distinction, wherein particular persons, both righteous and wicked,

adherence to Christ, the great Restorer. The Judge will also make use of the good works of the righteous to shew their interest in the redemption of Christ; as thereby will be manifested the sincerity of their hearts in their acceptance of, and adherence to the Redeemer and his righteousness. And in thus proving the state of men's hearts by their actions, the circumstances of those actions must necessarily come into consideration, to manifest the true quality of their actions; as each one's talents, opportunities, advantages, light, motives, etc.

2. The other thing to be manifested, will be that secondary distinction, wherein particular persons, both righteous and wicked, differ from one another, in the degree of secondary good or evil, that is something beside what is common to all in the same general state: the degree of evil fruit, which is additional to the guilt and corruption of the whole body of apostates and enemies; and the degree of personal goodness and good fruit, which is a secondary goodness, with respect to the righteousness and merits of Christ, which belong to all by that sincere faith manifested in all. Of this also each one's works, with their circumstances, opportunities, talents, etc. will be the proper evidence.

As to the nature and aggravations of the general apostacy by Adam's sin, and also the nature and sufficiency of the redemption by Jesus Christ, the great Restorer, though both these will have vast influence on the eternal state, which men shall be adjudged to, yet neither of them will properly belong to the trial men will be the subjects of at that day, in order to the manifestation of their state, wherein they are distinguished one from another. They will belong to the business of that day no otherwise, than the manifestation of the great truths of religion in general; as the nature and perfections of God, the dependence of mankind on God, as their Creator and Preserver, etc. Such truths as these will also have great influence on the eternal

state, which men will then be adjudged to, as they aggravate the guilt of man's wickedness, and must be considered in order to a due estimate of Christ's righteousness, and men's personal virtue; yet being of general and equal concernment, will not properly belong to the trial of particular persons.

Another thing urged by our author particularly against the imputation of Adam's sin, is this: "Though, in Scripture, action is frequently said to be imputed, reckoned, accounted to a person, it is no other than his own act and deed." In the same place he cites a number of places of Scripture, where these words are used, which he says are all that he can find in the Bible.1

But we are no way concerned with this argument at present, any further than it relates to imputation of sin, or sinful action. Therefore all that is in the argument, which relates to the present purpose, is this; that the word is so often applied in Scripture to signify God's imputing personal sin, but never once to his imputing Adam's sin. So often! How often? But twice. There are but two of all those places which he reckons up, that speak of, or so much as have any reference to, God's imputing sin to any person, where there is any evidence that only personal sin is meant; and they are Lev. 17:3, 4, and 2 Tim. 4:16. All therefore the argument comes to, is this; that the word "impute" is applied in Scripture, two times, to the case of God's imputing sin, and neither of those times to signify the imputing of Adam's sin, but both times it has reference to personal sin; therefore Adam's sin is not imputed to his posterity. And this is to be noted, that one of these two places, even that in Lev. 17:3, 4, don't speak of imputing the act committed, but another not committed. The words are, "What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox or lamb or goat in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to

offer an offering unto the Lord, before the tabernacle of the Lord, blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; that man shall be cut off from among his people." I.e. plainly, murder shall be imputed to him: he shall be put to death for it, and therein punished with the same severity as if he had slain a man. 'Tis plain by Is. 66:3 that in some cases, a shedding the blood of beasts, in an unlawful manner, was imputed to them, as if they slew a man.

But whether it be so or not, although in both these places the word "impute" be applied to personal sin, and to the very act done by the person spoken of, and in ten more places; or although this could be said of all the places, which our author reckons up; yet that the word "impute" is never expressly applied to Adam's sin, does no more argue, that it is not imputed to his posterity, than it argues, that pride, unbelief, lying, theft, oppression, persecution, fornication, adultery, sodomy, perjury, idolatry, and innumerable other particular moral evils, are never imputed to the persons that commit them, or in whom they are; because the word "impute," though so often used in Scripture, is never applied to any of these kinds of wickedness.

I know not what can be said here, except one of these two things; that though these sins are not expressly said to be imputed, yet other words are used that do as plainly and certainly imply that they are imputed, as if it were said so expressly. Very well, and so I say with respect to the imputation of Adam's sin. The thing meant by the word "impute" may be as plainly and certainly expressed by using other words, as if that word were expressly used; and more certainly, because the words used instead of it, may amount to an explanation of this word. And this, I think, is the very case here. Though the word "impute" is not used with respect to Adam's sin, yet 'tis said, "all have sinned"; which, respecting infants, can be true only of their sinning

by his sin. And 'tis said, "By his disobedience many were made sinners"; and "judgment and condemnation came upon all by that sin"; and that by this means "death (the wages of sin) passed on all men," etc. Which phrases amount to full and precise explanations of the word "impute"; and therefore do more certainly determine the point really insisted on.

Or, perhaps it will be said, with respect to those personal sins aforementioned, pride, unbelief, etc., it is no argument, they are not imputed to those who are guilty of 'em, that the very word "impute" is not applied to 'em; for the word itself is rarely used; not one time in a hundred, and perhaps five hundred, of those wherein the thing meant is plainly implied, or may be certainly inferred. Well, and the same also may be replied likewise, with respect to Adam's sin.

'Tis probable, Dr. Taylor intends an argument against original sin, by that which he says in opposition to what R.R. suggests of "Children's discovering the principles of iniquity, and seeds of sin, before they are capable of moral action," viz. "That little children are made patterns of humility, meekness and innocence" (in Matt. 18:3; 1 Cor. 14:20, and Ps. 131:2).

But when the utmost is made of this, there can be no shadow of reason to understand more by these texts, than that little children are recommended as patterns in regard of a negative virtue, innocence with respect to the exercises and fruits of sin, harmlessness as to the hurtful effects of it, and that image of meekness and humility arising from this, in conjunction with a natural tenderness of mind, fear, self-diffidence, yieldableness, and confidence in parents and others older than themselves. And so, they are recommended as patterns of virtue no more than doves, which are an harmless sort of creature, and have an image of the virtues of

meekness and love. Even according to Dr. Taylor's own doctrine, no more can be made of it than this: for his scheme will not admit of any such thing as positive virtue, or virtuous disposition, in infants; he insisting (as was observed before) that virtue must be the fruit of thought and reflection. But there can be no thought and reflection, that produces positive virtue, in children, not yet capable of moral action; and it is such children he speaks of. And that little children have a negative virtue or innocence, in relation to the positive acts and hurtful effects of vice, is no argument that they have not corrupt nature within them; for let their nature be ever so corrupt, yet surely 'tis no wonder that they ben't guilty of positive wicked action, before they are capable of any moral action at all. A young viper has a malignant nature, though incapable of doing a malignant action, and at present appearing a harmless creature.

Another objection, which Dr. Taylor and some others offer against this doctrine, is, that it pours contempt upon the human nature.

But their declaiming on this topic is like addressing the affections and conceits of children, rather than rational arguing with men. It seems, this doctrine is not complaisant enough. I am sensible, it is not suited to the taste of some, who are so very delicate (to say no worse) that they can bear nothing but compliment and flattery. No contempt is by this doctrine cast upon the noble faculties and capacities of man's nature, or the exalted business, and divine and immortal happiness he is made capable of. And as to speaking ill of man's present moral state, I presume, it will not be denied, that shame belongs to them that are truly sinful; and to suppose, that this is not the native character of mankind, is still but meanly begging the question. If we, as we come into the world, are truly sinful, and consequently miserable, he acts but a friendly part to us, who endeavors fully to discover and manifest our disease. Whereas, on

the contrary, he acts an unfriendly part, who to his utmost hides it from us; and so, in effect does what in him lies to prevent our seeking a remedy from that, which, if not remedied in time, must bring us finally to shame and everlasting contempt, and end in perfect and remedyless destruction hereafter.

Another objection, which some have made against this doctrine, much like the former, is that it tends to beget in us an ill opinion of our fellow-creatures, and so to promote ill-nature and mutual hatred.

To which I would say, if it be truly so, that we all come sinful into the world, then our heartily acknowledging it, tends to promote humility: but our disowning that sin and guilt, which truly belongs to us, and endeavoring to persuade ourselves that we are vastly better than in truth we are, tends to a foolish self-exaltation and pride. And 'tis manifest, by reason, experience, and the Word of God, that pride is the chief source of all the contention, mutual hatred, and ill-will, which are so prevalent in the world; and that nothing so effectually promotes the contrary tempers and deportments, as humility. This doctrine teaches us to think no worse of others, than of ourselves: it teaches us, that we are all, as we are by nature, companions in a miserable helpless condition; which, under a revelation of the divine mercy, tends to promote mutual compassion. And nothing has a greater tendency to promote those amiable dispositions of mercy, forbearance, long-suffering, gentleness and forgiveness, than a sense of our own extreme unworthiness and misery, and the infinite need we have of the divine pity, forbearance and forgiveness, together with a hope of obtaining mercy. If the doctrine, which teaches that mankind are corrupt by nature, tends to promote ill-will, why should not Dr. Taylor's doctrine tend to it as much? For he teaches us, that the generality of mankind are very wicked, having made themselves

so by their own free choice, without any necessity: which is a way of becoming wicked, that renders men truly worthy of resentment; but the other, not at all, even according to his own doctrine.

Another exclamation against the doctrine is, that it tends to hinder comfort and joy, and to promote melancholy and gloominess of mind.

To which I shall briefly say, doubtless, supposing men are really become sinful, and so exposed to the displeasure of God, by whatever means, if they once come to have their eyes opened, and are not very stupid, the reflection on their case will tend to make them sorrowful; and 'tis fit, it should. Men, with whom this is the case, may well be filled with sorrow, till they are sincerely willing to forsake their sins, and turn to God. But there is nothing in this doctrine, that in the least stands in the way of comfort and exceeding joy, to such as find in their hearts a sincere willingness, wholly to forsake all sin, and give their hearts and whole selves to Christ, and comply with the gospel-method of salvation by him.

Another thing objected, is, that to make men believe that wickedness belongs to their very nature, tends to encourage them in sin, and plainly to lead them to all manner of iniquity; because they are taught, that sin is natural, and therefore necessary and unavoidable.

But if this doctrine, which teaches that sin is natural to us, does also at the same time teach us, that it is never the better, or less to be condemned, for its being natural, then it don't at all encourage sin, any more than Dr. Taylor's doctrine encourages wickedness that is become inveterate; who teaches, that such as by custom have contracted strong habits of sin, are unable to help themselves. And is it reasonable, to represent it as encouraging a man's boldly neglecting and willfully continuing in his disease, without seeking a

cure, to tell him of his disease, to shew him that his disease is real and very fatal, and what he can never cure himself of; yet withal directing him to a great Physician, who is sufficient for his restoration? But for a more particular answer to what is objected against the doctrine of our natural impotence and inability, as being an encouragement to go on in sin, and a discouragement to the use of all means for our help, I must for brevity refer the reader to what has been largely written on this head in my discourse on the Freedom of the Will.

Our author is pleased to advance another notion, among others, by way of objection against the doctrine of original sin; that if this doctrine be true, it would be unlawful to beget children. He says, "If natural generation be the means of unavoidably conveying all sin and wickedness into the world, it must itself be a sinful, and unlawful thing." Now, if there be any force of argument here, it lies in this proposition, whatsoever is a means or occasion of the certain infallible existence of sin and wickedness, must itself be sinful. But I imagine Dr. Taylor had not thoroughly weighed this proposition, nor considered where it could carry him. For, God's continuing in being the devil, and others that are finally given up to wickedness, will be attended, most certainly and infallibly, with an eternal series of the most hateful and horrid wickedness. But will any be guilty of such vile blasphemy, as to say, therefore God's upholding them in being is itself a sinful thing? In the same place our author says, "So far as we are generated in sin, it is a sin to be generated." (Probably he intended the active voice.) But there is no appearance of evidence in that position, any more than in this; "So far as any is upheld in existence in sin, 'tis a sin to uphold them in existence." Yea, if there were any reason in the case, it would be strongest in the latter position: for parents, as Dr. Taylor himself observes, are not the authors of the beginning of existence: whereas, God is truly the

author of the continuance of existence. As 'tis the known will of God, to continue Satan and millions of others in being, though the most sure consequence is the continuance of a vast infernal world, full of everlasting hellish wickedness: so 'tis a part of the revealed will of God, that this world of mankind should be continued, and the species propagated, for his own wise and holy purposes: which will is complied with by the parents joined in lawful marriage. Whose children, though they come into the world in sin, yet are capable subjects of eternal holiness and happiness: which infinite benefits for their children, parents have great reason to encourage a hope of, in the way of giving up their children to God in faith, through a Redeemer, and bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I think, this may be answer enough to such a cavil.

Another objection is, that the doctrine of original sin, is no oftener, and no more plainly spoken of in Scripture; it being, if true, a very important doctrine. Dr. Taylor in many parts of his book, suggests to his readers, that there are very few texts in the whole Bible, wherein there is the least appearance of their teaching any such doctrine.

Of this I took notice before, but would here say further: that the reader who has perused the preceding defense of this doctrine, must now be left to judge for himself, whether there be any ground for such an allegation; whether there be not texts in sufficient number, both in the Old Testament and New, that exhibit undeniable evidence of this great article of Christian divinity; and whether it be not a doctrine taught in the Scripture with great plainness. I think, there are few, if any, doctrines of revelation, taught more plainly and expressly. Indeed it is taught in a more and explicit manner in the New Testament, than the Old: which is not to be wondered at; it being thus with respect to all the most important doctrines of revealed religion.

But if it had been so, that this doctrine were rarely taught in Scripture; yet if we find that it is indeed a thing declared to us by God, if there be good evidence of its being held forth to us by any word of his, then what belongs to us, is, to believe his word, and receive the doctrine which he teaches us; and not, instead of this, to prescribe to him how often he shall speak of it, and to insist upon knowing what reasons he has for speaking of it no oftener, before we will receive what he teaches us; or that he should give us an account, why he did not speak of it so plainly as we think he ought to have done, sooner than he did. In this way of proceeding, if it be reasonable, the Sadducees of old, who denied any resurrection or future state, might have maintained their cause against Christ, when he blamed 'em for not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God; and for not understanding by the Scripture, that there would be a resurrection to spiritual enjoyment, and not to animal life, and sensual gratifications; and they might have insisted, that these doctrines, if true, were very important, and therefore ought to have been spoken of in the Scriptures oftener and more explicitly, and not that the church of God should be left, till that time, with only a few obscure intimations of that which so infinitely concerned them. And they might with disdain have rejected Christ's argument, by way of inference, from God's calling himself, in the books of Moses, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For answer, they might have said, that Moses was sent on purpose to teach the people the mind and will of God; and therefore, if these doctrines were true, he ought in reason and in truth to have taught them plainly and frequently, and not have left the people to spell out so important a doctrine, only from God's saying, that he was the God of Abraham, etc.

One great end of the Scripture is, to teach the world what manner of being God is; about which the world, without revelation, has been so woefully in the dark: and that God is an infinite being, is a doctrine

of great importance, and a doctrine sufficiently taught in the Scripture. But yet, it appears to me, this doctrine is not taught there, in any measure, with such explicitness and precision, as the doctrine of original sin; and the Socinians, who deny God's omnipresence and omniscience, have left 'em as much room for cavil, as the Pelagians, who deny original sin.

Dr. Taylor particularly urges, that Christ says not one word of this doctrine throughout the four gospels; which doctrine, if true, being so important, and what so nearly concerned the great work of redemption, which he came to work out (as is supposed) one would think, it should have been emphatically spoken of in every page of the gospels.

In reply to this, it may be observed, that by the account given in the four gospels, Christ was continually saying those things which plainly implied, that all men in their original state are sinful and miserable. As, when he declared, that "they which are whole, need not a physician, but they which are sick"; that "he came to seek and to save that which was lost";2 that it was necessary for all to be "born again, and to be converted, and that otherwise they could not enter into the kingdom of heaven"; and that all were sinners, as well as those whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices, etc. and that "every one who did not repent, should perish";4 withal directing everyone to pray to God for forgiveness of sin, using our necessity of forgiveness from God, as an argument with all to forgive the injuries of their neighbors;6 teaching, that earthly parents, though kind to their children, are in themselves evil; and signifying, that things carnal and corrupt are properly the things of men;8 warning his disciples rather to beware of men, than of wild beasts; often representing the world as evil, as wicked in its works, at enmity with truth and holiness, and hating him; yea, and teaching plainly, that all men are

extremely and inexpressibly sinful, owing ten thousand talents to their divine Creditor.2

And whether Christ did not plainly teach Nicodemus the doctrine of original total depravity, when he came to him to know what his doctrine was, must be left to the reader to judge, from what has been already observed on John 3:1–11. And besides, Christ in the course of his preaching took the most proper method to convince men of the corruption of their nature, and to give them an effectual and practical knowledge of it, in application to themselves, in particular, by teaching and urging the holy and strict law of God, in its extent and spirituality and dreadful threatenings: which above all things, tends to search the hearts of men, and to teach them their inbred exceeding depravity: not merely as a matter of speculation, but by proper conviction of conscience; which is the only knowledge of original sin, that can avail to prepare the mind for receiving Christ's redemption; as a man's sense of his own sickness prepares him to apply in good earnest to the physician.

And as to Christ's being no more frequent and particular in mentioning and inculcating this point in a doctrinal manner, 'tis probable, one reason to be given for it, is the same that is to be given for his speaking no oftener of God's creating the world: which, though so important a doctrine, is scarce ever spoken of in any of Christ's discourses: and no wonder, seeing this was a matter which the Jews, to whom he confined his personal ministry, had all been instructed in from their forefathers, and never was called in question among them. And there is a great deal of reason, from the ancient Jewish writers, to suppose, that the doctrine of original sin had ever been allowed in the open profession of that people: though they were generally, in that corrupt time, very far from a practical conviction of it; and many notions were then prevalent, especially among the

Pharisees, which were indeed inconsistent with it. And though on account of these prejudices they might need to have this doctrine explained and applied to them, yet 'tis well known, by all acquainted with their Bibles, that Christ, for wise reasons, spake more sparingly and obscurely of several of the most important doctrines of revealed religion, relating to the necessity, grounds, nature and way of his redemption, and the method of the justification of sinners, while he lived here in the flesh; and left these doctrines to be more plainly and fully opened and inculcated by the Holy Spirit, after his ascension.

But if after all, Christ did not speak of this doctrine often enough to suit Dr. Taylor, he might be asked, why he supposes Christ did no oftener, and no more plainly teach some of his (Dr. Taylor's) doctrines, which he so much insists on? As, that temporal death comes on all mankind by Adam; and that it comes on them by him, not as a punishment or calamity, but as a great favor, being made a rich benefit, and a fruit of God's abundant grace, by Christ's redemption, who came into the world as a second Adam for this end. Surely, if this were so, it was of vast importance, that it should be known to the church of God in all ages, who saw death reigning over infants, as well as others. If infants were indeed perfectly innocent, was it not needful, that the design of that which was such a melancholy and awful dispensation towards so many millions of innocent creatures, should be known, in order to prevent the worst thoughts of God from arising in the minds of the constant spectators of so mysterious and gloomy a dispensation? But why then such a total silence about it, for four thousand years together, and not one word of it in all the Old Testament; nor one word of it in all the four Gospels; and indeed not one word of it in the whole Bible, but only as forced and wrung out by Dr. Taylor's arts of criticism and deduction, against the plainest and strongest evidence!

As to the arguments made use of by many late writers, from the universal moral sense, and the reasons they offer from experience, and observation of the nature of mankind, to shew that we are born into the world with principles of virtue; with a natural prevailing relish, approbation, and love of righteousness, truth, and goodness, and of whatever tends to the public welfare; with a prevailing natural disposition to dislike, to resent and condemn what is selfish, unjust, and immoral; a native bent in mankind to mutual benevolence, tender compassion, etc. those who have had such objections against the doctrine of original sin, thrown in their way, and desire to see them particularly considered, I ask leave to refer them to a Treatise on the Nature of True Virtue, lying by me prepared for the press, which may ere long be exhibited to public view.

CONCLUSION

ON the whole, I observe, there are some other things, besides arguments, in Dr. Taylor's book, which are calculated to influence the minds, and bias the judgments of some sorts of readers. Here, not to insist on the taking profession he makes, in many places, of sincerity, humility, meekness, modesty, charity, etc. in his searching after truth; and freely proposing his thoughts, with the reasons of them, to others; nor on his magisterial assurance, appearing on many occasions, and the high contempt he sometimes expresses of the opinions and arguments of very excellent divines and fathers in the church of God, who have thought differently from him,2 both of which things, it's not unlikely, may have a degree of influence on some of his readers. (However, that they may have only their just influence, these things might properly be compared together, and set

in contrast, one with the other)—I say, not to dwell on these matters, I would take some notice of another thing, observable in the writings of Dr. Taylor and many of the late opposers of the more peculiar doctrines of Christianity, tending (especially with juvenile and unwary readers) not a little to abate the force, and prevent the due effect, of the clearest Scripture evidences, in favor of those important doctrines; and particularly to make void the arguments taken from the writings of the apostle Paul, in which those doctrines are more plainly and fully revealed, than in any other part of the Bible. What I mean, is this: these gentlemen express a high opinion of this Apostle, and that very justly, for his eminent genius, his admirable sagacity, strong powers of reasoning, acquired learning, etc. They speak of him as a writer—of masterly address, of extensive reach, and deep design, everywhere in his epistles, almost in every word he says. This looks exceeding specious: it carries a plausible appearance of Christian zeal, and attachment to the holy Scriptures, in such a testimony of high veneration for that great Apostle, who was not only the principal instrument of propagating Christianity, but with his own hand wrote so considerable a part of the New Testament. And I am far from determining, with respect at least to some of these writers, that they are not sincere in their declarations, or that all is mere artifice, only to make way for the reception of their own peculiar sentiments. However, it tends greatly to subserve such a purpose; as much as if it were designedly contrived, with the utmost sublety, for that end. Hereby their incautious readers are prepared the more easily to be drawn into a belief, that they, and others in their way of thinking, have not rightly understood many of those things in this Apostle's writings, which before seemed very plain to them; and they are also prepared, by a prepossession in favor of these new writers, to entertain a favorable thought of the interpretations put by them upon the words and phrases of this Apostle; and to admit in many passages a meaning which before lay

entirely out of sight; quite foreign to all that in the view of a common reader seems to be their obvious sense; and most remote from the expositions agreed in by those which used to be esteemed the greatest divines, and best commentators. For they must know, that this Apostle being a man of no vulgar understanding, it's nothing strange if his meaning lies very deep; and no wonder then, if the superficial discerning and observation of vulgar Christians, or indeed of the herd of common divines, such as the Westminster Assembly, etc. falls vastly short of the Apostle's reach, and frequently don't enter into the true spirit and design of Paul's epistles. They must understand, that the first reformers, and preachers and expositors in general, both before and since the Reformation, for fifteen or sixteen hundred years past, were too unlearned and shortsighted, to be capable of penetrating into the sense, or fit to undertake the making comments on the writings of so great a man as this Apostle; or else had dwelt in a cave of bigotry and superstition, too gloomy to allow 'em to use their own understandings with freedom, in reading the Scripture. But at the same time, it must be understood, that there is risen, up, now at length in this happy age of light and liberty, a set of men, of a more free and generous turn of mind, a more inquisitive genius, and better discernment. By such insinuations, they seek advantage to their cause; and thus the most unreasonable and extravagant interpretations of Scripture are palliated and recommended: so that, if the simple reader is not very much on his guard, if he don't clearly see with his own eyes, or has too much indolence, or too little leisure, thoroughly to examine for himself (as few, alas, are willing to be at the pains of acquainting themselves so thoroughly with the Apostle's writings, and of comparing one part of them with another, so as to be fully able to judge of these gentlemen's glosses and pretenses) in this case, he is in danger of being imposed on with delusive appearances; as he is prepared by this fair pretext of exalting the sagacity of the Apostle, and by a

parade of learning, criticism, exact version, penetration into the true scope, and discerning of wonderful connections, together with the airs these writers assume of dictatorial peremptoriness, and contempt of old opinions and old expositions, I say, such an one is by these things prepared to swallow strange doctrine, as trusting to the superior abilities of these modern interpreters.

But I humbly conceive, their interpretations, particularly of the apostle Paul's writings, though in some things ingenious, yet in many things concerning these great articles of religion, are extremely absurd, and demonstrably disagreeable, in the highest degree, to his real design, to the language he commonly uses, and to the doctrines currently taught in his epistles. Their criticisms, when examined, appear far more subtle, than solid; and it seems as if nothing can possibly be strong enough, nothing perspicuous enough, in any composure whatever, to stand before such liberties as these writers indulge. The plainest and most nervous discourse is analysed and criticized, till it dissolves into nothing, or till it becomes a thing of little significance; the holy Scripture is subtilized into a mere mist; or made to evaporate into a thin cloud, that easily puts on any shape, and is moved in any direction, with a puff of wind, just as the manager pleases. 'Tis not in the nature and power of language, to afford sufficient defense against such an art, so abused; as I imagine, a due consideration of some things I have had occasion in the preceding discourse to observe, may abundantly convince us.

But this, with the rest of what I have offered on this subject of original sin, must be left to every candid reader to judge of, for himself; and the success of the whole must now be left with God, who knows what is agreeable to his own mind, and is able to make his own truths prevail; however mysterious they may seem to the poor, partial, narrow and extremely imperfect views of mortals, while

looking through a cloudy and delusory medium; and however disagreeable they may be to the innumerable prejudices of men's hearts: and who has promised, that the Gospel of Christ, such as is really his, shall finally be victorious; and has assured us, that the Word which goeth out of this mouth, "shall not return to him void, but shall accomplish that which he pleaseth and shall prosper in the thing whereto he sends it." Let God arise, and plead his own cause, and glorify his own great name. AMEN

-----

MONERGISM BOOKS

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of Monergism Books.

ePub, .mobi & .pdf Editions December 2019 Requests for information should be addressed to: Monergism Books, PO Box 491, West Linn, OR 97068

-----

Table of Contents

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

Part One. Wherein are considered some evidences of original sin from facts and events, as found by observation and experience, together with representations and testimonies of holy Scripture, and the confession and assertions of opposers

CHAPTER I. The evidence of original sin from what appears in fact of the sinfulness of mankind

CHAPTER II. Universal mortality proves original sin: particularly the death of infants, with its various circumstances

Part Two. Containing observations on particular parts of the holy Scripture, which prove the doctrine of original sin

CHAPTER I. Observations relating to things contained in the three first chapters of Genesis, with reference to the doctrine of original sin

CHAPTER II. Observations on other parts of the holy Scriptures, chiefly in the Old Testament, that prove the doctrine of original sin

CHAPTER III. Observations on various other places of Scripture, principally of the New Testament, proving the doctrine of original sin

CHAPTER IV. Containing observations on Romans 5:12 to the end

Part Three. Observing the evidence given us, relative to the doctrine of original sin, in what the Scriptures reveal concerning the redemption by Christ

CHAPTER I. The evidence of original sin from the nature of redemption, in the procurement of it

CHAPTER II. The evidence of the doctrine of original sin from what the Scripture teaches of the application of redemption

Part Four. Containing answers to objections

CHAPTER I. Concerning that objection, that to suppose men's being born in sin, without their choice, or any previous act of their own, is to suppose what is inconsistent with the nature of sin

CHAPTER II. Concerning that objection against the doctrine of native corruption, that to suppose men receive their first existence in sin, is to make him who is the Author of their being, the Author of their depravity

CHAPTER III. That great objection against the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity considered

CHAPTER IV. Wherein several other objections are considered, viz. That at the restoration of the world after the flood, God pronounced equivalent, or greater blessings on Noah and his sons, than he did on Adam at his creation

Conclusion. Containing some brief observations on certain artful methods, used by writers who are adversaries of this doctrine, in order to prejudice their readers against it

↑ Back to top