"The Scripture speaks very sparingly of the consequences of Adam's sin upon us, because as these are freely reversed to mankind by Christ, we are not so much concerned to know them." (p. 30.) The fact here affirmed is equally true with the reason assigned for it.

2. The first proposition in the Catechism, which relates to original sin is this:

"The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned with him, and fell with him in that first transgression." (p. 91, 92.)

Acts xvii. 26, "God hath made of one blood all nations of men." -I believe Dr. Jennings' remark here will suffice.

"This is quoted to prove, that all mankind descend from Adam. But Dr. Taylor adds, "That is, hath made all the nations of the world of one spirit, endowed with the same faculties." And so they might have been, if all men had been created singly and separately, just as Adam was: but they could not then, with any propriety of language, have been said to be of one blood. This scripture therefore is very pertinently quoted to prove what it is brought for. That 'Adam was a public person, including all his posterity, and consequently, that all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression,' the assembly have proved very methodically and substantially: first, from Gen. ii. 16, 17, where death is threatened to Adam in case of his sinning: then from Rom. v. 12-20, and 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, where we are expressly told, that all men die in Adam, and that by his offence, judgment is come upon all men to condemnation.' (Vindication, p. 49, &c.)

Prop. All mankind sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression:" which they prove by Gen. ii. 16, 17, compared with Rom. v. 12. 20, (p. 93, 94.)

On this you remark, "The threatening, Thou shalt surely die,' is addressed to Adam personally. And therefore nothing can be concluded thence, with regard to Adam's posterity." (p. 94.) Is this consequence good? Was not the sentence also grounded on this threatening, "Unto dust thou shalt return," personally directed to him? And is this nothing to his posterity? Nay, does it not from this very consideration appear, that all his posterity were concerned in that threatening, because they are all partakers of the death which was so threatened to Adam?

"But we cannot gather from Rom. v. or 1 Cor. xv. That all mankind sinned in Adam, if we understand sinned as distinguished from suffering." It has been largely proved that we can and that sinning must necessarily be understood there, as distinguished from suffering.

"But the apostle says, The offence of one brought death into the world whereas had all mankind sinned in Adam when he sinned, then that offence would not have been the offence of one, but of mil

lions." (p. 95.) It might be, in one sense, the offence of millions, and in another, the offence of one.

"It is true, Adam's posterity so fell with him in that first transgression, that if the threatening had been immediately executed, he would have had no posterity at all." The threatening! What was the threatening to them? Did not you assure us, in the very last page, "The threatening is addressed to Adam personally; and therefore nothing can be concluded from thence with regard to his posterity?” And here you say, Their very "existence did certainly fall under the threatening of the law, and into the hands of the judge, to be disposed of as he should think fit !" "As he should think fit!" Then he might, without any injustice, have deprived them of all blessings : of being itself, the only possible ground of all! And this, for the sin of another.

You close the article thus. "We cannot from those passages conclude, that mankind, by Adam's offence, incurred any evil but temporal death." Just the contrary has been shown at large.

3. Their second proposition is, "The fall brought mankind into a state of sin and misery." (p. 96.)

To prove this, they cite, Rom. v. 12, a proof which all the art of man cannot evade and Rom. iii. 23, ‘All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." "But this," you say, " means only, Jews as well as Gentiles, men of all nations have sinned." (p. 97.) Nay, it is most certain, as Dr. Jennings observes, that he "means all men of all nations or he means nothing to the purpose of his conclusion and his inferences, ver. 19, 20, 21, 22, (Vind. p. 50, &c.) The apostle concludes, from the view he had given before of the universal corruption of mankind, That every mouth must be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God.' (ver. 19.) From whence he draws two inferences, 1. Therefore by the works of the law there shall no flesh be justified.' 2. The only way of justification for all sinners is, By faith in Jesus Christ.' For there is no difference,' as to the way of justification; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.' And therefore whoever they are whom Dr. Taylor excludes from this all, (all have sinned,) he must likewise exclude from having any need of justification by Christ."

Be this as it may, it is certain, 1. That mankind are now in a state of sin and suffering. 2. That they have been so in all ages, nearly from the time that Adam fell. Now if his fall did not bring them into that state, I would be glad to know, what did ?

4. The third proposition is, "Sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature." "This," you say, "has no immediate relation to our present design." (p. 98.) But it had to their's: which was to illustrate the preceding assertion, "That the fall of Adam brought mankind into a state of sin," in both these senses of the word.

5. Their fourth proposition is, "The sinfulness of that state into which man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of

his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made op posite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to evil, and that continually, which is commonly called Original Sin, and from. which do proceed all actual transgressions."

On the first article of this you say, "Adam's first sin was attended with consequences which affect all his posterity. But we could not on account of his sin, become obnoxious to punishment.' (p. 99.) By punishment I mean evil, suffered on account of sin. And are we not obnoxious to any evil, on account of Adam's sin! To prove the rest of the proposition, they cite first, Rom. iii. 10 -20. On which you remark, "The apostle is here speaking of Jews and Gentiles, not in a personal but in a national capacity.. The mouth, says he, of all sorts of people, is stopped, and both Jews and Gentiles are brought in guilty; for I have proved, that there are transgressors among the Jews, as well as among the Gentiles." (p. 102.) Not at all. If he proved no more than this, not one person would become guilty before God.' Not one mouth of Jew.or Gentile would be stopped, by showing, "There were Jewish as well as Heathen transgressors."

I proceed to your Observations.

"Obs. 1. In this whole section there is not one word of Adam." There is enough in the next chapter but one. The apostle first describes the effect, and afterward points out the cause.

"Obs. 2. He is here speaking, not of all men, but of the Jews; of those alone who were under the law, (ver. 19,) and proving from their own writings, that there were great corruptions, among them. as well as other people." (p. 103.)

6

He is speaking of them chiefly, but not of them only, as appears from the 9th verse, We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin: As it is written, there is none righteous,' (neither among the Jews nor Gentiles,) no, not one. Does this respect them, in their national only, not personal capacity? Does it prove no more than, "That there were great corruptions among the Jews, as well as other people ?"

"Obs. 3. The section consists of several quotations out of the Old Testament; but, 1. None of them, taken separately, speaks of any depravity of nature, but of habits of wickedness, which men had themselves contracted." (p. 103.) They do speak of habits which men had contracted themselves: but do they speak of these only?. The way to know this is, not to "take them separately;" not to consider the precise meaning, wherein they were occasionally spoken, by David, Solomon, or Isaiah: but to take them conjointly, as they are here put together by the Holy Ghost, to form the character of all mankind.

6

On one of them, "separately taken," you say, "How could God • look down from heaven, to see if there were any that did seek God,* if he knew all mankind were naturally disabled from seeking him?"" Why not, if whatever they were by nature, the grace of God was more

or less given to all? Though they were wholly inclined to all evil by nature, yet by grace they might recover all goodness.

You affirm, 2. "In none of these places does God speak strictly of every individual Jew under David or Solomon. Very many were bad; but some were good." (p. 104.) They were; though by grace, not nature. But among all those of whom God speaks by St. Paul, there was none good or righteous, no, not one:' every individual, whether Jew or Heathen, was guilty before God.

"I conclude, therefore, 1. That none of those texts refer to any corruption common to all mankind." (p. 106, 107.) Perhaps they do not, as spoken by David; but they do as spoken by St. Paul. "I conclude, 2. Such a general corruption as admits of no exception, was not necessary to the apostle's argument." Absolutely necessary had it not included every individual person, no person's mouth would have been stopped.

These texts therefore do "directly and certainly prove," that at the time when the apostle wrote, every individual Jew and Gentile, fexcept only those who were saved by grace,) were all under sin; That there was none of them righteous, no, not one; none that understood or that sought after God.' This was the fact and who can find out a more rational way of accounting for this universal wickedness, than by a universal corruption of our nature, derived from our first parent?

6. The next proof is, Eph. ii. 1, 2, 3, And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins: wherein in time past ye walked, according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit, that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past, in the 'desires of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath even as others.' (p. 108.)

1. "Nothing is here intimated of any ill effects of Adam's sin upon us." No? Not if we are children of wrath by nature?"

2. "The Ephesians were Gentiles converted to the faith." Yea, and Jews also. In this very passage the apostle speaks of both : first, the Gentile, then the Jewish converts.

3. "In these verses he is describing their wretched state, while they were in Gentile darkness."-And while they were in Jewish darkness: the Jews having been just as wicked before their conversion as the Heathens. Both the one and the other had walked' till then in the vanity of their mind, having their understanding darkened,' being equally dead in trespasses and sins,' equally alienated from the life of God, through the blindness of their heart: a very lively description, not so much of a wicked life, as of an evil.

Nature.

4. "When he saith, they were dead in trespasses and sins,' he speaks of their personal iniquities." (p. 109.) (True, both of heart and life. I must make some variation in the rest of your paraphrase.) Wherein,' saith he, in times past ye,' Heathens particularly

'walked ;' inwardly and outwardly, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now (still) worketh in the children. of disobedience: among whom we Jews also had our conversation,' being as dead in trespasses and sins' as you.

"Therefore, 5. When he adds, And were by nature the children of wrath even as others,' he cannot mean, they were liable to wrath, by that nature which they brought into the world." (p. 110.) Why not? This does not follow from any thing you have said yet. Let us see how you prove it now. "This nature is no other than God's own work. The nature of every man comes out of the hands of God." The same may be said of those who are still dead in trespasses and sins.' Their original nature came from God, and was no other than God's own work. Yet the present corruption of their nature came not from God, and is not his work. "Consequently the nature of every person when brought into being, is just what God sees fit it should be." This is true of the original nature of mankind, when it was first brought into being. But it is not true of our present corrupt nature. This is not what God sees fit it should

be.

"It is his ower alone that forms it." Yes, that forms us men; but not, that forms us sinful men. "To say the nature HE gives, is the object of his wrath, is little less than blasphemy." As he gave it, it is not the object of his wrath; but it is, as it is defiled with sin.. "Far was it from the apostle to depreciate our nature." True, our original nature. But never did man more deeply depreciate our present, corrupt nature. "His intent is, to show the Ephesians, they were children of wrath, through the sins in which they walked." Yea, and through the desires of the flesh and the mind, mentioned immediately before: through the vanity of their mind,' through 'the blindness of their hearts, past feeling, alienated from the life of God.' Is he "not here speaking of their nature, but of the vicious course of life they had led?" (p. 111.) "He well understood the worth of the human nature."-He did, both in its original, and in its present state." And elsewhere shows, it was endowed, even in the Heathens, with light and power sufficient to know God, and obey his will." In what Heathens, in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, is nature now endowed with this light and power? I have never found it in any Heathen yet, and I have conversed with many, of various nations. On the contrary, I have found, one and all, deeply ignorant of the very end of their existence. All of them have confirmed what a Heathen Meeko (or chief) told me many years ago, "He that sitteth in heaven knoweth why he made man : but we know nothing."

"But St. Paul says, When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, they are a law to themselves.' (Rom. i. 19. 21.) This supposes, they might have done them by nature, or their natural powers." But how does it appear, that by nature, here means, by their mere natural powers? It is certain, they had not the written law. But had they no supernatural asşistance? Is it not one God who works in us and in them, both to