is, that Adam should be exposed to death for one transgression,
must die": not signifying the hour, day, or month, in which he must be executed, but only the connection between his crime and death.
2. Another thing which seems to be signified by such an expression is, that Adam should be exposed to death for one transgression, without waiting on him to try him the second time. If he eat of that tree, he should immediately fall under condemnation, though afterwards he might abstain ever so strictly. In this respect, the words are much of the same force with those words of Solomon to Shimei (1 Kgs. 2:37), "For it shall be that on the day that thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain, that thou shalt surely die." Not meaning, that he should certainly be executed on that day, but that he should be assuredly liable to death for the first offense, and that he should not have another trial, to see whether he would go over the brook Kidron a second time.
And then besides,
II. If the words had implied, that Adam should die that very day, within 24 or 12 hours, or that moment that he transgressed, yet it will by no means follow, that God obliged himself to execute the punishment in its utmost extent on that day. The sentence was in great part executed immediately; he then died spiritually; he lost his innocence and original righteousness, and the favor of God; a dismal alteration was made in his soul, by the loss of that holy divine principle, which was in the highest sense the life of the soul. In this he was truly ruined and undone that very day; becoming corrupt, miserable and helpless. And I think it has been shewn, that such a spiritual death was one great thing implied in the threatening. And the alteration then made in his body and external state, was the beginning of temporal death. Grievous external calamity is called by the name of "death" in Scripture. (Ex. 10:17), "Intreat the Lord that
he may take away this death." Not only was Adam's soul ruined that day, but his body was ruined; it lost its beauty and vigor, and became a poor dull, decaying, dying thing. And besides all this, Adam was that day undone in a more dreadful sense: he immediately fell under the curse of the law, and condemnation to eternal perdition. In the language of Scripture, he is dead, that is in a state of condemnation to death; even as our author often explains this language in his exposition upon Romans. In Scripture language, he that believes in Christ, immediately receives life. He passes at that time from death to life, and thenceforward (to use the apostle John's phrase) "has eternal life abiding in him." But yet he don't then receive eternal life in its highest completion; he has but the beginnings of it; and receives it in a vastly greater degree at death: but the proper time for the complete fullness is not till the day of judgment. When the angels sinned, their punishment was immediately executed in a degree: but their full punishment is not till the end of the world. And there is nothing in God's threatening to Adam, that bound him to execute his full punishment at once; nor anything which determines, that he should have no posterity. The law or constitution which God established and declared, determined, that if he sinned, and had posterity, he and they should die: but there was no constitution determining concerning the actual being of his posterity in this case; what posterity he should have, how many, or whether any at all. All these things God had reserved in his own power: the law and its sanction intermeddled not with the matter.
It may be proper in this place also to take some notice of that objection of Dr. Taylor's against Adam's being supposed to be a federal head for his posterity, that it gives him greater honor than Christ, as it supposes that all his posterity would have had eternal life by his obedience, if he had stood; and so a greater number would have had the benefit of his obedience, than are saved by Christ. I
think, a very little consideration is sufficient to shew, that there is no weight in this objection. For the benefit of Christ's merits may nevertheless be vastly beyond that which would have been by the obedience of Adam. For those that are saved by Christ are not merely advanced to happiness by his merits, but are saved from the infinitely dreadful effects of Adam's sin, and many from immense guilt, pollution and misery by personal sins; also brought to a holy and happy state, as it were through infinite obstacles; and are exalted to a far greater degree of dignity, felicity and glory, than would have been due for Adam's obedience; for aught I know, many thousand times so great. And there is enough in the gospel dispensation, clearly to manifest the sufficiency of Christ's merits for such effects in all mankind. And how great the number will be, that shall actually be the subjects of them, or how great a proportion of the whole race, considering the vast success of the gospel, that shall be in that future extraordinary, exempt, and glorious season, often spoken of, none can tell. And the honor of these two federal heads arises not so much from what was proposed to each for his trial, as from their success, and the good actually obtained; and also the manner of obtaining: Christ obtains the benefits men have through him by proper merit of condignity, and a true purchase by an equivalent: which would not have been the case with Adam, if he had obeyed.
I have now particularly considered the account which Moses gives us in the beginning of the Bible, of our first parents, and God's dealings with them, the constitution he established with them, their transgression, and what followed. And on the whole, if we consider the manner in which God apparently speaks to Adam, from time to time; and particularly, if we consider how plainly and undeniably his posterity are included in the sentence of death pronounced on Adam after his fall, founded on the foregoing threatening; and consider the curse denounced on the ground for his sake, and for his and his
posterity's sorrow: and also consider what is evidently the occasion of his giving his wife the new name of Eve, and his meaning in it, and withal consider apparent fact in constant and universal events, with relation to the state of our first parents, and their posterity from that time forward, through all ages of the world; I can't but think, it must appear to every impartial person, that Moses' account does, with sufficient evidence, lead all mankind, to whom his account is communicated, to understand that God, in his constitution with Adam, dealt with him as a public person, and as the head of the human species, and had respect to his posterity as included in him: and that this history is given by divine direction, in the beginning of the first-written revelation, to exhibit to our view the origin of the present sinful, miserable state of mankind, that we might see what that was, which first gave occasion for all those consequent wonderful dispensations of divine mercy and grace towards mankind, which are the great subject of the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament; and that these things are not obscurely and doubtfully pointed forth, but delivered in a plain account of things, which easily and naturally exhibits them to our understandings.
And by what follows in this discourse, we may have, in some measure, opportunity to see how other things in the holy Scripture agree to what has been now observed from the three first chapters of Genesis.
CHAPTER II
OBSERVATIONS ON OTHER PARTS OF
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, CHIEFLY IN
THE OLD TESTAMENT, THAT PROVE
THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN
ORIGINAL depravity may well be argued from wickedness being often spoken of in Scripture as a thing belonging to the race of mankind, and as if it were a property of the species. So in Ps. 14:2, 3, "The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside; they are altogether become filthy: there is none that doth good; no, not one." The like we have again (Ps. 53:2, 3). Dr. Taylor says, "The Holy Spirit don't mean this of every individual; because in the very same Psalm, he speaks of some that were righteous. (V. 5), 'God is in the generation of the righteous.' " But how little is this observation to the purpose? For who ever supposed, that no unrighteous men were ever changed by divine grace, and afterwards made righteous? The Psalmist is speaking of what men are as they are the children of men, born of the corrupt human race; and not as born of God, whereby they come to be the children of God, and of the generation of the righteous. The apostle Paul cites this place in Rom. 3:10, 11, 12, to prove the universal corruption of mankind; but yet in the same chapter he supposes, these same persons here spoken of as wicked, may become righteous, through the righteousness and grace of God.
So wickedness is spoken of in other places in the book of Psalms, as a thing that belongs to men, as of the human race, as sons of men. Thus, in Ps. 4:2, "O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? How long will ye love vanity? etc." (Ps. 57:4), "I lie among them that are set on fire, even the sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword." (Ps. 58:1, 2), "Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? Do ye judge
uprightly, O ye sons of men? Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh out the violence of your hands in the earth." Our author mentioning these places, says, "There was a strong party in Israel disaffected to David's person and government, and sometimes he chooseth to denote them by the sons or children of men" (p. 105n). But it would have been worth his while to have inquired, why the Psalmist should choose to denote the wickedest and worst men in Israel by this name? Why he should choose thus to disgrace the human race, as if the compellation of sons of men most properly belonged to such as were of the vilest character, and as if all the sons of men, even every one of them, were of such a character, and none of them did good; no, not one? Is it not strange, that the righteous should not be thought worthy to be called sons of men, and ranked with that noble race of beings, who are born into the world wholly right and innocent! It is a good, easy and natural reason why he chooseth to call the wicked sons of men, as a proper name for 'em, that by being of the sons of men, or of the corrupt ruined race of mankind, they come by their depravity. And the Psalmist himself leads us to this very reason (Ps. 58 at the beginning). "Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men? yea, in heart ye work wickedness, ye weigh out the violence of your hands. The wicked are estranged from the womb etc." Of which I would speak more by and by.
Agreeable to these places is Prov. 21:8. "The way of man is froward and strange; but as for the pure, his work is right." He that is perverse in his walk, is here called by the name of man, as distinguished from the pure: which I think is absolutely unaccountable, if all mankind by nature are pure, and perfectly innocent, and all such as are froward and strange in their ways, therein depart from the native purity of all mankind. The words naturally lead us to suppose the contrary; that depravity and perverseness properly belong to mankind as they are naturally, and
that a being made pure, is by an afterwork, by which some are delivered from native pollution, and distinguished from mankind in general: which is perfectly agreeable to the representation in Rev. 14:4, where we have an account of a number that were not defiled, but were pure, and following the Lamb; of whom it is said, "These were redeemed from among men."
To these things agree, Jer. 17:5, 9. In the 5[th] v. it is said, "Cursed is he that trusteth in man." And in the 9th v. this reason is given, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" What heart is this, so wicked and deceitful? Why, evidently the heart of him who, it was said before, we must not trust; and that is man. It alters not the case as to the present argument, whether the deceitfulness of the heart here spoken of, be its deceitfulness to the man himself, or to others. So that fore-mentioned Eccles. 9:3, "Madness is in the heart of the sons of men, while they live." And those words of Christ to Peter, (Matt. 16:23), "Get thee behind me, Satan—for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men." Signifying plainly, that to be carnal and vain, and opposite to what is spiritual and divine, is what properly belongs to men in their present state. The same thing is supposed in that of the Apostle (1 Cor. 3:3), "For ye are yet carnal. For whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" And that in Hos. 6:7, "But they like men, have transgressed the Covenant." To these places may be added (Matt. 7:11), "If ye being evil, know how to give good gifts," (Jas. 4:5), "Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain, 'The spirit that dwelleth in us, lusteth to envy'?" (1 Pet. 4:2), "That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the lusts of men, but to the will of God." Yet above all, that in Job 15:16, "How much more abominable and filthy is man, who drinketh iniquity like water?" Of which more presently.
Now what account can be given of these things, on Dr. Taylor's scheme? How strange is it, that we should have such descriptions, all over the Bible, of man, and the sons of men! Why should man be so continually spoken of as evil, carnal, perverse, deceitful, and desperately wicked, if all men are by nature as perfectly innocent, and free from any propensity to evil, as Adam was the first moment of his creation, all made right, as our author would have us understand (Eccles. 7:29)? Why, on the contrary, is it not said, at least as often, and with equal reason; that the heart of man is right and pure; that the way of man is innocent and holy; and that he who savors true virtue and wisdom, savors the things that be of men? Yea, and why might it not as well have been said, the Lord looked down from heaven on the sons of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and did seek after God, and they were all right, altogether pure, there was none inclined to do wickedness, no not one!
Of the like import with the texts mentioned, are those which represent wickedness as what properly belongs to the world; and that they who are otherwise, are saved from the world, and called out of it. As (John 7:7), "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth; because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." (ch. 8:23), "Ye are of this world: I am not of this world." (ch. 14:17), "The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive; because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him." (ch. 15:18, 19), "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (Rev. 14:3, 4), "These are they which were redeemed from the earth, redeemed from among men." (John 17:9), "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me." (v. 14), "I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because
they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." (1 John 3:13), "Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." (ch. 4:5), "They are of the world, therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them." (ch. 5:19), "We are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." 'Tis evident, that in these places, by "the world" is meant the world of mankind; not the habitation, but the inhabitants. For, 'tis the world spoken of as loving, hating, doing evil works, speaking, hearing, etc.
It shews the same thing, that wickedness is often spoken of as being man's own, in contradistinction from virtue and holiness. So men's lusts are often called their own heart's lusts, and their practising wickedness is called walking in their own ways, walking in their own counsels, in the imagination of their own heart, and in the sight of their own eyes, according to their own devices etc. These things denote wickedness to be a quality belonging properly to the character and nature of mankind, in their present state: as, when Christ would represent that lying is remarkably the character and the very nature of the devil in his present state, he expresses it thus (John 8:44): "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it."
And that wickedness belongs to the nature of mankind in their present state, may be argued from those places which speak of mankind as being wicked in their childhood, or from their childhood. So, that in Prov. 22:15, "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." Nothing is more manifest, than that the wise man in this book continually uses the word "folly," or "foolishness," for "wickedness": and that this is what he means in this place, the words themselves do shew: for the rod of correction is proper to drive away no other foolishness, but that which is a moral nature. The word rendered "bound" signifies, as is
observed in Poole's Synopsis, a close and firm union. The same word is used in ch. 6:21, "Bind them continually upon thine heart." And ch. 7:3, "Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart." To the like purpose is ch. 3:3 and Deut. 11:18, where this word is used. The same verb is used (1 Sam. 18:1), "The soul of Jonathan was knit (or bound) to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." But how comes wickedness to be so firmly bound, and strongly fixed, in the hearts of children, if it be not there naturally? They having had no time firmly to fix habits of sin, by long custom in actual wickedness, as those that have lived many years in the world.
The same thing is signified in that noted place (Gen. 8:21), "For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." It alters not the case, whether it be translated "for" or "though" the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, as Dr. Taylor would have it; still the words suppose it to be so as is said. The word translated "youth," signifies the whole of the former part of the age of man, which commences from the beginning of life. The word in its derivation, has reference to the birth, or beginning of existence. It comes from "nagnar," which signifies to shake off, as a tree shakes off its ripe fruit, or a plant its seed; the birth of children being commonly represented by a tree's yielding fruit, or a plant's yielding seed. So that the word here translated "youth," comprehends not only what we in English most commonly call the time of youth, but also childhood and infancy, and is very often used to signify these latter. A word of the same root is used to signify a young child, or a little child, in the following places: 1 Sam. 1:24, 25, 27; 1 Kgs. 3:7 and 11:17; 2 Kgs. 2:23; Job 33:25; Prov. 22:6 and 23:13 and 29:21; Is. 10:19 and 11:6 and 65:25; Jer. 10:6; Hos. 11:1. The same word is used to signify an infant, in Ex. 2:6 and 10:9; Judg. 13:5, 7, 8 and 13:24; 1 Sam. 1:22 and 4:21; 2 Kgs. 5:14; Is. 7:16 and 8:4.
Dr. Taylor says (p. 124) that he "conceives, from the youth, is a phrase signifying the greatness, or long duration of a thing." But if by "long duration" he means anything else than what is literally expressed, viz. from the beginning of life, he has no reason to conceive so; neither has what he offers, so much as the shadow of a reason for his conception. There is no appearance in the words of the two or three texts he mentions, of their meaning anything else than what is most literally signified. And 'tis certain, that what he suggests, is not the ordinary import of such a phrase among the Hebrews: but thereby is meant, from the beginning, or early time of life, or existence; as may be seen in the places following, where the same word in the Hebrew is used, as in this place in the eighth of Genesis. (1 Sam. 12:2), "I am old, and gray-headed … and I have walked before you from my childhood, unto this day": where the original word is the same. (Ps. 71:5, 6), "Thou art my trust from my youth: by thee have I been holden up from the womb. Thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels." (vv. 17, 18), "O God, thou hast taught me from my youth; and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works: now also, when I am old and gray-headed, forsake me not." (Ps. 129:1, 2), "Many a time have they afflicted me from my youth, may Israel now say: many a time have they afflicted me from my youth; yet have they not prevailed against me." (Is. 47:12), "Stand now with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth." (So 5:15 and 2 Sam. 19:7), "That will be worse unto thee, than all the evil that befell thee from thy youth, until now." (Jer. 3:24, 25), "Shame hath devoured the labor of our fathers, from our youth. We have sinned against the Lord our God, from our youth, even to this day." (So Jer. 32:30 and 48:11; Job 31:18; Gen. 46:34; Ezek. 4:14; Zech. 13:5).
And it is to be observed, that according to the manner of the Hebrew language, when it is said, such a thing has been from youth, or the
first part of existence, the phrase is to be understood as including that first time of existence. (So, Josh. 6:21), "They utterly destroyed all, from the young to the old." So it is in the Hebrew, i.e. including both. So Esther 3:13 and Gen. 19:4.
And as mankind are represented in Scripture, as being of a wicked heart from their youth, so in other places they are spoken of as being thus from the womb. (Ps. 58:3), "The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." 'Tis observable, that the Psalmist mentions this as what belongs to the wicked, as the sons of men: for, these are the preceding words: "Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men? Yea, in heart ye work wickedness." A phrase of the like import with that in Gen. 8:21. "The imagination," or "operation," as it might have been rendered, "of his heart is evil." Then it follows, "the wicked are estranged from the womb, etc." The next verse is, "Their poison is like the poison of a serpent." 'Tis so remarkably, as the very nature of a serpent is poison: serpents are poisonous as soon as they come into the world: they derive a poisonous nature by their generation. Dr. Taylor (pp. 134, 135) says, " 'Tis evident that this is a scriptural figurative way of aggravating wickedness, on the one hand, and virtue on the other, to speak of it as being from the womb." And as an instance of the latter, he cites that in Is. 49:1: "The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother, he made mention of my name." But I apprehend, that in order to seeing this to be evident, which he asserts, a man must have eyes peculiarly affected. I humbly conceive, that such phrases as that in the 49th of Isaiah, of God's calling the prophet from the womb, are evidently, not of the import which he supposes, but mean truly from the beginning of existence, and are manifestly of like signification with that which is said of the prophet Jeremiah. (Jer. 1:5), "Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee: before thou camest out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and ordained
thee a prophet of the nations." Which surely means something else besides a high degree of virtue: it plainly signifies that he was, from his first existence, set apart by God for a prophet. And it would be as unreasonable to understand it otherwise, as to suppose, the angel meant any other than that Samson was set apart to be a Nazarite from the beginning of his life, when he says to his mother (Judg. 13:3–4), "Behold, thou shalt conceive and bear a son: and now drink no wine, nor strong drink etc. For the child shall be a Nazarite to God, from the womb, to the day of his death." By these instances it is plain, that the phrase, "from the womb," as the other, "from the youth," as used in Scripture, properly signifies from the beginning of life.
Very remarkable is that place (Job 15:14, 15, 16), "What is man, that he should be clean? And he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight: How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?" And no less remarkable is our author's method of managing of it. The 16th v. expresses an exceeding degree of wickedness, in as plain and emphatical terms, almost, as can be invented; every word representing this in the strongest manner: "how much more abominable and filthy is man, that drinketh iniquity like water?" I can't now recollect, where we have a sentence equal to it, in the whole Bible, for an emphatical, lively and strong representation of great wickedness of heart. Any one of the words, as such words are used in Scripture, would represent great wickedness: if it had been only said, "How much more abominable is man?" Or, "How much more filthy is man?" Or, "Man drinketh iniquity." But all these are accumulated, with the addition of "like water," the further to represent the boldness or greediness of men, in wickedness: though iniquity be the most deadly poison, yet men drink it as boldly as they
drink water, are as familiar with it as with their common drink, and drink it with like greediness, as he that is thirsty drinks water. That boldness and eagerness in persecuting the saints, by which the great degree of the depravity of man's heart often appears, is represented thus (Ps. 14:4), "Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up my people, as they eat bread?" And the greatest eagerness of thirst is represented by thirsting as an animal thirsts after water. (Ps. 42:1).
Now let us see the soft, easy, light manner in which Dr. Taylor treats this place (p. 143). " 'How much more abominable and filthy is man,' in comparison of the divine purity, 'who drinketh iniquity like water?' Who is attended with so many sensual appetites, and so apt to indulge them. You see the argument; man in his present weak, and fleshly state, cannot be clean before God. Why so? Because he is conceived and born in sin, by reason of Adam's sin? No such thing. But because the purest creatures are not pure in comparison of God. Much less a being subject to so many infirmities, as a mortal man. Which is a demonstration to me, not only, that Job and his friends did not intend to establish the doctrine we are now examining, but that they were wholly strangers to it." Thus this author endeavors to reconcile this text with his doctrine of the perfect native innocence of mankind: in which we have a notable specimen of his demonstrations, as well as of that great impartiality and fairness in examining and expounding the Scripture, which he makes so often a profession of.
In this place we are not only told, how wicked man's heart is, but also how men come by such wickedness; even by being of the race of mankind, by ordinary generation: "What is man, that he should be clean? and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?" Our author (pp. 141, 142), represents man's being born of a woman,
as a periphrasis, to signify man; and that there is no design in the words to give a reason, why man is not clean and righteous. But the case is most evidently otherwise, if we may interpret the book of Job by itself: 'Tis most plain, that man's being born of a woman is given as a reason of his not being clean (ch. 14:4); "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" Job is speaking there expressly of man's being born of a woman, as appears in v. 1. And here how plain is it, that this is given as a reason of man's not being clean? Concerning this Dr. Taylor says, "That this has no respect to any moral uncleanness, but only common frailty etc." But how evidently is this also otherwise, when that uncleanness which a man has by being born of a woman, is expressly explained of unrighteousness, in the next chapter at the 14th v.? "What is man, that he should be clean? and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?" and also in ch. 25:4, "How then can man be justified with God? And how can he be clean, that is born of a woman?" 'Tis a moral cleanness Bildad is speaking of, which a man needs in order to being justified— his design is, to convince Job of his moral impurity, and from thence of God's righteousness in his severe judgments upon him; and not of his natural frailty.
And without doubt, David has respect to this same way of derivation of wickedness of heart, when he says (Ps. 51:5), "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." It alters not the case as to the argument we are upon, whether the word translated "conceive," signify conceive or nurse; which latter, our author takes so much pains to prove: for when he has done all, he speaks of it as a just translation of the words to render 'em thus, "I was born in iniquity, and in sin did my mother nurse me" (p. 135). If it is owned that man is born in sin, 'tis not worth the while to dispute, whether 'tis expressly asserted, that he is conceived in sin. But Dr. Taylor after his manner insists, that such expressions, as
being "born in sin," "being transgressors from the womb," and the like, are only phrases figuratively to denote aggravation, and high degree of wickedness. But the contrary has been already demonstrated, from many plain Scripture-instances. Nor is one instance produced, in which there is any evidence that such a phrase is used in such a manner. A poetical sentence out of Virgil's Aeneids, has here been produced, and made much of by some, as parallel with this, in what Dido says to Aeneas, in these lines:
"Nec tibi diva parens generis, nec Dardanus auctor,
Perfide: sed duris genuit te cautibus horrens
Caucasus, Hyrcanaeque admorunt ubera tigres."
In which she tells Aeneas, that not a goddess was his mother, nor Anchises his father; but that he had been brought forth by a horrid rocky mountain, and nursed at the dugs of tigers, to represent the greatness of his cruelty to her. But how unlike and unparallel is this? Nothing could be more natural, than for a woman overpowered with the passion of love, and distracted with raging jealousy and disappointment, thinking herself treated with brutish perfidy and cruelty, by a lover whose highest fame had been his being the son of a goddess, to aggravate his inhumanity and hard-heartedness with this, that his behavior was not worthy the son of a goddess, nor becoming one whose father was an illustrious prince; and that he acted more as if he had been brought forth by hard unrelenting rocks, and had sucked the dugs of tigers. But what is there in the case of David, parallel, or at all in like manner leading him to speak of himself as born in sin, in any such sense? He is not speaking himself, nor anyone else speaking to him, of any excellent and divine father and mother, that he was born of: nor is there any appearance of his aggravating his sin, by its being unworthy of his high birth. There is
nothing else visible in David's case, to lead him to take notice of his being born in sin, but only his having such experience of the continuance and power of indwelling sin, after so long a time, and so many and great means to engage him to holiness; which shewed, that sin was inbred, and in his very nature.
Dr. Taylor very often objects to these and other texts, brought by divines to prove original sin, that there is no mention made in them of Adam, nor of his sin. He cries out, "Here is not the least mention, or intimation of Adam, or any ill effects of his sin upon us.… Here's not one word, nor the least hint of Adam, or any consequences of his sin" etc. etc. He says,6 "If Job and his friends had known and believed the doctrine of a corrupt nature, derived from Adam's sin only, they ought in reason and truth to have given this as the true and only reason of the human imperfection and uncleanness they mention." But these objections and exclamations are made no less impertinently, than they are frequently. 'Tis no more a proof, that corruption of nature did not come by Adam's sin, because many times when it is mentioned, Adam's sin is not expressly mentioned as the cause of it, than that death did not come by Adam's sin (as Dr. Taylor says it did), because though death as incident to mankind, is mentioned so often in the Old Testament, and by our Savior in his discourses, yet Adam's sin is not once expressly mentioned, after the three first chapters of Genesis, anywhere in all the Old Testament, or the four Evangelists, as the occasion of it.
What Christian has there ever been, that believed the moral corruption of the nature of mankind, who ever doubted that it came that way, which the Apostle speaks of, when he says, "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin"? Nor indeed have they any more reason to doubt of it, than to doubt of the whole history of our first parents, because Adam's name is so rarely mentioned, on any
occasion in Scripture, after that first account of him, and Eve's never at all; and because we have no more any express mention of the particular manner, in which mankind were first brought into being, either with respect to the creation of Adam, or Eve. 'Tis sufficient, that the abiding, most visible effects of these things remain, in the view of mankind in all ages, and are often spoken of in Scripture; and the particular manner of their being introduced, is once plainly set forth in the beginning of the Bible, in that history which gives us an account of the origin of all things. And doubtless it was expected, by the great Author of the Bible, that the account in the three first chapters of Genesis should be taken as a plain account of the introduction of both natural and moral evil, into the world; as it has been shewn to be so indeed. The history of Adam's sin, with its circumstances, God's threatening, and the sentence pronounced upon him after his transgression, and the immediate consequences, consisting in so vast an alteration in his state, and the state of the world, which abides still, with respect to all his posterity, do most directly and sufficiently lead to an understanding of the rise of calamity, sin and death, in this sinful miserable world.
'Tis fit, we all should know, that it don't become us to tell the Most High, how often he shall particularly explain and give the reason of any doctrine which he teaches, in order to our believing what he says. If he has at all given us evidence that it is a doctrine agreeable to his mind, it becomes us to receive it with full credit and submission; and not sullenly to reject it, because our notions and humors are not suited in the manner, and number of times, of his particularly explaining it to us. How often is pardon of sins promised in the Old Testament to repenting and returning sinners? How many hundred times is God's special favor there promised to the sincerely righteous, without any express mention of these benefits being through Christ? Would it therefore be becoming us to say, that inasmuch as our
dependence on Christ for these benefits, is a doctrine, which, if true, is of such importance, that God ought expressly to have mentioned Christ's merits as the reason and ground of the benefits, if he knew they were the ground of 'em, and should have plainly declared it sooner, and more frequently, if ever he expected we should believe him, when he did tell us of it? How often is vengeance and misery threatened in the Old Testament to the wicked, without any clear and express signification of any such thing intended, as that everlasting fire, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, in another world, which Christ so often speaks of as the punishment appointed for all the wicked? Would it now become a Christian, to object and say, that if God really meant any such thing, he ought in reason and truth to have declared it plainly and fully; and not to have been so silent about a matter of such vast importance to all mankind, for four thousand years together?
CHAPTER III
OBSERVATIONS ON VARIOUS OTHER PLACES OF SCRIPTURE, PRINCIPALLY
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, PROVING
THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN
SECTION 1. OBSERVATIONS ON JOHN 3:6 IN CONNECTION WITH SOME OTHER PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
THOSE words of Christ, giving a reason to Nicodemus, why we must be born again (John 3:6), "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit"; have not without good reason been produced by divines, as a proof of the doctrine of original sin: supposing, that by "flesh" here is meant the human nature in a debased and corrupt state. Yet Dr. Taylor (p. 144) thus explains these words, " 'That which is born of the flesh, is flesh'; That which is born by natural descent and propagation, is a man consisting of body and soul, or the mere constitution and powers of a man, in their natural state." But the constant use of these terms, "flesh" and "spirit" in other parts of the New Testament, when thus set in opposition one to another, and the latter said to be produced by the spirit of God, as here; and when speaking of the same thing, which Christ is here speaking of to Nicodemus, viz. the requisite qualifications to salvation, this will fully vindicate the sense of our divines. Thus in the 7th and 8th chapters of Romans, where these terms "flesh" and "spirit" (σὰρξ and πνεῦμα) are abundantly repeated, and set in opposition, as here. (So ch. 7:14), The law is spiritual (πνευματικός) but I am carnal (σαρκικός) sold under sin.
He can't only mean, "I am a man, consisting of body and soul, and having the powers of a man" (v. 18), "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." He don't mean to condemn his frame as consisting of body and soul; and to assert, that in his human constitution, with the powers of a man, dwells no good thing. And when he says in the last verse of the chapter, "With the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin"; he can't mean, "I myself serve the law of God; but with my innocent human constitution, as having the powers of a man, I serve the law of sin." And when he says in the next words, in the beginning of the 8th chapter, "There is no condemnation to them … that walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit"; and v. 4, "The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh"; he can't mean, "There is no condemnation to them that walk not according to the powers of a man" etc. And when he says (vv. 5 and 6), "They that are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh"; and "to be carnally minded is death"; he don't intend, "They that are according to the human constitution and the powers of a man, do mind the things of the human constitution and powers; and to mind these, is death." And when he says (vv. 7 and 8), "The carnal (or fleshly) mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be; so that they that are in the flesh, cannot please God"; he can't mean, that to mind the things which are agreeable to the powers and constitution of a man (who, as our author says, is constituted or made right) is enmity against God; and that a mind which is agreeable to this right human constitution, as God hath made it, is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be; and that they who are according to such a constitution, cannot please God. And when it is said (v. 9), "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit," the Apostle can't mean, "Ye are not in the human nature, as constituted of body and soul, and with the powers of a man." 'Tis most manifest, that by the flesh here the Apostle means some nature that is corrupt, and of
an evil tendency, and directly opposite to the law, and holy nature of God; so that to be and walk according to it, and to have a mind conformed to it, is to be an utter enemy to God and his law, in a perfect inconsistence with being subject to God, and pleasing God; and in a sure and infallible tendency to death, and utter destruction. And it is plain, that here by "being" and "walking after," or "according to the flesh," is meant the same thing as being and walking according to a corrupt and sinful nature; and to be and walk according to the spirit, is to be and walk according to a holy and divine nature, or principle: and to be carnally minded, is the same as being viciously and corruptly minded; to be spiritually minded, is to be of a virtuous and holy disposition.
When Christ says (John 3:6), "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh," he represents the flesh not merely as a quality; for it would be incongruous, to speak of a quality as a thing born: 'tis a person, or man, that is born. Therefore man, as in his whole nature corrupt, is called flesh: which is agreeable to other Scripture-representations, where the corrupt nature is called the "old man," the "body of sin," and the "body of death." Agreeable to this are those representations in the 7th and 8th chapters of Romans: there flesh is figuratively represented as a person, according to the Apostle's manner, observed by Mr. Locke, and after him by Dr. Taylor; who takes notice, that the Apostle, in the 6th and 7th of Romans represents sin as a person; and that he figuratively distinguishes in himself two persons, speaking of flesh as his person. "For I know that in me" (that is, in my flesh), "dwelleth no good thing." And it may be observed, that in the 8th chapter, he still continues this representation, speaking of the flesh as a person; and accordingly in the 6th and 7th verses, speaks of the mind of the flesh (φρόνημα [τῆς] σαρκὸς) and of the mind of the spirit (φρόνημα [τοῦ] πνεύματος) as if the flesh and spirit were two opposite persons, each having a mind contrary to the
mind of the other. Dr. Taylor interprets this "mind of the flesh," and "mind of the spirit," as though the flesh and the spirit were here spoken of as the different objects, about which the mind spoken of is conversant; which is plainly beside the Apostle's sense; who speaks of the flesh and spirit as the subjects and agents, in which the mind spoken of is; and not the objects, about which it acts. We have the same phrase again (v. 27), "He that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit" (φρόνημα πνεύματος); the mind of the spiritual nature in the saints being the same with the mind of the spirit of God himself, who imparts and actuates that spiritual nature. Here the spirit is the subject and agent, and not the object. The same Apostle in like manner uses the word νοὸς in Col. 2:18. "Vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind" (απο [ὑπὸ] τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ) by the mind of his flesh. And this agent so often called "flesh," represented by the Apostle, as altogether evil, without any good thing dwelling in it, or belonging to it, yea perfectly contrary to God and his law, and tending wholly to death and ruin, and directly opposite to the spirit, is what Christ speaks of to Nicodemus as born in the first birth, as giving a reason why there is a necessity of a new birth, in order to a better production.
One thing is particularly observable in that discourse of the Apostle, in the 7th and 8th of Romans, in which he so often uses the term "flesh," as opposite to "spirit," which, as well as many other things in his discourse, makes it plain, that by flesh he means something in itself corrupt and sinful; and that is, that he expressly calls it "sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3). 'Tis manifest, that by "sinful flesh" he means the same thing with that flesh spoken of in the immediately foregoing and following words, and in all the context: and that when it is said, Christ was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, the expression is equipollent with those that speak of Christ as made sin, and made a curse for us.
Flesh and spirit are opposed one to another in Gal. 5 in the same manner as in the 8th of Romans: and there, by "flesh" cannot be meant only the human nature of body and soul, or the mere constitution and powers of a man, as in its natural state, innocent and right. In the 16th verse the Apostle says, "Walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh," where the flesh is spoken of as a thing of an evil inclination, desire or lust. But this is more strongly signified in the next words, "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary one to another." What could have been said more plainly, to shew that what the Apostle means by flesh, is something very evil in its nature, and an irreconcilable enemy to all goodness? And it may be observed, that in these words, and those that follow, the Apostle still figuratively represents the flesh as a person or agent, desiring, acting, having lusts, and performing works. And by "works of the flesh," and "fruits of the spirit," which are opposed to each other, from v. 19 to the end, are plainly meant the same as "works of a sinful nature," and "fruits of a holy renewed nature." "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, etc.… But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, etc." The Apostle, by "flesh," don't mean anything that is innocent and good in itself, that only needs to be restrained, and kept in proper bounds; but something altogether evil, which is to be destroyed, and not only restrained. (1 Cor. 5:5), "To deliver such an one to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh." We must have no mercy on it; we can't be too cruel to it; it must even be crucified. (Gal. 5:24), "They that are Christ's, have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts.
The apostle John, the same apostle that writes the account of what Christ said to Nicodemus, by the spirit means the same thing as a
new, divine and holy nature, exerting itself in a principle of divine love, which is that sum of all Christian holiness. (1 John 3:23, 24), "And that we should love one another, as he gave us commandment; and he that keepeth his commandments, dwelleth in him, and he in him: and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the spirit that he hath given us." (With ch. 4:12, 13), "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us: hereby know we, that we dwell in him, because he hath given us of his spirit." The spiritual principle in us being as it were a communication of the spirit of God to us.
And as by πνεῦμα is meant a holy nature, by the epithet πνευματικὸς, spiritual, is meant the same as truly virtuous and holy. (Gal. 6:1), "Ye that are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness." The Apostle refers to what he had just said, in the end of the foregoing chapter, where he had mentioned meekness, as a fruit of the spirit. And so by carnal, or fleshly σαρκινὸς, is meant the same as sinful. (Rom. 7:14), "The law is spiritual" (i.e. holy), "but I am carnal, sold under sin."
And 'tis evident, that by "flesh," as the word is used in the New Testament, and opposed to spirit, when speaking of the qualifications for eternal salvation, is not meant only what is now vulgarly called the sins of the flesh, consisting in inordinate appetites of the body, and their indulgences; but the whole body of sin, implying those lusts that are most subtle, and furthest from any relation to the body; such as pride, malice, envy, etc. When the works of the flesh are enumerated (Gal. 5:19, 20, 21), they are vices of the latter kind chiefly, that are mentioned; idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings. So, pride of heart is the effect or operation of the flesh. (Col. 2:18), "Vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind"; in the Greek, by the mind of
the flesh. So pride, envying, strife and division, are spoken of as works of the flesh. (1 Cor. 3:3, 4), "For ye are yet carnal (σαρκικοί, fleshly). For whereas there is … envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal?" Such kind of lusts don't depend on the body, or external senses; for the devil himself has them in the highest degree, who has not, nor ever had, any body or external senses to gratify.
Here, if it should be inquired, how corruption or depravity in general, or the nature of man as corrupt and sinful, came to be called flesh; and not only that corruption which consists in inordinate bodily appetites, I think, what the Apostle says in the last cited place, "Are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" leads us to the true reason. 'Tis because a corrupt and sinful nature is what properly belongs to mankind, or the race of Adam, as they are in themselves, and as they are by nature. The word "flesh" is a word often used in both Old Testament and New to signify mankind in their present state. To enumerate all the places, would be very tedious; I shall therefore only mention a few places in the New Testament. (Matt. 24:22), "Except those days should be shortened, no flesh should be saved." (Luke 3:6), "All flesh shall see the salvation of God." (John 17:2), "Thou hast given him power over all flesh." (See also Acts 2:17; Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16.) Man's nature, being left to itself, forsaken of the spirit of God, as it was when man fell, and consequently forsaken of divine and holy principles, of itself became exceeding corrupt, utterly depraved and ruined. And so the word "flesh," which signifies man, came to be used to signify man as he is in himself, in his natural state, debased, corrupt and ruined. And on the other hand, the word "spirit" came to be used to signify a divine and holy principle, or new nature; because that is not of man, but of God, by the indwelling and vital influence of his spirit. And thus to be
corrupt, and to be carnal, or fleshly, and to walk as men, are the same thing with the Apostle. And so in other parts of the Scripture, to savor things that be of man, and to savor things which are corrupt, are the same; and the sons of men, and wicked men, also are the same, as was observed before. And on the other hand, to savor the things that be of God, and to receive the things of the spirit of God, are phrases that signify as much as relishing and embracing true holiness or divine virtue.
All these things confirm what we have supposed to be Christ's meaning, in saying (John 3:6), "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit." His speech implies, that what is born in the first birth of man, is nothing but man as he is of himself, without anything divine in him; depraved, debased, sinful, ruined man, utterly unfit to enter into the kingdom of God, and incapable of the spiritual divine happiness of that kingdom: but that which is born in the new birth, of the spirit of God, is a spiritual principle, and holy and divine nature, meet for the divine and heavenly kingdom. 'Tis a confirmation that this is the true meaning, that it is not only evidently agreeable to the constant language of the spirit of Christ in the New Testament; but the words understood in this sense, contain the proper and true reason, why a man must be born again, in order to enter into the kingdom of God; the reason that is given everywhere in other parts of the Scripture for the necessity of a renovation, a change of mind, a new heart, etc. in order to salvation: to give a reason of which to Nicodemus, is plainly Christ's design in the words which have been insisted on.
Before I proceed, I would observe one thing as a corollary from what has been said.
Corollary. If by "flesh" and "spirit" when spoken of in the New Testament, and opposed to each other, in discourses on the necessary qualifications for salvation, we are to understand what has been now supposed, it will not only follow, that men by nature are corrupt, but wholly corrupt, without any good thing. If by "flesh" is meant man's nature, as he receives it in his first birth, then "therein dwelleth no good thing"; as appears by Rom. 7:18. 'Tis wholly opposite to God, and to subjection to his law, as appears by Rom. 8:7, 8. 'Tis directly contrary to true holiness, and wholly opposes it, and holiness is opposite to that; as appears by Gal. 5:17. So long as men are in their natural state, they not only have no good thing, but it is impossible they should have, or do any good thing; as appears by Rom. 8:8. There is nothing in their nature, as they have it by the first birth, whence should arise any true subjection to God; as appears by Rom. 8:7. If there were anything truly good in the flesh, or in man's nature, or natural disposition, under a moral view, then it should only be amended; but the Scripture represents as though we were to be enemies to it, and were to seek nothing short of its entire destruction, as has been observed. And elsewhere the Apostle directs not to the amending of the old man, but putting it off, and putting on the new man; and seeks not to have the body of death made better, but to be delivered from it; and says (2 Cor. 5:17), that "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" (which doubtless means the same as a man new-born) "old things are (not amended) but passed away, and all things are become new."
But this will be further evident, if we particularly consider the Apostle's discourse in the latter part of the second chapter of 1 Cor. and the beginning of the third. There the Apostle speaks of the "natural man," and the "spiritual man": where natural and spiritual are opposed just in the same manner, as I have observed carnal and spiritual often are. In ch. 2:14, 15, he says, "The natural man
receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual, judgeth all things." And not only does the Apostle here oppose natural and spiritual, just as he elsewhere does carnal and spiritual, but his following discourse evidently shows, that he means the very same distinction, the same two distinct and opposite things. For immediately on his thus speaking of the difference between the natural and spiritual man, he turns to the Corinthians, in the first words of the next chapter, connected with this, and says, "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal." Referring manifestly to what he had been saying, in the immediately preceding discourse, about spiritual and natural men, and evidently using the word "carnal" as synonymous with "natural." By which it is put out of all reasonable dispute, that the Apostle by "natural men" means the same as men in that carnal, sinful state, that they are in by their first birth; notwithstanding all the glosses and criticisms, by which modern writers have endeavored to palm upon us another sense of this phrase, and so to deprive us of the clear instruction the Apostle gives in that 14th verse concerning the sinful miserable state of man by nature. Dr. Taylor says, by ψυχικὸς, is meant the animal man, the man who maketh sense and appetite the law of his action. If he aims to limit the meaning of the word to external sense, and bodily appetite, his meaning is certainly not the Apostle's. For the Apostle in his sense includes the more spiritual vices of envy, strife, etc. as appears by the four first verses of the next chapter; where, as I have observed, he substitutes the word "carnal" in the place of ψυχικὸς. So the apostle Jude uses the word in like manner, opposing it to "spiritual," or "having the spirit." (v. 19), "These are they that separate themselves, sensual" (ψυχικοί) "not having the spirit." The vices he had been just speaking of, were chiefly of the more spiritual kind. (v. 16), "These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their
own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage." The vices mentioned are much of the same kind with those of the Corinthians, for which he calls them carnal; envying, strife, and divisions, and saying "I am of Paul," and "I am of Apollos"; and "being puffed up for one against another." We have the same word again (Jas. 3:14, 15), "If ye have bitter envying and strife, glory not, and lie not against the truth: this wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual (ψυχική) and devilish"; where also the vices the Apostle speaks of are of the more spiritual kind.
So that on the whole, there is sufficient reason to understand the Apostle, when he speaks of the natural man in that 1 Cor. 2:14 as meaning man in his native corrupt state. And his words represent him as totally corrupt, wholly a stranger and enemy to true virtue or holiness, and things appertaining to it, which it appears are commonly intended in the New Testament by things spiritual, and are doubtless here meant by things of the spirit of God. These words also represent, that it is impossible man should be otherwise, while in his natural state. The expressions are very strong: "the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God," is not susceptible of things of that kind, "neither can he know them," can have no true sense or relish of them, or notion of their real nature and true excellency; "because they are spiritually discerned"; they are not discerned by means of any principle in nature, but altogether by a principle that is divine, something introduced by the grace of God's holy spirit, which is above all that is natural. The words are in a considerable degree parallel with those of our savior. (John 14:16, 17), "He shall give you the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."
SECTION 2. OBSERVATIONS ON ROMANS 3:9–24
IF the Scriptures represent all mankind as wicked in their first state, before they are made partakers of the benefits of Christ's redemption, then they are wicked by nature: for doubtless men's first state is their native state, or the state they come into the world in. But the Scriptures do thus represent all mankind.
Before I mention particular texts to this purpose, I would observe, that it alters not the case as to the argument in hand, whether we suppose these texts speak directly of infants, or only of such as are capable of some understanding, so as to understand something of their own duty and state. For if it be so with all mankind, that as soon as ever they are capable of reflecting and knowing their own moral state, they find themselves wicked, this proves that they are wicked by nature, either born wicked, or born with an infallible disposition to be wicked as soon as possible, if there be any difference between these; and either of 'em will prove men to be born exceedingly depraved. I have before proved, that a native propensity to sin certainly follows from many things said in the Scripture, of mankind; but what I intend now, is something more direct, to prove by direct Scripture-testimony, that all mankind in their first state are really of a wicked character.
To this purpose is exceeding full, express and abundant that passage of the Apostle, in Rom. 3 beginning with the 9th verse to the end of the 24th; which I shall set down at large, distinguishing the universal terms which are here so often repeated, by a distinct character. The Apostle having in the first chapter, verses 16, 17, laid down his proposition, that none can be saved in any other way than through the righteousness of God, by faith in Jesus Christ, he proceeds to prove this point, by shewing particularly that all are in themselves
wicked, and without any righteousness of their own. First, he insists on the wickedness of the Gentiles, in the first chapter; and next, on the wickedness of the Jews, in the second chapter. And then in this place, he comes to sum up the matter, and draw the conclusion in the words following: "What then, are we better than they? No, in no wise; for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God; they are all gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know, that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ."
Here the thing which I would prove, viz. that mankind in their first state, before they are interested in the benefits of Christ's redemption, are universally wicked, is declared with the utmost possible fullness and precision. So that if here this matter ben't set forth plainly, expressly and fully, it must be because no words can do it, and it is not in the power of language or any manner of terms and