words, "Every man is tempted,' is overcome by temptation when he is drawn away by his own lust,' his own irregular desire; where the apostle charges the wickedness of men on its proper cause, their own lust." Very true. And irregular desire is (not so much a fruit as a) part of original sin. For to say, "Eve had irregular desires before she sinned," (p. 127.) is a contradiction: since all irregular desire is sin.

12. Another proof, that actual sins spring from original is, (Matt. xv. 19.) Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false-witness, blasphemies.'

"But what has this text to do with Adam's sin?" It has much to do with the point it is brought to prove: namely, That actual sin proceeds from original, evil works from an evil heart. Do not therefore triumph over these venerable men (as you have done again and again) because a text cited in proof of one clause of a proposition, does not prove the whole.

But neither of those texts proves, that all our wickedness proceeds from our being corrupted by Adam's sin." (p. 128.) But they both prove what they were brought to prove, that all outward wickedness proceeds from inward wickedness. Those pious men therefore did not mix "the forgery of their own imagination with the truth of God."

But if all actual transgressions proceed from Adam's sin, then he is the only guilty person that ever lived. For if his sin is the cause of all ours, he alone is chargeable with them."

True if all our trangression so proceed from his sin, that we cannot possibly avoid them. But this is not the case: by the grace of God, we may cast away all our transgressions.' Therefore if we do not, they are chargeable on ourselves. We may live but we will die.

Well, but "on these principles, all actual sins proceed from Adam's sin, either by necessary consequence; or through our own choice; or partly by one, and partly by the other." (p. 129.) Yes, partly by one, and partly by the other. We are inclined to evil, antecedently to our own choice. By grace we may conquer this inclination, or we may choose to follow it, and so commit actual sin.

13. Their fifth proposition is, "Original sin is conveyed from our first parents to their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way, are conceived and born in sin." (p. 130.)

In proof of this they urge, (Psalm li. 5.) Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.'

On this you observe, "The word which we translate shapen, signifies to bring forth or bear. So here it means, Behold I was brought forth or born in iniquity." (p. 131.)

Suppose it does, (which is not plain; for you cannot infer from its meaning so sometimes, that it means so here,) what have you gained? If David was born in iniquity, it is little different from being shapen therein.

VOL. 9.-W

That the Hebrew word does not always mean to be born, but rather to be shapen, formed, or made, evidently appears from Ps. xc. 2; where it is applied to the formation of the earth. And in this very text, the Seventy render it by λ a word of the very same import. It is therefore here very properly rendered shapen: nor can it be more exactly translated.

But "the word, on properly signifies warmed me.” You should say, literally signifies. But it signifies conceived me, nevertheless. And so it is taken, Gen. xxx. 38, 39. 41, &c. xxxi. 10. "Nay it signifies there the act of copulation. So several translators render it." (p. 132, 133.) And several render it otherwise. So this does not determine the point either way.

It must therefore be determined by the sense. Now, for what end did Jacob put the pilled rods before the cattle? That the lambs might be marked as the rods were. And when is it that females of any kind mark their young? Not in that act: But some time after, when the foetus is either forming or actually formed. Throw a plumb or a pear at a woman before conception, and it will not mark the foetus at all: but it will, if thrown while she is conceiving, or after she has conceived, as we see in a thousand instances. This observation justifies our translators in rendering the word by conceiving in all those places.

And indeed you own, "David could not apply that word to his mother, in the sense wherein you would apply it to the cattle." You, therefore, affirm, "it means here, to nurse." (p. 134.) You may as well say, it means, to roast. You have as much authority from the Bible, for one interpretation as for the other. Produce, if you can, one single text, in which on signifies to nurse, or any thing like it. You stride on. 1. "The verse means, In sin did my mother nurse me: 2. That is, I am a sinner from the womb: 3. That is, I am a great sinner: 4. That is, I have contracted strong habits of sin." By this art you may make the most expressive texts, mean just any thing or nothing.

"So Psl. lviii. 3, 'The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, telling lies.' That is, my unjust persecutors in Saul's court are exceedingly wicked." If this was all David meant, what need of 1 are alienated? And that from the bowels of their mother? Nay, but he means as he speaks. They ' are alienated from the life of God,' from the time of their coming into the world. From the time of their birth they know not the way of truth' neither can, unless they are born of God.""

6

You cite as a parallel text, "Thou wast called a transgressor from the womb,' that is, set to iniquity by prevailing habits and customs." Nay, the plain meaning is, the Israelites in general had never kept God's laws since they came into the world.

Perhaps the phrase, from the womb, is once used figuratively, namely, Job xxxi. 18. But it is manifest, that it is to be literally taken, Isa. slix. 1. The Lord hath called me from the womb, from the bowels

of my mother hath he made mention of my name.' For, 1. This whole passage relates to Christ; these expressions in particular. 2. This was literally fulfilled, when the angel was sent while he was yet in the womb, to order that his Name should be called JESUS. This is not therefore barely "an hyperbolical form of aggravating sin;" but an humble confession of a deep and weighty truth, whereof we cannot be too sensible.

"But you have no manner of ground to conclude that it relateth to Adam's sin." (p. 136.) Whether it relates to Adam's personal sin or not, it relates to a corrupt nature. This is the present question; and your pulling in Adam's sin, only tends to puzzle the reader. But how do you prove (since you will drag this in) that it does not relate to Adam's sin?

Thus: "1. In the whole Psalm there is not one word about Adam, or the effects of his sin upon us.'

Here, as usual, you blend the two questions together; the ready way to confound an unwary reader. But, first, to the first, " In the whole Psalm there is not one word about Adam. Therefore it relateth not to him." Just as well you may argue, "In the whole Psalm there is not one word about Uriah. Therefore it relateth not to him." The second assertion, "There is not one word of the effects of his sin," is a fair begging the question.

"2. The Psalmist is here charging himself with his own sin." He is; and tracing it up to the fountain.

3. "But according to our version, he does not charge himself with his sin, but some other person. He throws the whole load of sin from off himself on God who shaped him, and his mother who conceived him."

What you say might have had weight, if he had offered this in excuse of his sin, or even in extenuation of it. But does he do this? Does he in fact "throw the whole blame, or any part of it from off himself?" Just the reverse. He acknowledges and bewails his own total iniquity: not to excuse, but to abase himself the more before God, for his inward as well as outward wickedness.

And yet he might, in perfect consistency with, this when God had caused the bones which had been broken to rejoice,' cry out, ‘I will praise thee, O God: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:' yea, and repeat all that follows in the same Psalm: which proves so much and no more, that every foetus in the womb is formed by the power and wisdom of God. Yet does it not follow, that the sin transmitted from the parent "must be attributed to God." (p. 137.)

"But how could he with pleasure reflect upon his formation, or praise God for it?" As I can at this day: though I know I was 'conceived in sin,' and 'shapen in iniquity.' But where sin abounds, grace does much more abound.' I lose less by Adam than I gain by Christ.

This also perfectly consists with the following verse, 'Behold thou desirest truth,' or it is thy will that we should have truth in the in

ward parts:' thou art willing to remove all that iniquity wherein I was shapen,' to give me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me And in the hidden part thou hast made me to know wisdom' thou hast shown me what was good.' So that I am every way without excuse. I knew thy will and did it not.

"But if after all you will adhere to the literal sense of this text, why do you not adhere to the literal sense of that text, this is my body,' and believe transubstantiation?" (p. 138.) For those very reasons which you suggest: 1. Because it is grossly absurd to suppose that Christ speaks of what he then held in his hands, as his real natural body. But it is no way absurd to suppose the Psalmist was conceived in sin. 2. The sense of, this is my body, may be clearly explained by other scriptures, where the like forms of speech are used. But there are no other scriptures where the like forms with this of David are used in any other sense. 3. Transubstantiation is attended with consequences hurtful to piety. But the doctrine of Original Sin, and faith grounded thereon, is the only foundation of true piety.

14. The next proof is, Job xiv. 4, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.' On this you observe, "Job is here speaking of the weakness of our nature, not with regard to sin, but to the shortness and afflictions of life." (p. 139.) Certainly, with regard both to the one and the other. For though in the first and second verses, he mentions the shortness and troubles of life, yet even these are mentioned with a manifest regard to sin. (p. 140.) This appears from the very next verse, And dost thou open thy eyes upon such a one,' to punish one already so wretched? And bringest me into judgment with thee,' by chastising me still more? It then immediately follows, Who can bring a clean thing out of an unelean? Not one:' It does therefore by no means appear that "Job is here speaking only with regard to the shortness and troubles of life."

Part of the following verses run thus: (ver. 16, 17.) Now thou numberest my steps; dost thou not watch over my sin? My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sowest up mine iniquity." Let any one judge then, whether Job in this chapter does not speak of the sinfulness as well as the mortality of human nature."

Not that he urges his natural pravity as a reason why he should not be brought into judgment." (p. 141.) No more than David urges his being shapen in wickedness,' as an excuse for that wickedness. Rather Job (as well as David) humbly acknowledges his total sinfulness: confessing, that he deserved the judgment, which yet he prays God not to inflict.

15. Another proof is, Job xv. 14. What is man that he should be clean, and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous?" On this you observe, "Born of a woman signifies no more than a man." Often it does not; but here it is emphatical. "The phrase indeed includes frailty and imperfection." (p. 142.) How can that be? Was Adamn made frail and imperfect? And have you forgot that

every man is now born in as good a state as Adam was made at first? "But it is not to be understood as the reason, why man is unclean and unrighteous." From the placing of the words one would really judge it was and how do you prove it is not? Why, "Job and his friends use this manner of speech, in other places of this book. 'Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?" (Job iv. 17.) Nay, this is not the manner of speech which is in question; so you are here quite wide of the mark. "However that is,How can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?" (Job xxv. 4.)

And does not this point at original sin? You say, No. For "if Job and his friends had known, that the reason of our uncleanness and imperfection was our receiving a corrupted nature from Adam, they ought to have given this reason of it." And do they not, in the very words before us? You say, "No: they turn our thoughts to a quite different reason, namely, the uncleanness of the best of creatures in his sight." This is not a different reason, but falls in with the other: and the natural meaning of these texts is, 'How can he be clean that is born of a woman,' (Job xxv. 4,) and so conceived and born in sin? Behold, even to the moon, and it shineth not,' compared with God: yea, the stars are not pure in his sight!' How 'much less man that is a worm? In how much higher and stricter a sense is man impure, that carries about with him his mortality, the testimony of that unclean nature which he brought with him into the world?

6

'Shall mortal man be more just than God! Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?' (Job iv. 17.) Shall man dare to arraign the justice of God? To say, God punishes him more than he deserves? Behold he puts no trust in his servants, and his angels he charged with folly.' (Job iv. 18, &c.) Many of these left their first estates; even their wisdom was not to be depended on. • How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay:' whose bodies, liable to pain, sickness, death, are standing monuments of the folly and wickedness which are deep rooted in their souls?

What is man, that he should be clean, and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold he putteth no trust in his holy ones; yea, the heavens, are not pure in his sight.' His holy angels have fallen, and the highest creatures are not pure in comparison of him. How much more abominable and filthy,' in the strictest sense, is man, every man born into the world? Who drinketh iniquity like water,' (Job xv. 15, 16,) iniquity of every kind, so readily, so naturally, as being so thoroughly agreeable to the desires of his flesh, and of his mind?'

You conclude the head thus, "Man in his present weak and fleshly state cannot be clean before God." Certainly, as clean as the moon and stars at least; if he be as he was first created. He was made but a little lower than the angels.' Consequently he was then far higher and more pure, than these, or the sun itself, or any other part of the material creation. You go on, "Why cannot