace with God, iSc. accor-
ding to the Texts infilled on, and feveral others.
*« his
imputed Sin and Righleoujnefs Jiated, he. 45
** his Grace ;" which is as though he had faid, hy free Graccy
or'Loving-kindncfs, Mercy moft free : Yet he adds, " through
" the Redemption that is in Jefus Chrift ;" by which is meant
either the Ranfom paid, or the a£t of purchafmg. Though
therefore we are juftified moft freely, /. e. without Worthinefs
on our Parr, and antecedently to any truly good Works done
by us [Ephef. ii. io.j 'tis neverthelefs through Chri/l^ as the
meritorious Procurer of it, for worthlefs guilty Creatures.
Rom.v, 21. That as Sin haih reigned unto Death, even fo
*' might Grace reign through Righteoufnefs, by Jefus Chriit
*« our Lord." Here he oppofes Sin and Grace, the Efficacy
of the former, and the Power of the latter, with Deatli as the
proper penal EfFedl of Sin, and Eternal Life, as refulting from
Grace, through Righteoufnefs, or through Chrift. Sin hath fo
fardomineer'd, as to fubjedl Jda 7?i znd all his Pofterity to Death :
That is the Reign of Sin : And Grace does fo far prevail as cf-
fedlually to bring many to Eternal Life or Everlafting BlefTed-
nefs ; which whoever attains to, they partake of it as the Gift
of free rich Grace, through Righteoufnefs, no- their own, but
Chrift's ; fmce the Apoftie having faid through Righteoufnefs y
adds for Explication Sake, ^/, or through Jefus Chriji.
Chap. vi. 23. " For the Wages of Sin is Death, but the
*' Gift of God is Eternal Life, through Jefus Chrift our Lord.'*
Here likewife the Apoftie ftates a threetold Aithithefis, or Op-
pofttion, of Sin and Chriji ; of Death and Eternal Life ; of
IVages and zfree Gift. By Sin, he means not this or that Sin
only, but Sin in general ; and by Death, not bodily Death,
v/ith the temporary Troubles that precede it, merely j but, there-
with, what the Scripture calls the fecond Death, or future end-
lefs Puniihment. The Word we render tVages, is a Latia
Word made Greeks '^ and fignifies a military Stipend, or a Sa-
lary due to Soldiers. What we render Gift,^ is properly a free
Gift. It aniwers ch. v. i6. to Gft by Grace, ver. 15. This
then the Text fignifies to us ; that as Death, of every kind, is
not only confequenc, but ftridly due to Sin ; fo Eternal Life,
with every fpiritual Blefling comprehended in it, is not only
*• To, o-\>una,. '"Th put for Soldiers Wages, Luke iii. 14. i Cor,
Ix. 7.
' To ;;^«pio-fxa. The Z,rt//« Vulgate renders it G;fl//« ; fo 'tis quo-
ted by uiuguflin, Origen^ 'Tranfator, ferom, Sedulius ; but TertulUatt,
who lived long before the old italic Verfion was publifhed in this pre-
fent Form of it, renders the Text thus, " Stipendia delinquentias
•' mors ; donaiivum autem DEI eft Vita Eterna," &c. Many of the
Fathers give us this Remark ; he does not lay, Eternal Lite is the
Wages of your Obediepce, 1?ut the Grace or free Gift of God,
through Chrill.
P confequent
^6 ^hc Scripture-Do^rine of
cbnfequent upon the Obedience of Chrifl, hisRighteoufners, ch.
V. 21. but ftriiStly merited by it. So that tho' the Particle,
through [^i«, £v,) does not always denote ftri£t Merit, or any
kind of proper Caufalicy, it however can import nothing Icfs
in fuch Propofitions as thefe : *' we have Redemption through
" hli Blood;" '* we are juftified freely — through the Re-
*■< demptlon that is in Chrifl: ; "--- '< Grace reigns to eternal
*' Life, through Right eoujhcfs^ or through Jefus Chrijl '^^--znA
** Eternal Life is the free Gift of God, through Jefus Chrljl ;"
with which I might join, *' ye know the Grace of our Lord
*« Jefus CTnrift, thit being rich, he made himfelf poor, that ye
*' through his Poverty might be rich," 2, Cor. viii. g. and *' He
*' hath appointed us not to Wrath, (called Death^ Rom. vi.
*' 23) but to obtain Salvation, thro^ our Lord Jefus Chrijl^^''
i Thef. V. 9. and to name but one more, "He became Partaker
<' of Flelh and Blood, that through Death he might deftroy him
*« who had the Power of Death, "---//(?Z'. ii. 14.. 1= The proud
Pacinian will have it, that as Obedience and Puni/hment, Satis-
fa£iion and Merit : re inconfillent ; fo are either of thefe two,
with free Pardon, and Juihfication. Bac a much competcnter
Judge of divine MattL^rs thin either Locke., or Emlin., or any
proud Secinian of them all, has mofl: plainly told us the Con-
fiftency of them, in each of the Texts jufl: now hinted at, as
Ephef i. 7. Rom. iii. 25 ch. v. 15, 17, 2 r. ch. vi. 23. 2 Cor.
viii. Q.-'-Let thefe pretenJeJ P.ationali/h fay what they will, the
Rsdemptijn of Sinners is through the meritorious Blood of Chrifl,
dnd yet according to the Rihes of divine Grace. Eternal Life
is a free Gift through Jefus Chrifl: our Lord. And certainly, if
Sin is abominable in itfelf, and infinitely difpleafing to God :
Ir, therefore, the Holy One will not, cannot honourably ac-
quit his guilty Creatures, but in Coniideration of an equivalent
Ranfom, or a FuIRImcnt of the Demands of Law and Juftice
for them ; and if rather than thefe Creatures of his fliould perifli
for ever, through an Inability to pay fuch a Ranfom, and fa-
tisfy Jufl-ice by any Obedience and Sufferings of their own, he
will fend his own Son, Subflitutc him in their Place, inflift the
Punifhm::nt due to theiu on /;/w, and in Confcquence of thut.,
accept them as righteous ; if fo, here is a mnfl: affedting Difplay
at once, of the fl;ri(5i:eft Jullice, and the freetl:, richeft Mercy.
(\.) The Rigiiteoufnefs of God is unto all, and upon all them
that believe. Rom. iii. 22. Tiie Q^ieftion now is. What does
" the Rigiiteoufnefs of God" import here, and in ch. i. 17.
ch. iii. 21. ch. x. 3. Phil. iii. 9
P.. I. 'Tis not an Attribute of the Divine Nature, God's c(-.
^ Add, Hel>. xii. 15. ch. xiii. 20, 2i. i Ptt. ii- 5. with fuch Texts
as CW. iii. 17. Heb. xiii. 15.
fential
imputed Sin and Righteoufnefs Jlated^ hz. 47
fential Juftice, or Goodnefs, or Faithfulnefs, ' each of which it
lometimes call'd by this Name.
2. 'Tis not the inherent Righteoufnefs of a good Man, or
Works of Righteoufnefs done by fuch an one. This, I think,
all acknowledge. Even they who plead for Juftification by E-
vangelical Works, '" put not this Conftru<Stion on the Phrafe now
cenfider'd. Inherent Righteoufnefs, with the genuine Fruits of
it, are called The Righteoufnefs of God, Jam. i. 20. but not ia
any of the Texts which tell us of " the Righteoufnefs of God
« by Faith."
3. 'Tis not Faith itfelf, from which 'tis mofl plainly diftin-
guifbed in Rom. i. 17. and the other Texts.
4. Neither is it Chriji himfelf, tho' fonie of the Anticnts do
fo interpret it. As Origen., *' This Righteoufnefs of God,
*' (Rom. iii. 21, 22.) which is Chrifl, is manifefted without
" the Law." Ambrofe, on Rom. x. 3. The Jews not knowing
'* him to be the Chrift, looked for another ; preferring their
** own Righteoufnefs by the Law, to him who is the Righteouf-
*' nefsof God by Faith : For he himfelf is the Righteoufnefs."
In the fame Manner fpeak fomeof the Fathers. I add, that fome of
them underftand Faith on ChriJl, or the Faith of Jefus Chrift to
be this *' Righteoufnefs of God." But neither of thefe is an ac-
curate Explication, tho' both, I doubt not, were honcflly and
foundly intended.
5. 'Tis not the Bleffing of Juftification ; which tho' fome-
^\n\es cMed Righteoufnefs y is not this " Righteoufnefs of God."
What then muft we interpret it to be ? 'Tis either the ordained
Method of becoming Righteous before God, or the Righteouf-
nefs of Chrift as a Surety. Some chufe the former Conftruc-
tion, and indeed the Rigl.teoufnefs of God, in this Senfe, '* is
" revealed in the Gofpel," Ch. i. 17. " is manifefted without
" the Law." Ch. iii. 21. " was witnefled by the Law and the
** Prophets." *' Was unknown to the Jews," ch. x. 3. and it
might properly enough be called " the Righteoufnefs ot God by
" Faith. But what Senfe is there in faying, *' The Method
'* of attaining Righteoufnefs ordained by God is unto all., and
*' upon rt// them who believe." Therefore if this Text is rightly
' So fome, even of the Orthodox, underftand it, Ifa. xlii. 21. ch.
xlvi. 13. ch. li. 5, 6, 8. But tho' I once thought with them, J am
ctherwife Minded noiv ; inclining to put the fame Conftrudlion on the
Phrafe there, and in ch. Ixi. 10 as in Rom. iii. 22.
'" The Proteltants, who plead for this, the moll: learned Bifhop
Donxinam, calls No'vntoies, by Way of Diftidtion from thofe t der Hc-
let/cks the papifls, whom Le calls feteiatares. Vid His treaufe of
Juftification, p 40.
P 2 tranflatioa
48 Ihe Scrip lure- Docirine of
tranflated," " The Righteoufnefij of God," feems rather to bg
*' the Righteoufiicfs of Chrifl as Surety ;" as to which I ob-'
ferv( i,
1. This certainly niight be called the Righteoufnefs of God
if being of him who is God, and a Righteoulnefs, that God or-
dained-, that he accepts, and is pcrfecStiy fatisfied with.
2. 'Tis exprefsly fo called. 2 Pet. i. 1. " to them who have
*' obtained---prccious Faith, through the Righteoufnefs of our
" God artd Saviour Jefus Chriil." So the Text might, and
ought to be rendrcd. Faith^ then, tho' the Gift of God [Eph.'
ii. 8, 9. ^-?-f xi. r8. Phil. i. 29) is through the Righteoufnefs
of Chnft. 'Tis a Part of the Redeemer's Purchafe : As is Sandti-
fication alfo.
3. Every one of the Particulars affirmed of this Righteouf-
nefs of God is true of the Rigiitcoufnefs of Chrift as a Surety.
For this " is revealed in the Gofpel to be, by Faith in order'
*' to Faith," as I underftand, Rotn. i. 17. 'Tis manifefted with-'
out the Law. 'Tis witneHed by the Law, as having in it a Sha-
dow of good Things to come, and the Old Tcftament Prophets,
particularly David, Ifaiah, Jere?ny, Zechary. The unbelieving
Jews, thro' an Ignorance of it, went about to eflablifh a Righ-
teoufnefs of their own : So did Saul, tlie Fharifee, in particular,
'till his Converfion ; when what Things he had vainly trufled to
before, he renounced all Confidence in, Phil. iii. 7. And fe-
veral Years after, he declared hinifelf of the fame Mind yet :
For, faid he, vcr. 8, 9. " I count all Things but Loft for the
** Knowledge of Ciuift, for whom I have fufFered the Lofs of
*' all Things, and count them but Dung ihat I may win Chrift,
<' and be found in him, not having, in a way of Dspendance,
*' my own Righteoufnefs, which is of the Law, but that which
♦' is by the Faith of Chrift,- even the Righteoufnefs of God by
** Faith," which Words of the Apoftle evidently diftinguifh
this, " Righteoufnefs of God." (i.) P^om what he had trufted
to before hia Converfion, ver. y, (2.) From every thing done
by himfflf, before or after, in Conformity to any Law of God,
'jer. 8, 9. (3.) F.om Faith. 'Tis the Righteoufnefs of Chrift,
then, that he had fuch a fmgiilar Regard to : And of this h6
fays, 'cis '* unto all, and upon all them who believe. ^'Unto all,
and upon all, nc cr:«v1a? -.-y etti -E-aw?. I can make no tolerable
Senfe of this, as underft&od of any thing but the Righteoufnefs
" Some take si.; and ekx, here to be ec[;jivalent. But I fe« noman-
er of Reason for that,
of
imputed Sin and Righteotifnefs fiated^ &c. 49
of Chrift himfclf, • which as ordained, accepted, and Imputed
for JufliHcation, is fitly called " the Righteoufncrs of God. "
This, I doubt not, was the true Meaning of thofe AnthntSy
whom we before pointed at, as underftanding it of Chriji^ or
Faith. So that this Interpretation of " the Righteoufnefs of
*' God," befides being more agreable to the Apollle's Language
in Rom. ui. 22. is much antienter than the foregoing one ; that
not having taken Place among the Orthodox 'till lately, and hav-
ing ijcen Hrft introduced among Proteftants by the Socinians^ tho'
fince embraced even by fome of the Orthodox j whereas this was
certainly propofed by fome of the P^athers, as Origcn, Amhrnfe^
tj^ugujiin, Seduiius, Tbfophy/a^ ; not to mention Oecumeniusy
yfnfehn^ with other later Writers, as might be fhown, if it was
needful.
(5.) One of the Names that Chrift is called by is, Jehovah
OUR Righteousness, Jer. xxiii. 6. And why may not
this endearing Character of our Emmanuel be interpreted, ac-
cording to that Text, Ifai. xlv. 25, 26. and according to that
other, 2 Pet. i. i. which fpeaks of " the Righteoul'ncfs of our
" God and Saviour Jefus Chriii ? " There, the fame Perfon
is called " our God and Saviour, " Vv-ho, by tiie Righteoufnefs
ot his Life and Death, as obeying and fuffcring for others, pro-
cured the precious Grace of Faith for thcrn, and Jujiijicaiion
thereby. I'iie Church is indeed thought to be called by this
glorious Name, 'Jer. xxxiii. i6. But as fome queftion this^
and take tlie Text otherwife ; io admitting it to be true, all we
can Conclude from it is this^ that a Name properly belonging to
Chriji folely, is applied to the Church, as moft nearly and infe-
parably united to ifim. The Church., or myftical Body of C/;r//?,
is called ChriJ}., i CVr. xii. 12- Gal. iii. j6.
(6.) Chriji " fulFdk-d the Riglueoufnefs of the Law for us "
Believers, P..om. viii. 4. By v^ay of Lurodu6tion to that, the
Apoltle lavs, " There is no Condemr.ation to them who are
^* in Chrift Jefus. — For what the Law could not do, in that
^' it was weak through the Fiefh, God fending his own Son in
*' the Likenefs of rmtui Flelh, and for Sin, condemned Sin in
*' the Fleiii, " i^c. What was it that the Law co'ild not do ?
Mr Hallet fav's, " It could not condemn Sin in the Fiefh. "
But a better Anfwer may be taken from Gal. iii. 21- " It could
*> not give Life ; " or from the next foregoiiig Vv'^ords, xwver.
o Of this 'tis undeillood by the moft learned and pious Bifhop
Tyon-vnam, and by other of (he Uarnede'l Orthodox Proiejiant! \ though
'ris otherwife underliood by fuch pious Writers as Mr Bar.ter, Mr
Humphieys, Mr S. ClarA, the Annota!o>\ is'c.
P 3 ii. " h
^0 7'/&i? Scripture-DoSfrm of
2. " It could not free from the Law of Sin and Death. " Why
♦* It was weak through the Flejh, " or by reafon of corrupt
Nature, as rendring Man fince the Fall unable to fulfil the De-
mands of it. What then did God do for preventing the final
Ruin of all Mankind ? '* God fending his own Son," i^c. 'Ti«
generally allowed that the Words 'srtpt «j*«plia?, for Sin, denote
«' a Sacrifice for Sin . " To which Mr Hallet'r adds, " Thefe
*' Words are to be confidered as a Genitive cafe, and the
*' Apoftle's Meaning is, that God fent his Son in the Likenefs
" of two Things, finful Flejh, and an Offering for Sin. His
*' Flefh was like finful Fiefh, in being expofed to Death, as
*' our finful Flefh is. And Chrift was like to the old Sacrifices
<' for Sin, in that his Death made Atonement for us. " .Others
confider yir <S/«, as a Noun of the Accufative Cafe, or under-
ftand it thus : " God fent his Son to be a Sacrifice for Sin,
** as well as in the Likenefs of finful Flefh ; and condemned
*' Sin in his Flefh," did, as it were, pronounce it guilty, or
juftly punifhable. How ? By the Sufferings inflidled on his own
Son, as ftanding in the Place of Sinners. If infinite Holinefs
did not require the punifhing of Sin, God would certainly have
fpaieJ his own Son ; but inftead oi that, for giving the fulleft
Proof poffible, both of his Implacablenefs to Sin itfelf, and his
Readinefs to pardon guilty Oft'enders, in Confideration of a Sa-
tisfa6lion, he " laid on Chriji the Iniquity of us all-" Thus
did he condemn Sin in the Flefh of his own Son, for this End,
<* That the Righteoufnefs of the Law might he fulfilled y^r us,
«' or by us, " as believing on him. This latter is the Con-
ftruffi'^n put upon it by fome of the Antients; ' who fpeak to
this Purpofe: " If thou believeft on Chriji, thou hafi: fulfilled
" the whole Law. " But 'tis as well to render " r;p», for us
Ou' common Tranflation, in us, is certainly improper f fince,
^'txaiwfAa ra i^e/iAa, the Righteoufnefs of the Law, denotes what
the Luw requires, in order to Juftification and Life, which all
muft grant, is not fulfilled in any fince the Fall ; but was ful-
filled by Chrift, for us, or in our Jicad. This agrees with the
fcope of the Apoftle's Difcourfe, and the many other Texts,
which, together with this, as added to the Verfe foregoing,
teach us moft plainly thefe three Truths, (i.) Every one's ut-
ter Inability to fulfil the Demands of the Law for himfelf.
' V'td. His free and impartial Study of the Scriptures, recommend-
ed, p 19, 20.
1 Not only Bernard, Photius, Oecumenius, with other later Writers,
but Ambrofe, Auguftin, SeduUus, Theedoret, all fpeak to this parpoie.
Some of their Teiliaionies I put down aftei wards.
2. Chrift
imputed Sin and Righteoufnefs Ji ate d, &cc, ci
(2.) Chrift being fubftituted, and punifhed inftcad or others.
(3.) His thereby fulfilling; " the Righteoufnefs of the Law, '*
or the ftridt legal Demands of Juftice for them ; who, when
ciFe6tually taught to walk not after the Fiefh, but after the Spi-
rit, may, with humble Thankfulnefs, apply this Text to them-
felves.
7. If we are in Chrift, He is made unto us Righteoufnefs^ as
well as Wifdom, San6lificp.tion, and Redemption, i Cor, i. ^o.
The Apoftle, there, argues, that " no Flefh muft glory or
*' boaft, in the Prefence of God. " Why ? Becaufe " of him
*' ye, whom he faves^ are in Chrift Jefus. " There is a fpe-
cial Relation between him and you ; in Confequenre of which,
he becomes, according to the Council of God's WjiJ, ^7/ to you
that yot want. Particularly, he \s Righteoufnefs to yoxx; which,
as diftirguiftied from the other three Things mentioned, muft
refer to "Jtiflifi cation^ or denote Juftification itfelf. The Gof-
P"l- method of Salvation moft ftrongly forbids all Creature-
boaftinr, every kind of Self-confidence, and requires us^ whom
God faves, to afcribe our Salvation altogether to him ; becaufe
*' ofhmit is that we are in Chrift, " and derive all Things
from Hm ; IVijdom to direift us into, %\\i\ in the Way to
Heaven; Righteoufnefs^ to juPcify us before God, or the Privi-
lege of dcceptance mith him^ whom as a juft, holy Lawgiver,
we are <ternally and nectlFarily cojjcerncd with ; San^ifieatioriy
to make us new Creatures, and confirm us in the good Way,
agreeabl; to thofe Promifes, E-zek. xxxvi. 26, 27, 28. y/r.
xxxii. 38, 39,i^O. And to thofe Requcfts, Pfcil. cxix, 5, 10, 33,
35' 3^" which are the genuine Breathings of the new Creature
in all Ag?s ; Redemption^ to deliver both Soul and Body, fully
and finalv, from all the unhappy penal Efted:s of the Fall.
Comparewitii this Text, i 'John v, ii, 12. i Cor xv. 22,23.
Eph. i. 3. not to mention the feveral Texts that reprefent each
fpiritual iieffing diftindtly, as refulting from our Concern with
Chriji^ ox Relation to him, or being in him.
8. Chril *' is the End of the J^aw for Righteoufiiefs to every
" one wht believeth, " Rom. x. 4. Which fome of the Fathers
underftandof Chriji's putting an End to, or taking away the
Obligationof, the Mf^aic Law. Others (>r them fpcak to this
purpofc; "He is the End (/. e. the PcitetStion, -tsA-^pw^Aa) of the
*' Liw. " He fulfilled it for Keiieveis, and they have fulfilled
it in him. *' He has the Perfe^iion of the Liw, fays Sedt^lius,
*' who bclbvcth on Chriji.'" So Chryfofioin, " If thou be-
" lievcft ii him, thou haft fulfilled the L.iw. Nay, thou haft
*' done mae than it commanded, for ihou haft received a
*' much gira:er Righteoufnefs " • But othe's take their
]■* 4 I uerpretatioii
52 7he Scrlpture-Do5}rine of
Interpretation of this Text from Gal. iii. 24. *' The Law was
*' given to lead Men to Chrift. " By convincing us of our
Guilt, and wretched Condition as Sinners, it beats us ofF from
endeavouring to eftablifli a Righteoufnefs of our own, or feekr
ing to be accepted for Works done by ourfelves ; and directs us
to believe on Chr'tji for JuftificEtion. Thus the Law was, by
God's Appointment, fubfervient to the Promife, Gal. iii. 17,
18, 19, 21. The convincing awakening Miniftry of it pre-
pares us for fecking to be juftified by Chriji., and at the fame
Time living unto God, ch. ii. 17, 19. " Chrift, then, is the
*' End of the Law for Righteoufnefs, or "Juji'tficat'ipn to every
" Believer." Somewhat to this purpofe fpeaks the gteat Mr
Locke., (who however was not clearly apprized of the moft
hateful Nature of Sin, the Sin-avenging Juftice of Gad, the
Neceility of fuch a plenary Satisfa6lion as has been pleaded for,
with free Juftification by Faith on the Blood of Jefus, or by his
adtive and paffive Fulfilment of the Law in our ftead, and ac-
cepted by God for usj His Paraphrafe on 2 Cor. v. i\. runs
thus : " For God hath made him fubjedl to Sufferings and
*< Death, the Punifliment and Confequence of Sin, as if he
*' had been a Sinner, though he was guilty of r.o Sin, tiat we,
*' in and by him, might be made righteous, by a Rightsoufnefs
*« imputed to us by CxoJ. " Where obferve (i.) He (peaks of
the Sufferings and Death of Chrijl as not only the Conffquence,
but the Pumjhment of Sin ; which infers fome kind o^ Imputa-
tion of Sin to Cbriji. If Chr'tji was really punifhed ly God,
as if lie had been a Sinner, though he was Guilty of noSin, was
not the Guilt of others fome way imputed to him, anc that by
God, as a juft offended Lawgiver ? (2.) He reprefents Believers
as made righteous, (ox- juftified, in and by Chr'ijl) b» a Righ-
teoufnefs imputed to them by God. (3.) He confides this as
the End and Confequcnt of the former. Chrijl wa; punifhed
for Sill, or treated as though he had been a Sinner, that we
might be made righteous, not in ourfelves^ but in hin, not by
a Righteoufnefs inherent in us, but imputed to us by God.
Now, though by a Righteoufnefs imputed^ Sec. he night not^
did not, mean the Righteoufnefs of Chrijl.^ as a Surety, or his
adiive and pafiive Fulfilment of the Law itfelf; iis Words,
notwitliftanditig, imply fome kind of Imputation of (that Righ-
teoufnefs to Believers. No fuch Paffage as this of |Ir L. pre-
fcnts itfcif in the W^ritings of Socinus, Crellius, Edin, Mr T.
who tell us plainl}', that the Sufferings and Dead of Cl.riji
Were indeed the Conjequence., but not the Punijhmnt of Sin ;
and our Jiilfiftcation is confe'juent upon^ but not t!ie proper Ef-
i^c\ of his Siiftcrings and Death, if we may iiearliii to them.
The
imputed Sin and Righteoufnefs ftated, Sec. 53
The great Mr L. then, whatever fome have fuggfefted, was laot;
perfc6tly Socinian; for though he feems to have conceived of
our Lord as nothing better than the Chief of fubofdinate Be-
ings ; though by 'JuJlijicaUon of Life, Rom. v. 18. he under-
ftauds not " tiiat Righteoufnefs by Faith which is to eternal
Life," but only a Recovery from under the Death brought upon
ail by the Sin of Adam ; though he alTented not to tlie Notion
of an Equivalent Ranfom^ or a Compenfatjon made to Go'!, by
paying what was of equal Value, and did fo 2ih(\ivA\y fociniafiize^^
as to argue the LKonfifiency of fuch a Ranfom and Compenfation
•w\ih free Pardon ; notwithllanding all this^ he was lefs of a So-
cinian than lome others j as he acknowledged a proper caufal
Influence of Adam's Fall, on the Mortality of all his Defcen-
dants, with the caufal Influence of Chriji's Sufferings and Death
on our Juftification. But to leave this Digrefiion.
To the Texts already infifted on, or pointed at, I add a few
others, that either may be, or are, applied to the Subjedts in
hand. Pfal. Ixix. 4. " I reftored that which I took not
«« away." The firft Part of this Veife, or Pfal. xxxv. ig. is
underflood of Chriji^ or applied to him, fohn xv. 25. But if
this Text was really meant of C/;r//?, and of him folely (as it
muft be according to them, who admit not of the double Senfe
of any old Teffament Prophefics,) we muft alfo underftand of
him, ver. 5. " O God, thou knowelt my Fooiil'hners, and my
" Sins are not hid from thee. " And indeed fome "■ fciuplc not
to apply this likewife, with (Pfal. xl. 12.J to Chrift 3 not fup-
pofing him chargeable with Foll'^ and Sim of his own, inherently
or prafiically^y but as having the Follies and Sins of others iwput-
ted to him^ in the Senfe already flatcd, and argued for. — - Pfal.
Ixxi. 16. " I will make Mention of thy Rightceufnefs, and of
*' thine only." This fome underfland of (hri/l^ and his
Righteoufnefs as a Surety ; comparing it with Ifa. xlv. 24. But
that this is the precife Meaning of the Text, I affert not. Pof-
fibly the true Senie of it may be no other than this : " I v^ill
" thankfully afcribe every Deliverance and BlcfTing I partake of,
** not to Goodnefs in myfeif, or to the belt liuman AiTiflances,
*' but to the Goodnefs and Faithfulnefs of thee rny God." Thefe
he calls " God's Righteoufnefs," ver 2, 15, 19, 24- However,
this ver. 16, if I remember right, was underliood of the Righ-
teoufnefs of Chriji by fome of the Antients \ many of wnofe
Expolitions of particular Texts \n eye pious rather thdn judicious.
Thus Irenaus, and others of them, 'mtt:rprct Deut. xxviii. 66.
as a Prophefy of Cbrijl, and his hanging on the Crofs. But
^ Of thefe is Dt John Edivards, with feveral of our Old Divines.
though
54 ^^^ Scripture-Do5frine of
though « Chrlji is the Believer's Life. " (Col. m. 4.J and if
" we are ahvc unto God, 'tis thr$ugh Chrifiy" as the merito-
rious Procurer of this faving Privilege for us, [Rom. vi. n.)
though the End of his coming was, that " they, whom he calls
«' his Sheep, might have Life, " [John x. 10.^ and he was
lifted up on the Crofs, that ** whofoever believeth on him
*« might not perifli, but have cverlafting Life, " {John iii. 14,
15.) 'Tis notwithftanding moft abfurd to underftand the
quoted Text in Deuteronomy, as prophetical of Chrift, and his
Crucifixion, — Pfal. xlv. 13, 14. «^ The King's Daughter is
** all glorious within; her Cloathing is of wrought Gold : She
** (hall be brought unto the King in Raiment of Needle-work."
Here, her Cloathing, and Rai?nent of Needle- work, are thought
by fome to be the Righteoufnefs of Chrift imputed. Of ihefame
fome underftand the Wedding- garment, Matth. xxii. u. the
White Raiment, Rev. iii. 18. and the Righteovfnefs of Saints,
eh. xix. 8. But though thefe Expofitions may not be altoge-
ther indefenfible, and are allowed by feveral of the Icarnedeft
Proteftants, I chufe not to borrow Arguments from either thefe
Texts, or fucb as Cant. iv. 7 Rev. xiv. 4, 5. Matth. vi.
•3-2. without the Aid of which Texts, the Imputation of Guilt to
Chrift, and of his Righteoufnefs to Believers, has been, I hope,
lufEciently confiraied by many others. Unto which I add one
more, for Illuftration fake. Philem. ver. 18, 19. *' If he hath
*' wroncred thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine Ac-
" count, (eft'" £^^ov£^) I Paul hwe written it witii mine own
" Hand, I vvill repay ir. " Here the Apoftle, fay the Soci-
nians, did not take the Injuftice of Onefmus on himfelf; /. e.
He would not be charged as the adtua! Doer of it : But though
the adual committing of that Wickednefs of Onefmus muft not,
could not, juftly be miputed to the Apoftle, he notwithftanding
confcnted to be anfA'erablc for it, as though he had adually
committed it. He does not fay only, " If he oweth thee ought,
<' put it to my Account," for, as Mr Locke, on Rom. v. 13,
renders it, Reckon, or impute it to me) but, " If he hath wrong-
«* ed thee, ^c- " He coi:iented noi: only to the Payment of a
Debt', but to latisfy for an injury done. Sins are compared to
Debts, as they render us leg-i'ly obnoxious vo the threatening of
the Law, or the punitive J.iftice of the fovereign Lawgiver,
whofe Hatred of all Sin is n uch greater than our's can be, and
who is fo greatly difpleafed 1 xMewith, as to uf'usc ut,, he will by
no Means clear the Guilty, or forgive any Sins unfatisfied for by
the Death of Chriji ; whom, .igreeawly to the Scriptures that
have been cited, and infifted on, wt might conceive or is fpeak-
ijij to this puipofe, with regard to every one of the People be-
longing
imputed Sin and Right eoufnejs flated. Sec. 5 5
longing to him : " If he, or fhe, hath wronged thee, O thou fo-
<' vereign Lawgiver, or oweth ought to thy Law and Juftice,
«« put it to my Account : The Debts which they have contrad-
<' ed, •nd the Injuries they have done, I am wilHng to fatisfy
*' for : Let me be punifhed in their ftead. " Accordingly, the
Load of all their Guilt was laid on him : The full Puniihmcnt
due to them was infli6ted on hir/t, (God fpared not his own Son,
Rom. viii. 32-) according to Prop. 11. and in Confideration of the
Payment (Satisfaction) made by him, they are acquitted, or ac-
cepted as righteous, according to Prop. III.
Thus have I gone through the Scripture Account propofed to
be confidered, joming therewith fome antient human Teftimo-
ries, unto which feveral more might be added, for deteding the
rafh Confidence of fome, who decry the Do6trine pleaded for as
both unfcriptural znd novel; Whereas,
(1.) Whether they are the Do6lrines of Scripture, or no, they
are undoubtedly as antient as the earlieft Chriftian Writings,
next after the New Teftament. C'ement of Rome fays, *' Wc
*•• being called by, according to, his Will in Chriji Jefus, are
<* juftified not by ourfelves, our own Wifdom, Underltanding,
** Godlineis, or Works done by us in Holinefs of Heart, but by
'< Faith, ^ by which the Almighty God has juflified all from the
*' Beginning. " ch. xxxii. Again, having quoted Pfal. xxxii»
1,2. he adds, "This Blefl'ednefs belongs to them who are chufen
*' by God, through our Lord Jefus Chriji., to whom be Glory
*« for ever and ever. " ch. \. Again, *' The Lord, who has
*' chofen the Lord Jefu^ Chriji.^ and us, through him, to be a
*« peculiar People, give to every one, who calls on his glorious
*' and holy Name, Faith, Fear, Patience, — — thro' our High-
*' prieft and Prefident y^fi^ Chriji., ^ia rs A^x^^f^'^^ '^ ■Erfof-ara rwAv,
*< through whom be Glory to klm. " --- ch. Ivii. Ofrce niore^
*' The Grace of our Lord Jefus Chriji be with you, and all
*« who are every where called by God through hmi, " viro rv
Qea, i^^a.vrii. ch. Iv'iW. — Other Tcliimonies fomevvhat Titer
than thefe, have been hinted already.
{2.) 'Tis no lefs certain, and as eafily provable, that the
Subftance of thefe Doctrines, in one Form or anotlier, lias been
all along known, and embraced in the Chriftian Church. Tlic
fill! Deniers of them, ( fctting afide the earlieft hnpure He-
f What plainer Teftimony can there be to the free Judification bv
Faith alone, aflerted in the Articles and Homih'es of the Church of
England, with the Confeffions and Catechifms of oth-er Reformed
Churches, but zeaioufly oppofcd by fuch prejudiced profciled Adniirer?
of the Eftablilhcd Churcii, and antient Catholic Tjadiiion, as Bu!l,
Grabe, See ?
rciicks\
56 ^he Smpture-Do5lrine of
yeticks) were Pelaglus, and his Adherents. Since the Rife qf
Pelaglan'ifm^ they have been fadly obfcured in the Reman
Churchy many of the learned Doctors of which will fometimes
fpeak with the Orthodox Antients, but do really think with
Pelagians, as has been proved by Mr Jamefon, and others, out
of their own Books. The Dodrine of Imputation pleaded for,
was not fiift introduced by Luther^ or Bernard^ or the School-
men , as to whom the pious Bifhop Andrezus feme where fays,
«' Whatever the Schoolmen are in their Qitodlibcts, and Com-
** nients on the Sentences ] in. their Soliloquies, and devotional
*« Meditations, they acknowledge Jehova our Rjghte-
*' ousNZSS." Another learned and pious Author fays,
*« This divine Truth, of imputed Righteoufnefs, fuch is its
*' heavenly Oriency, hath extorted Confefiions from its very
*' Enemies." Among whom he reckons the Cardinals Conta-
ren and Bsllarmin. The latter though a fierce Oppofer of the
Dodlrines pleaded for in this Treatife, in his Laji JVill exprefles
a Defjrc, that God would deal with him, not as a Valuer of Me-
rit, but as a Forgiver of Sins. Again, he fiiys, '* 'Tis fafeft to
** truft to the free Mercy of God, through Chrift." Now
thcfe 7 eftimonies may fecm not to reach the Point conten-ded
fori ^^^ l^*^ ^^ ^^ confidered, that the Antients put Merit for
any hind of Work ; and that probably the Cardinal conformed
his Way of fpeaking to theirs. Co;ifequently while he difclaims
Confidence in Merit, and onpofes thereto free Forgi'uenefs, he
plainly aflerts wliat the Socinian Principle of " No Sin or
*' Righteoufnefs imputed, but what is perfonal," abfolutely
contradicts.— ——And indeed a diflreffing Senfe of Guilt, m the
Views of a future Judgment, will extort fuch Confeflions as thofe.
What Bifhop Andrews obferved of the Schoolmen, as was hinted
before ; the fame is true of every thorou2;hly awaked, humbled
Sinner. Such an one is through the Lavj (bv Pvleansof a right
Underftanding of the Spirituality of it's Commands, the Seve-
rity of it's Threatnings, and the Defign of infinite Wifdom, in
publifliing it fince the Fall) dead to the Laxo, as a Covenant of
Works, not that he may walk after the Flefn, but live unto God,
Gal. ii. 19, Vv^'ith which compare ch. v. 18, 24. Luke i. 74,
75. Rom. v, 21. and ch, vi. i, 2, 14 -From which,
with foine other Texts, it would be eafy to evince, that the
Laiu is a (landing invai iable P^ule of Righteoufnefs ; that to be
releafed from the Obligations of a Covenantor Works, or the
Law of God as fuch, is the fpeeial Privilege of fincere Belie-
vers in Chrift ; ai^d that fuch, while they feek to be jufiified by
Clirift, are never thelcfs inclinal.jc, (tfl"c6tually taught by the
guod Spirit,,' to live unto God.—— — But to proceed,
(3) ^^l'e
imputid Sin and Righteotifnefs /I a ted. Sec. /^y
(^.) The Protejiant Reformation was not a little promoted b^
the Help of the Dodirines now contended for j and indeed con-
fifted very much in a Revival of them, when confiderably eclipf-
ed in the Roman Churchy and ahnoft quite loft. This is un-
deniable. Every one, ulio is no Stranger to the Hiltory of the
Reformatioyj^ and the Times next confequent thereupon, muit
acknowledge thus much. Were not zWowx Reformers, Martyrs,
and the/r/? Protejiants, particularly thofe of xhc EtjgUjh Church
for many Years after the Reformation, unanimous upon thefe
Heads ? Yes. Ey whom were they oppofed at the Beginning of
the Reformation, and for many Years after ? By none but Pa-
pijis, or by them firfl:, and afterwards by the Socinlans, whom all
fincere, found Proieitants did, then, with one Voice, condemn
as no Chriftians, and as no lefs Corrupters of the Chriftian Faith^
than Popifli Self-Juftiliaries, Blafphemers, and Idolaters. Of
what Do6trines were the Papljh moft afraid ? Of thefe we are
now pleading for. To give one Inflance. When that bloody
Perfecutor Bijhop Gardiner was {truck, by the Hand of God,
with great Horror of Cpnfcience, and being in the Agonies of
Defpair, wJS encouraged to hope for Mercy from the Example?
of Peter; his Reply to that was, *« I have denied Chrift with
*' Peter, but have not repented with Peter ^ And when a Po-
pifh Doctor, not knowing how otherwife to fpeak a Word in
Seafon, began to preach to him, '* Free Pardon and Juftifica-
*' tion by Faith in the Blood of Chrift," he anfwered with fome
Warmth, to tliis Purpofe. If you harp on that Strinj, or preach
to th-; People that Do£lrine, Tou are all undone ; /. e. Poperv is
in the utmoit Danger from fuch Doctrine as this. *' This
" Witnefs was true." And fo was that of Dr Du Moulin
long after. " Now that wliat they call Cahinifm is cried down,
*' A<5tum eft de Religione Chrifti apud Anglos." Chriftianity
itfelf is in Danger of being quite loft, while thefe Doctrines are
fo much denied, and fcotned, as they now are. This was
fpokcn about fcvcnty oreij^hty Years ago, fince which vfr//z//.'/-
anijm, Pelagianijm, fome Branches of Socinlaniftri, and there-
with Diifm^ pradical Atheijni, have confiderably gain'd upon
us in this Land; not now to fpeak of foreign Parts, where a
vifible Decay of practical Religion among Proteftants, and the
Revival of Pelagian or Semi- Pelagian, Tenets by the Remon-
Jlrants, took Place about the fame Time. Some indeed will
have it that the Father of the Calviuifts was Adgu/liK. " Tiie
" Calvinift Scheme, fays Mr Whiflon, began with A^i<yu(lin in
*< the fifth, and was received by Calvin, in the fiKtecnth Cen-
** tury :" But this Gentleman is as widely miftaken, ss the
whole learned World knows him to be in forne other Caies, if
he imagines either that the fathers befofif Aqujlin^ v^ere uttf:r
Siran-icis
5 8 J he Scripture-DoSirine of
Strangers to what he calls the Calviniji-Scheme^ or that upofl
Jugujiinh Death this Scheme was loft in the World, 'till reviv-'
cd and re-eftabliflied by our Reformeri ; it bei;v2: certain ('as
7.anchy, Biftiop Downarn^ G. J. Vojftus^ Dr John Edwards, Sec,
have obferved and prov'd) that after Jugujiin, the Subllance of
them was maintained by Fulgent'im, Pre/per, Leo Magnus, di-
vers Prelates of the Roman Church not yet become Anti-Chrif-
tian, Vtncv2.h\cBede, and his Follower!- ; Gothefchclc ofRheimSy
and others of the eighth and ninth Centurie? ; by Smorag-
dus Abbas, and others ; by Anfeim^ Petrus Biejenfis, Bernard',
Grojihead of Lincoln ; the WaUcnj'es and Albigenfes ; by IVick-
liff, and the Lollards ; by y. Hufs, and Hierom of Prague,
■with the Bohemian Brethren ; by Archbijhop Bradwardin, John
JVeiffel, Trithemius Abbas, &c. But,
(^4.) What we chiefly ftay ourfelves upon is this: How much
foever thefe Do(5lrines are decried, by the proud Reafon ot Suci'
nians, Papijis, and others ; and how much foever they are cla-
mour'd againft, chiefly by them who don't rightly underftand
them, as abfurd, as what the Laws of Men are Strangers to,
and as hurtful in the Tendency of them ; they are moft clearly
taught in the Scriptures of Truth, as I hope has been fufficiently
evinced — . Infinite fuftice and infinite SatisfaSiion, fome
fay, are infinite Nonjenfe ; which, be they ever fo conceited of
themfelves, is a flagrant Inftance of their fuperlative Folly.
** To me nothing appears more unjuft and abfurd, faid Socinus
*' than for the Sins of others to be imputed to any one." But
to what Purpofe is this Rant ? It can have no Weight with any
who impartially weigh the Scripture- Account, already ftared
and explained. I acknowledge with Mr T. [Supplement, p. 15,
1 6.) that " Innocence is unalienable, except by the Perfon to
" whom it belongs;" that " Neither Man nor God can make
" Innocence to be no Innocence, or juftly account an innocent
" Perfon, continuing fuch, not innocent," /". e. in himfelf \
that *' no juft Conftitution can punifli the Innocent," ('except
in the Cafe of an Innocent Perfon's being entire Mafler of him-
ftlf, and confeniingto be charged with the Guilt of others, and
to fuffer what is due to them in their fleadj *' becaufe punifhing
implies, that the Subject is not innocent," or in fome Senfe
guilty ; that " innocent Pofterity carmot be legally punifhed for
*' tne Faults of their Ancellors," and that the FadVs alledged
bv fome, in regard to tlie Pofterity of Ham, Gebazi, &c. with
the Children of Traytors, fuftering thro' their Treafon, are im-
proper Illuftiations of Oiiginal Sin imputed. But confiftently
with thefe Conceflions, we infift upon it, as from the Scriptures
of Truth already prov'd, That Chrift, tho' moft innocent, and
indeed moie than innocent, ablolutely impeccable in himfelf,
confented
imputed Sin and Righteoufnefs Jiated^ &c. 551
conrented to ftand in the Place of Sinners ; was, with his own
Confent, charg'd with the Guilt of many others, who in Con-
fequence and Confideration of his being made Sin and a Curfe
for them, are accepted and rewarded as righteous. What
tho' the Suretijhip of Chrift is very different from that of Sure-
iies among Men ; and of a lingular fuper-eminent Nature.
The Titles given to Chrift, fays Polhill, are to be taken sn
vmfoxn ; or in a tranfcendent Senfe. He is indeed a Non-fuch
Perfon ; as being a Prieft, Sacrifice, Altar, Mediator, Redeem-
er, Ranfom, Surety, all in one : A Priejl^ and our great H'lgh-
Prieji, {Hek. iv. 14, 15.) in that he offered a true, proper.
Sin-expiating Saciifice, while here on Earth, and is now plead-
ing the Merit of it before God in Heaven, ch. ix. 24. ASacri-'
fice^ in that what he offered was his own human Nature, his Bo-
dy for our Body, and his Soul for our Souls, Hcb. i. 3. ch. vii.'
27- An Altar ^ in that the Sacrifice offered by him was fan£U-
fied, or made effectual, infinitely meritorious, by his own Deitv,
Heb, xiii. 10. compared with Matt. xxii. ig. A Mediator^ I
Tim. ii. 5. Heb. viii. 6. in that he interpofts between the io-
veieign, injur'd, incens'd Lawgiver, and guilty Offenders, to
make up the Breach, and abolifh the Enmity between them,
Rom. v. 10. 1 'John ii. 2. ch. iv. lo- A Redeemer in that he
pnrchafed for Sinners Deliverance from Sin, and the Law's Curfe,
Matt. i. 21. A^s xiii. 38, 39. Tit. ii. 14. A Ranfom, in that
the Price pail to procure that Deliverance, was his own Bloody
(l Pet. i. 19, 20.) his own Life., {Matt. xx. 2H.) himfelf. {Tim,
ii. 6.) A Surety, or Subjiitute, in that he not only engaged /cr
God to us, to infure the Performance of all his Precious Promi-
fes, fof which folely fome would underftand that of theApoftle,
Heb. vii. 22. " Jefus was made a Surety of a better Teftament"^
but he undertookyir us towards God ; to make amends for the
Difhonour done to God by our Sins, and to make fuch a plenary
Satisfaction for them, a? that God may be, in every Senfe,
'* Juf, and yet the Juftifier of him who believeth on Jefus."
Rom. iii. 26. I Johi i. 8, 9.
I now infer ffrom the Scripture-Account of «' Guilt impiit-
•' ed to C;hrifl-," and " his Riyhteoufnefs imputed to Believers,"
the true Scripture- Doctrine of Original Sin. If our Recovery is
owing to Christ, our Ruin was originally owing to Adam.
(Rom. v. 18, 19. I Cor. XV. 22J \\ Jda?ni firlt Sin is not
imputed to all his natural Dcfcendants, neither were the Sins of
any imputed to Chrift, or is his Righteoufnefs to Believers. All
grant that thefe three Imputations are equally true or falfe. And
any one of them being once prov'd, the other two follow of
courfe. As every Proof of the " Imputation of Guilt to Chri/t,"
carries with it a Cunfirniatiou of " iiis Righteoufncfji being im-
puted
6o ' Ibe Scripture- Do^rine of
puted to Believers;" (o every Argument that eftabliflies thg/gy h
of Ule to confiroj our Belief of what we call Original Sin im-
puted. Either therefore we muft adhere to this Doctrine ^what-
ever Difficulties attend h) or renounce 'Juflification by Chrijl^
and Salvation thro'' the Merit of his Blood. Accordingly the
Socinians do thii ; and fome of thcin, in as plain broad Terms
as can be well us'd. Whether Mr 7". is juftly chargeable with
tbisi every one who pleafes to confult and read what he writes*
particularly at />. 72, 73. of his *' Scripture- Dodtrine," &c. iS
at Liberty to judge for himfelf. '* The Worthiness of
" Chrift is his Confummatc Virtue. It is Virtue, Obe-
*' dience to the Truth or to the divine Will, and Benevolence
^' to his Creatures, that wins every Prize, that carrieth every
" Caufe in Heaven. Virtue is the only Price which Purcha-
*' feth every thing with God.— ———True Virtue, or the
*' right Exercife of Reafon, is true Worth, and the only valu-
" able Coyijideratlon^ the only Power which prevails with God."
Thefe Pafi'ages are indeed conne6ted with feveral others, that
carry with them a Shew of very grand, honourable, Afcriptions
to Christ and Grace. But the Fallacy lies open to every
careful, intelligent, unprejudiced Reader. He afcribes to
Christ a lingular JVorthinefs \ but 'tis nothing more than a
Superior Degree of the fame kind of Worthinefs that belongs to
every virtuous, good Man. He talks of Chrift's confummate
Virtue, or his Obedience to God, and Good-will to Men,
as manifefting itfelf in his voluntary Submiffion to Sufferings and
Death ; and unto this Virtue of his, fo manifefting itfclf, as
imitated by us^ he would teach us to afcribe our Acceptance with
God-, which is indeed to afcribe it to ourfelves, or to our own
Virtue, '•'• Works of Rightcoufnefs done by us j" in dire<St Con-
tradiction to the Scripture Account already flated, and the whole
Tenour of the Gofpel. To what dangerous Lengths are Men
carried, by an Ignorance of God, as infinitely holy and juft ;.
by a proud Conceit of their own moral and fpirilual Abilities ; and
by a rcfulved Oppofition 10 the Dodlrinc of Original Sin. Rather
than embrace this, tiiey renounce Chrift, as " the meritorious
*' Procurer of Salvation for Sinners." They may indeed feeni
to acknowlege him (3J j'uch; while they pray to be forgiven*
ffff. for his Sake ; and r[>eak of " Eternal Life as given by
God in his Son Jefus Chrift," i^c. But all this is meer Shew :
Such ways of fpeaking do but impofe on the Ignorant, and un-
wary : They dare not profefs in plain Terms, that Chrill has
merited Pardon and Salvation for any ; neither can they con-
fiflently allow this, while tiiey deny Original Sin ; which having
been plainly and fully prov'd in a foregoing Treatife ; this is now
fubjoincd to that other ^ for further confirming the F;iUh of Chrif-
tians
imputed Sin and Right ecufnefs Jlated^ &c. 6 1
tians In fome principal Articles of the Gofpcl, [Original Sin^
Chrift's Satisfa£f'ion^ Jujiificatlon by him) and warning all, who
would not be regardlefs of their fpiritual, everlafting Interefts,
not to entertain, or tamper with Do6irinei^ which, how plaufi-
bly foever recommended, are contrary to many exprefs Texts
of Scripture, and can't be embraced confiftentJy, without dif-
claiming an humble Dependence on Chriji, and rejedliing the
Gofpel-Method of Salvation, befides which there can be no o-
ther; as the ApoiHe argues, 2 Cor. xi. 5. and Gal. i. 5, 7.
Whatever it was that the falfe Apoftle, with his Accomplicei,^
taught at Corinth ; the Galatian Error, or the falfe Doiliine (o
fliarply inveigh'd againft in the Epiftle to the Galatians, was
twofold, (i.) The Nectffity of conforming to Circumcifionj
with the M 'aic Rites. This the Apoftle particularly fhikes at,
ch. ii. 2. -—14. ch. iv. ch. v. 2, 3. ^c ('2.) Juftification by
fome kind of Law Works j not Evil JVorks^ which no Perfon
of Common Senl^ did ever afcribe j aftification to ; not IVorhs
JiriSlly meritorious, which fureiy none among the Galatian Chrif-
tians could luppofe pradlicablc by any meer Creatures; not per-
fect yfinlefs Worki^ which were they peiformable by any, fuch^
might be juftified thereby, according to Rom. ii. 13. but by
what fome call Evangelical JVorks^ or fmcere Obedience to the:
Gofpel. Unto this.^ the Apofllc oppofcs " Juflification by the
*' Faith of Jefus Chrift," or Juftification by Chrift himfelf,"
whom he conuucrs as the proper genuine Object of juftifying
Faith, as fuch, [ch. ii. 16, 17, 20. J as '* Loving his People*
*' and giving himfelf for them," i.e. to procure for them
Acceptance with God, notwithftanding their Inability to per-
form the Righteoufnefs of the Law, {ch. ii. 20, 1\.) As " re-"
*' deeming Smners from the Curfe of the Law, by being made
** a Curfe in their (lead j that the Blefling of Abraham [Jit/li-
*' fication.,) might come on tlie Geniiles, as well as Jews,
*' through him," ch. iii. 16, 17.—" Now, whoever are
Joth to rejedt this Apoftolical DoiStrinc of Juftification, tjiey
muft refolve upon no Confideration to part with the old tried,
approved, fcriptural Do6iriiie of Original Sin, If any are
not perfuaded of ti>e inf'eparable Connexion between thfe two,
let them but attend to thofe Texts, i Cor. xv. 22. Rom. v.
12, -;; 19, wiih what has been lately offered in Vindicatioti
of them, as commonly appealed to by our Orthodox Profeftant
Divines, ^g^\n?x Papifts., Socinians^ and others^ for confiiminpi-
our Fall in Adam., and our Recovery by Chrift \ our deriving
Guilr, together with a corrupt Nature, from the former., and
all true Believers deriving Righteoufnefs, (or Pardon, and Ac-
ceptance with the hciy God) together with a new Nature, a
^^ Paaciplc
6 2 The Scripture-'DoSfrine of
Principle of Obedience from the latter. God grant eve-
ry Reader of this plain Treatife, may not only be convinced
of the Truth and Importance of thefe felf-humbling, Grace-
magnifying and Chrift-exalting Doilrines, but invincibly con-
firmed in an Attachment to them fhow much foever oppofed
Vy the ignorant, conceited, felf-admiring Pharifees of the Age^
by an experimental Knowledge of thei- happy Influence on
Faith^ Holinefs^ and Comfort. Then fliall we, with growing
Humihty and Thankfulnefs fay ; We, who are made Sinners
by the Difobedience of our firft Father, are made righteous by
the Obedience of Chnft ; His Righteoufnefs entitles us to a
much better Inheritance than what we loft in Adam\ and, in
Confequence of being accepted in him, or juftihed by hi?n, we
ftall reign in Life, with him ; unto whom, with Go;! the
Father, and the fandlifying, comforting Spirit, be afcribed end-
Ufs Praife. Amm.
FINIS.
BOOKS, Printed for^ and fold hy George R isk
BoekfelUr, at Shake-fpear's-head in Dame-ftreet,
M
I L L E R's Gardener's Dictionary.
Gardener's Kalendar, ivo.
The Hirtory of the Revolution of Per/la.
King' State of the Proteftants of Ireland under the late King
James's Government.
Jlciphron : or, the Minute Phiiofophero
Revelation Examined with Candour.
Sir Ifaac Newton's Chronology of Anticnt Kingdoms amend-
ed.
.. — — Obfervations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the
Jpocalypfe of St. John. In two Parts, 8vo.
Clark's Expofition of the Church- Catechifm.
»——— Three Pradical Eflays, on Baptifm, Confirmation, and
Repentance .
An EfTay concerning the Nature of Aliments, by J. Arhuth-
not.
Tryal of the WitnefTcs of the Refuireftion of Jefus, 8vo,
French Pfalms, New Verfion, large 8vo,
— -i2mo.
Ramfay's Poems, i2mo.
-Tea Table Mifcellany, being a Colleaion ©f Scotchj
Songs, i2mo.
Arabian T.nles, 4 Vol. i^mo.
La Belle AJfemblee : or, the Adventures of Twelve Days, bv
Madam de Gome-z,^ 4 Vol. i2mo.
Perfian Tales, 3 Vol. i2mo.
Gil Bias of Santillane, his Hiftory and Adventures. In.
Two Vol. i2mo. ' '
Gay's Works, 2 Vol. i2mo.
Garth's Ovid's Metamorphofis, 2 Vol. i2mo,
JBen Johnfon'sY^hys, 2 Vol. i2mo.
Young's Works, 2 Vol. i2mo.
Farquhars Works, 2 Vol. i2mo,
Butler's Hudibras, i2mo.
Ovid's Epiftlef, With his Amours, i2mo.
fPalltr's Poems, i2mo.
7hompfon's Poems on the Seafons, i2mo.
Gratian's Hero, tranflated from the Spanifh, i2mo,
.B/ar^wor^ on the Creation, i2mo.
Sir Richard Steel's Plays, i2mo.
Chriftian Hero, i2mo.
Fofiteneil's Plurality of Worlds, iimo.
A Gentleman'a Religion. In three Vols. By his Qrace the
■Afch-Bifhop of Tuam, i2mo.
Voltaire's
CATALOGUE.
Fo!taife\ Life of the King of Sweden, i2mo.
The New Year's Gift, being the Countefs de Lambirt^s hi-
irice to her Son and Daughter, 1 2ino.
Garth's. DifpenHiry, and Boi/eau's Lutrin, i2mo.
Gay's Paftorals and Fables, i2mo. <■
IFatt's Guide to Prayer, or a free and rational Account of the
Gift, Grace, and Spirit of Prayer, i2mo.
• >■ Prayer compofed for the Ufe and Imitation of Chil-
dren, i2mo.
Duttons Office of Sherifs, 8vo.
Bangor's, Right of Subjects, 8vo.
Major Pack's Potms, i 2mo.
Pomfret's Poems, 12.
Lord Zi^/zy^/i^w^'s Poems, i2mo.
Col. Townfend's Hiflory of the Conduefl of Mexico by thd
Spaniards,
Zof^ on Education of Children, i2mo.
The Countefs of Moreton's Devotion, i2mo.
Religious Courtfhip, i2mo.
Henry on the Lord's Supper, i2mo.
Fojler's Sermons, 8vo.
Seventeen Sermons againfl Popery, preached at Salter s. Hall^
8vo.
Milton's Paradife Loft, i2mo.
Rollings Antient Hiftory of the Egyptians, Carthaginians, Af-
fyrians, Babylonians, Medes, and Perfians, Macedonians and
Grecians, 13 Vols.
Rollings Roman Hiftory, ii Vols. i2mo.
Grandeur and Declenfion of the Romans^ by the Author of
-\ the Perfian Letters, i2mo.
^ Gonzalez. (itn3.m'6 tl'ie Merry FelloWj lamo*
V^ Jddifoti's Works, 3 Vol. 12 mo.
i- Congrevs's Works, 2 Vol. J2m0i
Fiflier's Aiithmetick, i2mo.
^ Guardian, 2 Vol. i2mo.
Henry on Prayer, 12.
Fonteireli's Dialogues of the Dead, limo.
PeruviiUi, Tales, 2 Vol. 121110, ^.
Brodur/r^ Sermons, 8vo. '* '
Kenedy's Sermon before the Synod of Merfe and Tiviodale,
Moral Songs for Children, pr. 3J. or 3s. 6d. per Do%.
AnemWy's ftiorter Catechifm, wiih Proofs.
Young's Seven Sjtirs. G.iv's Paftorals. Spring. Summer.
Autumn. Winter. Garth's Difpenfiiry. Gay's Trivia.
Boileau's Lutrin. Gay's Fables.
..•^#iM^'
Date Due
31^^'.
\
\
\ f)
PRINTED
IN U. S. A.
'.m