Observations on Various Other Places of Scripture, Principally of the New Testament, Proving the Doctrine of Original Sin

Observations on John iii. 6, in connexion with some other fiassages in the .A’’cw Testament,

THOSE words of Christ, giviijg a reason to Nicode- ‘snus, why we mubt be born again, John iii. 0, “That which is born of the flesh, is fiesh; and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit; have not, without f;ood reason, been produced by divines, as a proof of the doctrine of original sin; supposing, that by Jiesh here is meant the human nature in a debased and corrufit state. Yet Dr. Taylor, p. 144, thus explains these words, That which is born of the Jleshf is ftth: 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, Jesh and sfiirit, in other parts of the New Testament, when thus set in opposition one to another, mnd the latter said to be produced by the Spirit of God, 39 hcr» and when speaking oiT the same thing, which Christ is )iere speakings of to Nicodemus, viz. the requisite qualifications to salvation, will fully vindicate the sense of our divines. Thus in the 7th and Sth chapters of Romans, where these termsjlfsh and spirit (cap and mnvfAot) are abundantly repeated, and set in as here So, chap. vii. 14. The law is spirinial (xpnv(ji»rix) but I am carnal sold under sin. He catinoi only n€an, “I am a man, consisting of body and soul, and havinp: the powers of a man.” Vcr. 18. I Icnow that in mc, that is in my f-esh dwelleth no good thing.” He does not mean to condemn his frame, as consisting of body and soul; and to assert, that in his human constitution nvith the of a nmn, dwells no good thing. And when he sjys in the last verse of the chapter, “Wi’h the mind, I myself serve the law of God, but with thee.?, the law of sin ;** he cannot mean,” J myself serve the law of God; but with iny innocent human constitution, as having the powers of a man, nerve the law o/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 ihejlesh, but after the s/iirit;” and ver. 4, “The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh;” he cannot mean, “There is no condemnation to them that walk not according to the powers of a man Sec. And when he says, ver, 5 and 6, “They that are after flesh.) do mind the things of ihc flesh; and to be carnally minded is death;” he docs not intend, “They tha* are according to the human constitution, and the powers of a man, do mind the things of the human constitution and jiowtrs; and to mind these, is death.” And when he says, Ver. 7 and 8, “The carnal (or fcshlu) mind is enmity against God, and is not sulject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; so that they that arc in ltjlcsh, cannot please Gcd;” he cannot mean, that, “to mind the things which arc agreealle powers and constitution of a man,’*- (who, a our author say, is constituted or made right)” is enmity against God; and that a mind which is agreeable to thi;* right human constitution, as God hath r;iade it, is not siil)jcct to Iho lav; at pod, nor indeed can be; and that they who are according to such a constitution, cannot please God.’* And when it is said, ver. 9, t Ye are not in ihc Jlrsh, but in the .s-/iirit;” the apostle cannqt mean, Ye arc not in the hmnaii nature an connti’ of body and soul, and luith the fwvjrrn of a inayi” It is most manifest, that by ihefcsh here, the apostle means some nature that is corrupt, and of an evil tendency, and directlyopposite to the law, and holy nature of God; so that to be* and walk according to it, and to have a mind conformed lo 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 bchig and wolHing after, oi 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 sfiirit, is to be and walk according to a holy and divine nature, or principle: And to be carnallu minded, is the same as bcjng viciously and corruptly minded; and to be spiritually minded, is to be of a virtuous and holydisposition,

When Christ says, John iii. 6.” That which is born of the fesh, is fcsh,’* he represents the frsh not merely as a quality; for it would be incongruous, to speak of a quality as A thing born: It is a person, or man, that is born. Therefore man, as in his whole nature corrupt, is called fesh: 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 J^c’.sA 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 7ih of Romans, represents sin as a person; and that he fit;uratively distinguishes in himself two persons, speaking of flesh as his person. For I knoiu that in me, that is in 7ny flesh, dwclleth no good tldng. And it may be observed, that in liie 8th chapter he still continues this representation, speaking ot* fh(^ flc&h ar. a person: And accordingly in the 6th and 7lli verses, speaks of the mind of the Jicshy C>go»»y« o-apnj and di the mind of the spirit <J>^ojy/*a tenvyucix; as if the flesh and epirit were two opposite persons, each having a mind contrary to the mind of the othr. Dr. Taylor interprets this mind of the feshj and mud of the sfiirit as though ihejleah and the spirit were here spoken of as the dilTerent object., 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, ver. 27. He that searcheth the heart q knoweth what is the mind of the spirit ^^lir,yM. ‘c:^yiv{ixr; 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 nd agent, and not the object. The same apostle in like manner uses the word, »«••, in Col. ii. 18. Vainiy puffed up by hia fieshly mind, awo tw m®- T>y{ aetn uvrti, by the mind of his fes/i. And this agent so often called fleshy represented by the apostle, as altogether evil, without any good thing dwelling in it, or belonging 1^ it; yea, perfectly contrary to God and his law, and tending only 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 M’hy there is a necessity of a new birth, in order to a better production.

. One thing is particularly observable in that discourse olT the apostle, in the 7th and 8th of Romans, in which he so often uses the ieriufesh, as opposite to spirit which, as well as many other things in his discourse, makes it plain, that by flesh he means something in itsclforrupt and sinful, and that is, that he expressly calls it sinful fcsh, Rom. viii. 3. It is manifest, that by smful fesh 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 oi sinfd fleshy the expression is equipollent v/iih those that speak of Christ as vmde siriy and ‘lade a curse for us.

Flesh and sfilrit are opposed to one another in Gal. v. 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 aa in its natural state, innocent and right. In the 1 6th ver. the apostle says, “Walk in the s/iirit and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the fesh:’* 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 Xhcfesh histeth against the spirit, and the spiric against ihe/ksk; and these are contrary the one to the other.” What could have been said more plainly, to shew that -what the apostle means by fcsh, is something very evil in its nature, and an irreconcileable enemy to all goodness? And it may be observed, that in these words, and those that follow, the apostle still figuratively represents ihejlesh as a person or agent, desiring, acting, having lusts, and performing works. And by works o the Jlesh, and fruits of the s/iirit, which are opposed to each other, from ver. 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 fesh arc manifest, which are these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, &c. But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, See. The apostle, by fleshy does not mean any thing that is innocent and good in itself, that only needs to be restrained, and kept in proper bounds; but something altogelhq|r evil, which is to be destroyed, and not merely restrained. I Cor. v. 5. “To deliver such an one to Satan, for the destruction of the Jleah, We must have no mercy on it; we cannot be too cruel to it; it must even be crucified** Gal, v. 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 tn 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 the sum of all Christian holiness. 1 John iii. 23, 24. And that we should ‘g(J& ORIGINAL SIKT.

love one another, as he gave us commandinent; and h’Stha kcepcth his cornvnaDdnienls, dwelleth in him, and he in him :: And herehy we know that he abideth in us, by the spirit that he hath given us.” With clVap. iv. 12, 13. “If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us t Hereby know we, that we dwell in him, because he hath given us of his s/iij-rt.” The spiritual principle in us being as it pvere a communication of the spirit of God to us.

And as by nunvucc is meant a holy nature, so by the epithet, c7ViV[Ji.aru<^, {-pirituaU is meant the same as truly virtuous and holy. Gal. vi. 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 carval or f.ehly raxjx©’, is meant the same as sinfuK Rom. vii. 14. “The law is spiritual (i, e. holy) but I am car-^ nal, sold under sin.”

And it is evident, that by ,^€slh 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 vulpiarly called the sins of the fiesh, consisting in inordinate appetites of the body, and their indulgence; but the whole body of sin, implying those lusts that are most subtle, and furthest from any relation to the body; such as pride, rnaiice, envy, &c. When the nvorks oftheflesh are enumerated, Gal. V. 19, 20, 21, they are vices of the latter kind chiefly,’ that are mlpitioned; idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance; emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings. Sci pride of heart is the effect or operation of the j9<”.9/;. Col. ii. 18. *’ Vainly puffed up by hhjfcrh/y ?nind :** yn the Greek, by the mind ofihefesh. So, pride, envyiTJg, strife and division, are spoken of as works of le flesh. 1 Cor. iii. 3. 4. “For ye are yet carnal (eraxixct fleshly J For whereas there is en-’ vyingj and strife, and division, arc ye net caryiaU and walk as men? For while one saith, 1 am of Paw/, and another, I am of yJfifJlos, are ye not ccnial P” Such kind of lusts do not dc”’ pend on the bodv, or external senses; for the devil himself lias 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 cSiUcdJifsh; and not only that corruption which consists in inordinate bodily appetites, I think, Nthat the apost)e says in the last cited place, *^7-e ye not carnal and ‘xalk as 7)icn? Loads us to the true reason. It is 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 mature. The wovfcsh is 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. Matth, xxiv. 22. <’ Except those days should be shortened, no Jlesh should be saved.’* Luke iii. 6. A Jlesh shall see the salvation of God.” John xvii. 2.” Thou hast given him power over all fiesh:* See also Acts ii. 17, Rom. iii. 20, 1 Cor. i. 29, Gal. ii. 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 ,/fes/if 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 s/urit 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 corruiit, and to be carnal ovjleshly, and to walk as men, are the same thing with the apostle. And so in other parts of the scripture, to savor the things that be of men, and to savor things which arc corrufit are the same; and sons of men, and wicked men, also are the same, as was observed before. And on the other hand, No savor the things that be of God, and to receive the things of the S/iirit 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,” That which is born Qf the 3B 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 any thing di- line in him; depraved, debased, sinful, ruined man, utterlyunfit 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. It is 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; hut 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 every where in other parts of the scripture for the necessity of a renovation, a change of mind, a new heart, &c. 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 corolla — ry from what has been said.

CoROLL. If by flesh and spirit, vVheft spoken 6f 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 Kvholly 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. vii. 18. It is wholly opposite to God, and to subjecliou to his law, as appears by Rom. viii, 7, 8. It is directly contrary to true holiness, and wholly opposes it, and holiness is opposite to that; as appears by Gal. v. 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. viii. 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. viii, 7. If there were any thing truly good in xhtjlesh or in 7nan*8 nature or natural disposition, under a moral view, then

5t should only be amended; but the scripture represents as though we were to be enemies lo It, and were to seek nothing short of its entire destruction, as lias been observed. And elsewhere the apostle directs not to the amending of the old man but. fiutting it off and putting on the neix) man; and seeks not to have the body of death made belter, but to he delivered from it, and says, “That if any man be in Christ, he is a newcreature (which doubtless means the same as a man new born) old things are (not amended) but passed away, and all things re become new.”

But this will.be further evident, if we ])articularly 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 many and the spiritual man; where natural and sfiiritiuU are opposed just in the same manner, as I have observed carnal nd spiritual oiiGW are.” In chap. ii. 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 spiriuially discerned. But he that is spiritual, judgeth all things.” And not onlv .does the apostle here oppose natural ond s/dritualy just as he elsewhere does carnal and spiritual but his following discourse evidently shews, that he means the very same distinction, the same two distinct and opposite tilings. For immediately on his thus speaking of the dKTerence between the natural and the 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 sieak 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 jneans 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. Df. Tavlor saysj by ^vxiptt is meant the animal man the man vho maketh sense and appetite the law of his action. If he aims to limit the meanint,’ of the v.ord 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, Sec. 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 •4/y;^4it(^. So the Apostle Jude uses the word in like manner, opposing it to spiritual or liav* ing the sfiira, ver. 19. ‘’ These are they that separate themselves, sensual, (^uxiy-oi) not having the spirit.” The vices he had been just speaking of, were chiefly of the more spiritual kind. Ver. 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, Ia7n of Paul and / ofAfioitos; and being jiufftd ufifor one against another. We have the same word again, Jam. iii. 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 (4’«%»«»») and devilish;” where also the vices tho apostle speaks of are of the more spiritual kind.

o that on the whole, there is sufficient reason to underatand the apostle, when he speaks of the natural-man in that 1 Cor. ii. 14, as meaning man in his native, corrupt state. And his words represent him as totally corrupt, wholly a btranger and enemy to true virtue or holiness, and things appertaining to it, which it appears are commonly intended in the New Testament by things Kfiiritual, and are doubtless here meant by things of the Spirit of God. These words also represent that it is impoRsiblc man should be otherwise, while in his natural state. The expressions are very strong: The natural man rcceivcth not the things of the Spirit of God, is not gusceplible of things of that kind, neither can he know them, can have no true sense or relish of thenip or notion of their

Iftai nature and true excellency, because thnj are sfiirituaUy discerned: They arc not discerned by means of any principle in nature, but altogether by a principle that is divine, tomething introduced by the grace oi” God’s Holy Spirit, which is above all that is natural. The words are in a con siderable de|>rec parallel with those of our Saviour, John xiv. 16, 17. “He shall give you the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither know- €th him; but ye know him, for he dwellcth with you, and {Shall be in you.”

SECTION II.

Observations on Romans iii. 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 slate, 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, thai 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 disposilon to be wicked as soon as possible, if there be any difference between these, and either of them will prove men tp be born exceedingly depraved. I have before proved, that a nartive 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. iii. 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, verse 16, 17, laid down his proposition, that none can be save4 in any other way than through the righteousness of God, by faith in Jesus Christ, proceeds to prove this point, by shewing particularly rhat all are in themselves wicked, and without rny righteousness of their own. First, he insists on the wickedneiss 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 lip 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 norle righteous, no, not one; there is 7ione that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God; they are all gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there js -AQjie 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 ixiouth 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 sailh, it sailh to them thr.t 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 ao fiesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowl-

^flge of sin. But now the riyhteoiisness of God without the law, is manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the ripihteousness of God, which is by faith of Je* sus 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 tile utmost possible fulness and precision. So that if here <his matter be not 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 phrases, however contrived and heaped up one upon another, determinately to signify any such thing.

Dr. Taylor, to take off the force of the whole, would have us to understand, pages 104... 107, that these passages, quoted from the I^salms, and other parts of the Old Testament, do not speak of all mankind, nor of all the Jews; but only of theryi of whom they were true. He observes, there were many that were innocent and righteous; though there were also many, a strong party, that were wicked, corrupt, &c. of whom these texts were to be understood. Concerning which I would observe the following things;

1. According to this, the universality of the terms that are found in these places, which the apostle cites from the Old Testament, to prove that all the world, both Jews and Gentiles, are under sin, is nothing to his purpose. The apostle uses universal terms in his proposition, and in his conclusion, that all are under sin, that every mouth is stopped, all the world guilty... .that by the deeds of the law no f.esh can be justified. And he chooses out a number of universal sayings or clauses out of the Old Testarrent, to confirm this universality; as, “There is none righteous, no, not one: They are all gone out of the way: There is none that understandeth,” &c. But yet the universality of these expressions is nothing to this purpose, because the universal terms found

.J08 dRIGINAL SIN.

in them have indeed no reference to any such universality aii this the apostle speaks of, nor any thing akin to it; they mean no universality, either in the collective sense, or personal sense; no universality of the nations of the world, or of particular persons in those nations, or in any one nation in the world: “But only of those of whom they are true,” That is, there are none of them righteous, of whom it is true that they arc not righteous, no, not one: There are none that understand, of whom it is tri-c, that they understand not: They are all gone out of the way, of whom it is hue, that they arc gone out of the way, Sec. Or if these expressions are to be understood concerning that strong party in Israel, in David’s and Solomon’s days, and in the prophets’ days, they are to be understood of them universally. And what is that to the apostle*s purpose? How does such an universality of wickedness as this.. ..that all were wicked in Israel, who were wicked; or that there was a particular evil party, all of which were v.icked, confirm that universality which the apostle would prove, viz. that all Jews and Gentiles, and the whole world, were wicked, and every mouth stopped, and that no fish could be justified by their own righteousness.

Here nothing can be said to abate the nonsense but this, that the apostle would convince the Jews that they were capable of being wicked, as well as other nations; and to prove it, he mentions some texts, which shew that there was a wicked party in Israel a thousand years ago; and that as to the universal terms which happened to be in these texts, the apostle had no respect to these; but his reciting them is as it were accidental, they happened to be in some texts which speak of an evil party in Israel, and the apostle cites them as they are, not because they are any more to his purpose for the universal terms, which happen to be in them* But let the reader look on the words of the apostle, and observe the violence of such a supposition. Particularly let the words of the 9th and 10th verses, and their connexion, be observed. “All are under, sin: As it is written, There is .none righteous; no, not one.” How plain is it, that the apostle cites that latter universal clause out of the 1 4th Psalm, to confirm the preceding tiniversal words of his own propositioo? And yet it will follow from the thinys which Dr. Taylor supposes, that the universality of the terms in the last words, There is none righteous; no, not one, hath no relation at all to that universality he speaks of in the pi’ecedini; clause, to which they are joined, all are under sin; and is no more a confirmation of it, than if the words were thus: “There arc some, or there are many in Israel, that are not righteous.”

2. To suppose the apostle’s design in citing these passages, was only to prove to the Jews, that of old there was a considerable number of their nation that were wicked men, is to suppose him to have gone about to prove what none of the Jews denied, or made the least doubt of. Even the Pharisees, the most selfrighteous sect of them, who went furthest in glorying in the dijiiinction of their nation from other nations, as a holy people, knew it and owned it: They openly confessed that their forefathers killed the firofihets, Matth. xxiii. 29. ...31. And if the apostle’s desijn had been only to refresh their memojies, to put them in mind of the ancient wickedness of their nation, to lead to reflection on themselves as guilty of the like wickedness, (as Stephen does, Acts vii) what need had the apostle to go so fur about to prove this; gathering up many sentences here and there, which prove that their scriptures did speak of some as wicked men, and then, in the next place, to prove that the wicked men spoken of must be of the naiion of the Jews, by this argument, “That what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law,” or that whatsoever the books of the Old Testament said, it must be understood of that people that had the Old Testament? What need had the apostle of such an ambages or fetch as this, to prove to the Jews, that tjiere had been many of their nation in some of the ancient ages, which were wicked men; when the Old Testament was full of passages that asscited ihio cxprcs ,ly, not only of a strong party, but of the nation in general? How much more would it have been to such a purpose, to have put them in mind of the wickedness of the people in general, in worshipping the golden calf, and the unbilief, murmurinp:, and pervei seness of the whole congregation in the wilderness, for forty years, as Stephen does I ^Vhich things he had no need to prove to be spoken of their nation, by any such indirect argument, as that, Whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to then a that are under the law.”

3. It would have been impertinent to the apostle’s purpose, even as our author understands his purpose, for him to have gone about to convince the Jews that there had been a strong party of bad men in David*s, Solomon’s, and the prophet’s times. For Dr. Taylor supposes, the apostle’s aim is to prove the great corruption of both Jews and Gentiles at that day, when Christ came into the world.*

In order the more fully to evade the clear and abundant testimonies to the doctrine of Original Sin, contained in this part of the holy scripture, our author says, “The apostle is here speaking of bodies of people, of Jews and Gentiles in a collective sense, as two great bodies into which mankind arc divided; speaking of them in their collective capacity, and not with respect to particular persons; that the apostle’s design is to prove, neither of these two great collective bodies, in their collective sense, can be justified by law, because both were corrupt; and so that no more is implied, than that the generality of both were wicked.”!

On liiis I observe,. (I.) That this supposed sense disagrees extremely with the terms and language which the apostle here makes use of. For according to this, we must understand, either,

First, That the apostle means no universality at all, but only the far greater part. But if the words which the apostle uses, do not most fully and determinately signify an universality., no words ever used in the Bible are sufficient to do it. I mighi ciiallcngc any man to produce any one paragraph in the scripture, from the beginning to the end, where there is such a repetition and accumulation of terms, so strongly and

Spc Key, 307, 310. + Pae 102, 104, 117, 119, 120, and Note on Rom, iii. 10. ...19, emphatically and carefully, lo express the most perfect and absolute universality, or any place to be compared to it. What instance is there in the scripture, or indeed any olhcr writing, when the mcanintr is only the much greater pari, where this leaning is signified in such a manner, by repeating such expressions, “They are all.. ..they are all. ...they arc all.. .together....every one. ...all the world,’* joined to mulii[)liL’d negative terms, to shew the universality to be without exception, saying, “There is no flesh... .there is none. ...there is none.... there is none... .there is none, four times over; besides the addition of” No, not one.. ..no, not one,” once and again!

Or, secondly, if any universality at all be allowed, it is only of the collective bodies spoken of; and these collective bodies but two, as Dr. Taylor reckons them, viz. the Jewish nation, and the Gentile world; supposing the aposlle is here representing each of these parts of mankind as being wicked. But is this the way of men’s using language, when speaking of but two things, to express themselves in universal terms of such a sort, and in such annanncr, and when they mean no more than that the thing affirmed is predicated of both of them? If a man, speaking of his two feet as both lame, should say, “All my feet are lame, they are t.ll lame, all together are become weak: None of my feet are strong, none of them are sound, no, not one;” would not he be thought to be lame in his understanding, as well as his feet? When the apostle says, that every mouth may be sto/i/ied, must we suppose, that he speaks only of these two great collective bodies, figuratively ascribing to each of them a mouth, and means that these two mouths are stoi)ped!

And besides, according to our author’s own interpretation, the universal terms used in these texts cited from the Old Testament, have no respect to those two great collective bodies, nor indeed lo either of them, but to .^■o?ne in Israel, a particular disaffected p rly in that one nation, which was made up of wicked men. So that his interpretation is every way absurd and inconsistent.

(2.) If the aposlle is speaking only of the wickedness or guilt of great collective bodies, then it will follow, thai also Ihe justification he here treats of, is no other than the justification of such collective bodies. For they are the same he speaks of as p:uilty and wicked, that he argues cannot be jtiatijird by the works of the law, by reason of their being nvickcd. Otherwise his argument is wholly disannulled. If the guilt he speaks of be only of collective bodies, then what he argues from that truilt, must be only that collective bodies cannot be justified by the works of the law, having no respect to the justification of particular persons. And indeed, this is Dr. Taylor’s declared opinion. He supposes the apostle here, and in other parts of this epistle, is speaking of men’s justification considered only as in their collective cafjacity* But the contrary is most manifest. The 26th and 28th verses of this third chapter cannot, without the utmost violence, be understood otherwise than of the justification of particular persons. “That he might be just, and the justificr of him that believeth in Jesus. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law.” So chap. iv. 5. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” And what the apostle cites in the 61 h, 7th and 8th verses from the Book ot Psalms, evidently shews that he is speaking of the justification of particular persons. “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeih righteousness without works, saying. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.” David says these things in the 32d Psalin, with a special respect to his own particular case; there expressing the great distress he was in, while under a sense of the guilt of his personal sin, and the great joy he had when God forgave him.

And then, it is very plain in that paragraph of the 3d chapter, which we have been upon, that it is the justification of piw’ticular persons that the apostle speaks of by that place in the Old Testament, which he refers to in ver. 20. ‘’ Therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified

* Sec Note on Rom. iii. iO.,..19, chap, v, ii, and ix. 30, 31.

in his sight.” He refers to that in Psal. cxliii. 2. Enter not into judgment with thy serlani; for in thy si.^Mit shall no man llvi7ig be justified.” Here the Psalmist not speaking of the justification of a nation, as a colleciive body, or of one of the two parts of the world, but of a panicular man. And it is further manifest, that the apostle is here speaking of pergonal justification, inasmuch as this place is evidently parallel with that. Gal. iii. 10, 11, “For as many as are of the woiks of the law, are under the curse: For it is wiiuen. Cursed is rvery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the works of the law, is evident; for the just shall live by faith.” It is plain, that this place is parallel with that in the 3d of Romans, not only as the thing asserted is the same, and the argument by which it is proved here, is the same as there, viz. that all are guilty, and exposed to be condemned by the law: But the same saying of the Old Testament is cited here in the be{2;inning of this discourse in Galatians; chap, ii, 16. And many other thing.s demonstrate, that the apostle is speaking of the same justification in both places, which I. omit for brevity’s sake.

And besides all these things, our author’s interpretation makes the apostle’s argument wholly void another way. The apostle is speaking of a certain subject, which cannot be justified by the works of the law; and his argument is, that that same subject is guilty, and is condemned by the law. If he means, that one subject, suppose a collective body or bodies, cannot be justified by the law, because another subject, another collective body, is condemned by the law, it is plain, the argument would be quite vain and impertinent. Yet thus the argument must s’and according to Dr. Taylor’s interpretation. The collective bodies, wl.ich he supposes are spoken of as wicked, and condemned by the law, cowsidcreil as in their colleciive capacity, are those two, the .Tewish nation, and the Heathen woild: But the c<illective body which he supposes the :ipusile speaks of as justified wiiliout the deeds of the law, is neither of these, but the Christian chuich, or body of believers; which is a new collective body, a new creature, and a new man (“according to our author*s understanding of such phrases) which never had any existence before it was justified, and therefore never was wicked or condemned, unless it was with regard to the individuals of M’hich it was constituted; and it does not appear, according to our author’s scheme, that thc?e individuals had before been generally wicked. For according to him, there was a number both among the Jews and Gentiles, that were righteous before. And how does it appear, but that the comparatively few Jews and Gentiles, of which this new created collective body was constituted, were chiefly of the best of each?

So that in every view, this author’s way of explaining this passage in the third of Romans, appears vain and absurd. And so clearly and fully has the apostle expressed himself, that it is doubtless impossible to invent any other sense to put upon his words, than that which will imply, that all mankind, even every individual of the whole race, but their Redeemer himself, are in their first original state, corrupt and wicked.

Before I leave this passage of the apostle, it may be proper to observe, that it not only is a most clear and full testimony to the native depravity of mankind, but also plainly declares that natural depravity to be total and exceeding great. It is the apostle’s manifest design in these citations from the Old Testament, to shew these three things. 1. That alt viankind are by nature corrufit. 2. That every one is altogether corrufit and, as it were, depraved in every part. S. That they are in every part corrtifu in an exceeding degree. With respect to the second of these, that every one is wholly, and, as it were, in every part corrupt, it is plain the apostle chooses out, and puts together those particular passages of the Old Testament, wherein most of those members of the body are mentioned, that are the soul’s chief instruments or organs of external action. The hands (implicitly) in those expressions, TV/q, are together become unfirofitahky There is r.one that doth good. The throat, tongue, lips and mouth, the organs of speech; in those words, “Their throat is an open sepulchre: With their tongues they have used deceit; The poison of asps is under their lifm; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.” The feet in those words, ver. 15, “Their feet are swift to shed blood.’* Thee thinfs together signify, that man is, as it were, all over corrupt in every part. And not only is the total corruption thus intimated, by enumerating the several parts, but by denyin.y:of all good; any true understanding or spiritual knowledge, any virtuous action, or so much as truly virtuous desire, or seeking after God. There is none that understandeth: There is none that seeketh after God: There is none that doth good: The way of peace have they not known. And in general, by denying all true piety or religion in men in their first state, ver. 18. “There is no fair of God before their eyes.” The expressions also are evidently chosen to denote a most extreme and desperate wickedness of heart. An exceeding depravity is ascribed to every part: To the throat, the scent of an ofien scjiulchrc; to the tongue and lips, deceit and the pcisoii ofasjis; to the mouth, cursing and bitterness; of their feet it is said, they arc swift ta shed blood: And with regard- to the whole man, it is said, dc structio7i nd misery are in their ways. The representation .is very strong of each of these things, viz. That all mankind are corrupt; that every one is rjholly and altogether corrupt; and also extremely and desperately corrupt. And it is plain, it is not accidental, that we have here such a collection of such strong exprcssioiis, so emphatically signifying these things; but that they are chosen of the apostle on design, as being directly and fully to his purpose; which purpose appears in all his discourse in the whole of this chapter, and indeed from the beginning of the epistle.

SECTION III.

Observations on “Romins V. 6.. ..10^ and Ephesians li. 3, with the Context and Romans vii.

ANOTHER passage of this apostle in the same epistle to the Romans, which shews that all that are made partakers of the benefits of Christ’s redemption, are in their first state wicked, and desperately wicked, is that, chap. v. 6 ...10. “For when we were yet without strength in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventnre fbi* a good man, some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from nvrath through him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the dea h of his Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”

Here all that Christ died for, and that are saved by him, are spoken of as being in their first state sinners ungodly enemies to God, exposed to divine nvrath and without strength-^ without ability to help themselves, or deliver their souls from this miserable state.

Dr. Taylor says. The apostle here speaks of the Gentiles only in their heathen state in contradistinction to the Jews; and that not of particular persons among the heathen Gentiles, or as to the state they were in personally; but only of the Gentiles collectively taken, or of the miserable stale of that great collective body, the heathen world: And that these appellations, sinncrsi ungodly enemies, &c. were names by which the apostles in their writings were wont to sigTiify and distintinguish the heathen world, in opposition to the Jews; and that in this sense these appellations are to be taken in their epistles, and in this place in particular.* And it is observa-

Page 114.. ..120. Set- also Dv. Taylor’s Paraph, and Notes o» the placr.

ble, that this way of interpreting these phrases in the apostolic writings, is become tashicnublc with many late wiiteis; whereby they not only evade several clear testimonies to the doctrine of orip;inal ‘.in, but make void ^rcai pan of ihc New Testament; on which account it deserves the more particular consideration.

It is allowed to have been long common and cu«itomary among the Jews, in Christ’s and the apostle’s days, ebpcrially those of the sect of the Pharisees, in their pride and confidence in their privileges, as the peculiar people of God, to exalt themselves exceedingly above other nations, and greatly to despise the Gentiles, and call them by such names as sinner a enemies doga Sec. as notes of distinction from themselves, whom they accounted in general (excepting the publicans, and the notoriously proHigute) as xhafritnds special yw-zi/onVr*, and childrtn of God; because they were the children of Abraham, were circumcised, and had the law of Moses, as their peculiar privilege, and as a wall of partition between them and the Gentiles.

But it is very remarkable, that a Christian divine, who has studied the New Testament, and the epistle to the Romans in particular, so diligently as Dr. Taylor, should be strong in an imagination, that the apostles of Jesus Christ should so far countenance, and do so much to cherish these selfexalting, uncharitable dispositions and notions of the Jews, which gave rise to such a custom, as to fall in with that custom, and adopt that language of their pride and contempt; and especially that the Apostle Paul should do it. It is a most unreasonable imagination on many accounts.

1. The whole gospel dispensation is calculated entiicly to overthrow and abolish every thing to which this seifdisiinguishing, selfexalting language of t’^e Je’s was owing. It was calculate ’ wholly to exchide such boasiing, and lo destroy that pride and self righteousness that were the causes of it: It was calculated to tibolish the enmity, and break vvri the partition wall between Jews and Gentiles, and oftrj;ain to make one new man ao makinic ficace; to destroy al’ di- position* in nations and particular persons to dcipise one au’)thcr wf 9D say one to another, Stand by thyself come not near to inc; foi* I am holier than thou; and to establish the contrary principles of humility, mutual esteemj honor and love, and universal union, in the most firm and perfect manner.

2. Christ, when on earth, set himself, throuyh the course of his ministry, to militate against this pharisaical spirit, practice, and language of the Jews; appearing in such representations, names, and epithets, so customary among them; by M’hich they shewed so much contempt of the Gentiles, publicans, and such as were openly lewd and vicious, and so exalted themselves above them; calling them n’mners and enemies and themselves holy and God*s children; not allowing the Gentile to be their neighbor, Sec. He condemned the Pharisees for not esteeming themselves si?iners as well as the publicans; trusting in themselves that they were righteous, and despising others. He militated against these things in his own treatment of some Gentiles, publicans, and others, whom they called sinnersy and in what he said on those occasions.*

He opposed these notions and manners of the Jews in his parables,t and in his instructions to his disciples how to treat the unbelieving Jews and in what he says to Nicodemus about the necessity of a new birth, even for the Jews, as well as the unclean Gentiles, wit regard to their proselytism, w hich some of the Jews looked upon as a ncrj birth: And in opposition to their notions of their being the children of God, because the children of Abraham, but the Gentiles by nature sinners and children of wrath, he tells ihem that even they were children of the deviL

Matth. viu.5...13. Chap. ix. 9... 13. Chap. xi. 19 ..24. Chap, xv« ii...28. Luke vii. 37, to the end. Chap, xvii 1 2, .19. Chap. xix. i.,.xo. lohn iv. 9, &:c. ver. 39, &c. Compare Luke x. 29, &c. ‘* + Matth. xxi. 28.. .32, Chap. xxii. 1...10. Luke xiv. 16., ,24. Compare Luke xiii. 28, 29, 30. % Matth. x. 14, 15 |1 John viii. 33 ..44.

U may lilso be observed, that John the Baptist greatly contradicted the Tews’ opinion of themselves, as being a holy people, and accepted of God» because they were the children of Abraham, and on that account better thau thchcaihcn, whom they called kinutrs, tncmies, unclean, 5cc. in baptizing iIk’

3. Though we should suppose the aposlles not to have been thoroughly brought ofF from such notions, manners and language of the Jews, till after Christ’s ascension; yet after the pouring out of the Spirit on the day of pentecost, or ut least, after the calling of the Gentiles, lpcgun in the conversion of Cornelius, ihcy were fully indoctrinated in ihis matter, and effectually taught no longer to call the Geniilcs unclean, as a note of distinction from the Jews, Acts x. 28, which was before any of the apostolic epistles were written.

4. Of all the apostles, none were more perfectly instructed in this matter, and none so abundant in instruciing others in it, as Paul, the great Apostle of the Gentiles. He had abundance to do in this matter None of the apostles had so much occasion to exert themselves against the fore mentioned notions and languap:^; of the Jews, in opposition to Jewish teachers, and judaizing Christians, that strove to keep up the separation wall between Jews and Gentiles, and to exalt the former, and set the latter a* nought.

5. This apostle does especially strive in this matter in his epistle to.the Romans, above all his other writings; exerting himself in a most elaborate manner, and with his utmost skill and power, to bring the Jewish Christians off from every thing of this kind; endeavoring by all means that there might no longer be in them any remains of these old notions they had been educated in, of such a great distinction between Jews and Gentiles, as were expressed in the names they used to dislhiguish them by, calling the Jews holy, chilJren of Abraham, friends and children of God; but the Gentiles sinners, unclean, enemies, and the like. He makes it almost his whole business, from the beginning of the epistle, to this passage in the 5th chapter, which we are upon, to convince them that there was no ground for any such distinction, and

Jews as a polluted ^tolt, and sinntrs, as the Jews used to baptize proselytes from among the heathen; calling them to repentance as sinners, saying, “Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for 1 say unto pou, that God is able, of these stones, to raise up children unto Abiaham;” and teaching the Pharisees, that instead of their being a holy generation, a«d children of God, as they called thcmsclvcj, they were a gemrjtion o( lif’rrf.

to prove Ihat in common, both Jews and Gentiles, all wert desperately wicked, and none rigiUeous; no, not one. He tells them, chap. iii. 9, that the Jews were by no means better than the Gentiles; and (in what follows in that chapter) that there was no difTercncc between Jews and Gentiles; and represents all as without strength, or any sufficiency of their own in the affair of justification and redemption: And in the continuation of the same discourse, in the 4th chapter, teaches that all that were justified by Christ, were in themselves ungodly; and that being the children of Abraham was not peculiar to the jews. In this 5th chapter, siill in continuation of the same discourse, on the same subject and argument of justification through Christ, and by faith in him, he speaks of Christ’s dying for the uyigodly and sinners, and those that were without strength or sufficiency for their own salvation, &s he had done all along before. But now, it seems, the apos* tie by sinners and wigodly must not be understood according as he used these words before; hut must be supposed to mean only the Gentiles as distinguished from the Jews; adopting the language of those selfrighteous, selfexalting, disdainful, judaizing teachers, whom he was with all his might opposing; countenancing the Very same thing in them, which he had been from the beginning of the epistle discountenancing and endeavoring to discourage, and utterly to abolish, with all his art and strength.

One reason why the Jews looked on themselves better than the Gentiles, and called themselves holy andjhe Gentiles ainners was, that they had the law of Moses. They made thcf)- boast of the law. But the apostle shews them, that this was so far from making them better, thit it condemned them, and was an occasion of their being sinners, in a higher degree, and more aggravated manner, and more effect;rally and dreadfully dmd in, and by sin, chap. vii. 4... 13, agreeable to those words of Christ, John v. 45.

It cannot be justly objected here, that this apostle did indeed use this language, and call the Gentiles sinners, in contradistinction to the Jews, in what he said to Peter, which he himself gives an account of in Gal. ii. l5, 16.” We who

are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by feith in Jesus Christ “II is true that the apostle here refers k) this distinction, as what was usually made by the selfripht-IBOUS Jews, between themselves and the Gentiles, but not i such a manner as to adopt or favor it; but on the contrary, so as plainly to shew his disapprobation of it; 7. d.” Though we were born’ Jews, and by nature are of that people which are wont to make their boasi of the law, expecting to be justified by it, and trust in themselves that they are righteous, despising others, calling the Gentiles ainnera in distinction from themselves; yet we, being now instructed in the gospel of Christ, know better. We now know that a man is not justified by the works of the law; that we are all justified only by faith in Christ, in whom there is no difference, no distinction of Greek or Gentile and Jew, but all are one in Christ Jesus.’* And this is the very thing he there speaks of, which he blamed Peter for; that by his withdrawing and separating himself from the Gentiles, refusing to eat with them, fee. he had countenanced this selfexalting, seitdistinguishing, separating spirit and custom of the Jews, whereby they treated the Gentiles, as in a distinguishing manner, 5mners and unclean and not fit to come near them who were a holy people.

6. The words themselves of the apostle in this place, shew plainly, that he here uses the word minersy not as signifying Gentiles, in opposition to Jews, but as denoting the morally evil, in opposition to such as are righteous or good: Because this latter opposition or distinction between sinners and righteous is here expressed in plain terms.” Scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradveuture for a good man some would even dare to die; but God commended his love towards us, in that while we were yei sinners, Christ died for us.** By righteous men are doubtless meant the same that are meant by such a phrase, throughout this apostle’s writings, and throughout the New Testament, and throughout the Bible. Will any one pretend, that by the righteous man, whom men would scarcely die for, and by the good man, ♦hat per*

<^<l ORIGINAL SIN,

haps some might even dare to die for, is meant a Jew? Dr. Taylor himself does not explain it so, in his exposition of this epistle, and therefore is not very consistent with himself, in supposing; that in the other part of the distinction the apostle means Gentiles, as distineuished from the Jews. The apostle himself had been laboring abundantly, in the preceding part of the epistle, to prove that the Jews were sinners in this sense, namely, in opposition to righteous; that all had mnned, that all were under sin, and therefore could not be justified, could not be accepted as righteous by their own righteousness.

7. Another thing which makes it evident that the apostle, when he speaks in this place of the sinners and enemies which Christ died for, does not mean only the Gentiles, is that he includes himself amon them, saying, while ive were sinners, and when xve were enemies.

Our author from time to time says, The apostle, though lie speaks only of the Gentiles in their Heathen state, yet puts himaplf with therriy because he ‘was the afiostle of the Getitiles** But this is very violent and unreasonable. There is no more sense in it than there would be in a father’s ranking himself among his children, when speaking to his children of the benefits they have by being begotten by himself, and saying, We children. ...ox in a physician’s ranking himself v.ith his patients, when talking to them of their diseases

and cure, saying, IVe sick folks Paul being the apostle of

the Gentiles, to save them from their Heathenism, is so far from being a reason for him to reckon himself among the Heathen, that on the contrary, it is the very thing that would render it in a peculiar manner unnatural and absurd for him so to do. Because, as the apostle of the Gentiles, he appears as their healer and deliverer from Heathenism; and therefore in that capacity does in a peculiar manner appear in his distinction from the Heathen, and in opposition to the state of Heathenism. For it is by the most opposite qualities only, that he is fitted to be an apostle of the Heathen, and recovcrcr from Hcathcnisn;. As the clear light of the sun is the thing which makes i: a proper restorative from darkness; and therefore the sun’s bcinp; spoken of as such a remedy, none would suppose to be a good reason why it should he ranked wi-h darkness, or amont; dark thin;rs. And besides (whici’ luakts this supposition of Dr. Taylor’s appear more violent) the apostle in this epistle, docs expressly rank himself with the Jews, when he speaks of them as distinguished from the Cientiles, as in chapter iii. 9. *’ What then? Are -nr better than they?’* That is, arc w<- Jcivs better than the Gentilea?

It cannot justly be alleyed in opposition to this, thai the Apostle Per puts himself with the heathen, I Pet. iv. 3. “For’the time past of our life may sufiice us to have wroui’-ht the will of the Gentiles; when w walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, rcvcllings, banquctintjs, and abominable idolatries. For the Apostle Peter, (who by the wav was not an apostle of the Gentiles) here does not speak of himself as (Uie of the Heathen, but as one of the church of Christ in general, made up of those that had been Jews, Proselytes, and Heathens, who were now all one body, of which bodv he was a metr.ber. It is thisi society therefore, and no; ;!ie Gentiles, that he refers to in the pronoun us. He is speaking of the wickedness that the members of this body or society had lived in before their conversion; not that every member had lived in all those vices here mentioned, but some in one, others in another. Very parallel with that of the Apostle Paul to Titus, chap. iii. 3.” For ivc ourselves also (i. e. we of the Christian church) were sonjetimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, (some one lust and pleasure, others another) living in malice, envy, hateful and hating one another,*’ Sec. There is nothing in this, but what is very natural. That the apostle, speaking to the Christian church, and cf that church, confessing its former sins, should speak ol himself as one of that society, and yet mention some sins that he personally had not been v,’^ui!ty of, and among others. Heathenish idolatry, is quite a different ihiui;’ from wluit it would have been for the apostle, expressly distinguishing those of the Christians which had bceu

Heathen, from those which had been Jews, to have ranked biniiielf with the formei, though he was truly of the lattei*.

If a minister in some congregation in England, speaking in a sermon of the sins of the nation, being himself of the nation, shoiald say, “JVe have greatly corrupted ourselvesj and provoked God by our deism, blasphemy, profane swearing, lasciviousness, venality,** See. speaking in the first person plural, though he himself never had been a deist, and perhaps none of his hearers, and they might also have been generally free from other sins he mentioned; yet there “would be nothing unnatural in his thus expressing himself. But it would be a quite different thing, if one part of the British dominions, suppose our king’s American dominions, had universally apostatised from Christianity to deism, and had long been in such a state, and if one that had been born and brought up in England among Christians, the country being universally Christian, should be sent among them to shew them the folly and great evil of deism, and convert them to Christianity; and this missionary, when making a distinction between Enp:lish Christians, and these deists, shoul4 rank himself with the latter, and say, »’ JVe American deists, <ive foolish, blind infidels,’* Sec. this indeed would be very unnatural and absurd.

Another passage of the apostle, to the like purpose with that which we have been considering in the 5th of Romans, is that in Eph. ii. 3. “And were by nature children of wrath, even as others.” This remains a plain testimony to the doctrine of Original Sin, as held by those that used tQ be called orthodox Christians, after all the pains and art used to torture and pervert it. This doctrine is here not only plainly and fully taught, but abundantly so, il we take the words with the cf)ntext, where Christians are once and again represented as being, in their first state, dead in .sm, and as quickened-dmX rained uji from such a state of death, in a most marvellous display of free and rich grace and lo-vey and exceed-* ing greatness of the power of God,, Sec.

With respect to those words, jyasv TJKta (pye-ci o§ypy;, We were by tiature children ofivra’.h.^ Dr. Taylor says, pages 1 12..,. 14.

^’< The apostle means no more by this, than truly or really children of wrath; nainej a inctaphorical expression, borrowed fiom ihci word that is used to sipi;nify a true and genuine child of a family, in dislincuon from one that is a child only by adoption.’* In which il is owned, that the prop, er sense of the phrase is, beinj;; a child by naiure, in the same sense as a chrld by birth or natural generation; but only he supposes that here the word is used mrtafihorically The instance he produces as parallel, to contnm his supposed nieta- ‘phorical sense of the phrase, as meaning only tridu- really ., or firoperly children of wrath, viz. the Apostle Paul’s calling Timothy his own son in the faiths jtriamt texw», is so far from confirming his sense, that it is rather «Jirectly agiiinst it. For doubtless the apostle uses the word y»)<7»op in its original sig. nification here, meaninc; his btgotien son ymr*©* being the adjective from yoj-tj, oftspring, or the verb ymau-i to beget; as much as to say, Timothy my bt gotten son in the faith; only allowing for the two ways of being begotten, spoken of in the New Testament, one natural, and the other spiritual; one being the first generation, the other regeneration; the one a being begotten as to the human nature, the other a being begotten in the faith, begotten in Christ, or as to onc*8 Christianity. The apostle expressly signifies which of theae he means in this place, Timothy my begotten son in the faitij, in the same manner as he says to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. iv. 15. ‘’ In Christ JeusI have begotten you through the gospel.” To say the apostle uses the word (pv7H, in Eph. ii. 3, only as signifying reel, true, and proper, is a most arbitrary interpretation, having nothing to warrant it in the whole Bible. The word (py<7K is no where used in this sense in the New Testament.*

Another thing which our author alleges to evade the force of this, is that the word rendered nature sometimes signifies habit contracted by custom or an acquired nature. But this is not the proper meaning of the word. And it is plain the

‘* The following are ail the other places whcic the word is use<i, Ri-m i. 16, ii. 14, 27, xi. 21, 24, tKrice in that verse, i Cor. xi. 14. G V. 8. y.’nie<i ill. 7, twice in thjt v r -• ^^.A” P *. i 4,

5> F.

‘b M’ovd in its common use, in the New Testament, signifief what we properly express in English by the word nature*- ‘J’hpre is but one place where there can be the least pretext for supposing- it can be used otherwise; and that is 1 Cor. xi. 14. “Doth not even rzaz/rr itself teach you, that if a man liavc loni; hair, it is a shame unto him?” And even here there is, I think, no manner of reason for understanding na- /?/rr otherwise than in the proper sense. The emphasis used avrv n <pv(Ti;, nature itself shews that the apostle does not ihcan custom but nature in the proper sense. It is true, it was long custom, that made having the head covered a token of subjection, and a feminine habit or appearance; as it is custom that makes any outward action or word a sign or signification of any tlung; but nature itself nature in its proper sense, leaches that it is a shame for a man to appear with the established signs of the female 6ex, and with significations of inferiority, &:c. As nature itself shews it to be a shame for a father to bow down or kneel to his own child or servant, or for men to bow to an idol, because bowing down is by custom an established token or sign of subjection and submission; such a sight, therefore, would be unnatural, shocking to a man’s very nature. So nature would teach that it is a shame for a woman to use such and such lascivious words or gestures, though it be custom, that establishes the unclean signification of those gestures and sounds.

It is pariicularly unnatural and unreasonable, to understand the phrase, Tjjcva (pvcet, in this place, any otherwise than in the proper sense, on the following accounts.

1. It may be observed that both the words rsxyat and (pvcri^ in their original signification, have refererlce to the birth or jjeneration. So the word <pyo-»j, which comes from Ovw, which signifies to beget, or bring forth young, or to put forth, or bud forth as a plant that brings forth young buds and branches. And so the word Tmvov comes from tiKtu which signifies to bring forth children.

‘2. As though the apostle took care by the word used here, to signify what we arc by birih, he changes the word he used before for children. In the preceding vcMse lie used not, speakinp: of the children of disobedience; but hci’c TSK»a, which is a word derived, as was now ohscivcd, from T»xTw, to brinLi forth a chikl, and more propcily signilics a begotten or born child.

3. It is natural to suppose that the uposile here speaks in opposition to the pride of some, especially the Jews, (for the church in Kphesus was made up partly of Jews, as well as the church in Rome) who exalted themselves in the privileges they had by birth, because they were bow t’ne chiicireu of Abraham, and were Jews by vaiurr <pv(T$i IbJaiot, as the phrase is, Gal. ii. 15. In opposition to this proud conceit, he teaches the Jews, that notwithstanding this they were by nature children of wrath, even as others i. c. as well as the Gentiles, which the Jews had been lau’^ht to look upon as fiinners and out of favor with God by ?iaturry and b’jim c/iiidrer f wrath.

4. It is more plain, that the apostle uses the word natnrt in its proper sense here, because he sets what they were by nature, in opposition to what they are by grace. In this verse, the apostle shews what they are by nature, viz. children of wrath; and in the following verses he shews how very different their state is by grace, saying, verse 5, By grace ye are saved, repeating it again, verse 8, By grace ye are saved. But if by being children of wrath by nature, were meant no more than only their being really and truly children of wrath, as Dr. Taylor supposes, there would be no opposition in the signilicalion of these phrases; for in this sense they were by nature in a state of salvation, as much as by naturrthildrcn of nvrath; for they were truly, really, and firofurlij in a state of salvation.

If we take these words with the context, the whole abundantly proves that by nature we are totally corrupt, without any good thing in us. I’or if we allow the plain scope of the place, without attempting to hide it, by extreme violence used with the apostle’s words and expressions, the de«>ign here is strongly to establish thii point; that what Christians have that is good in them, or in their state, is in no ftart of it naturallv in ihemsclves, or from themselves, hut is t^Vvc//.; from dhnne grace, all the ffi of God and his ivorkmanshifiih effect of his power, and free and wonderful love: None of our j>^ood works are prinaarilv from ourselves, but with res* peel to thein all, ‘we are God’s ivorkmanshifi created unto good tvorks as it were out of nothinej: Not so much 2i% faith itself the fiist principle of food works in Christians, is of themselves, but that is the gift of God.

Therefore the apostle compares the work of God, in forming Christians to true virtue anrl holiness, not only to a near creation ^hvit 2k resurrection ov rAHiTi from the dead, ver. I. “You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” And again, ver. 5. “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.” In speaking of Christians being quickened with Christ, the apostle has reference to what he had said before, in the latter part of the foregoing chapter, of God’s manifesting the exceeding greatness of his flower towards Christian converts in their conversion, agreeable to the operation of his mighty fio’iver when he raised Christ from the dead. So that it is plain by every thing in this discourse, the apostle would signify, that by nature we have no goodness; but are as destitute oi it as a dead corpse is of life: And that all goodness, all good works, and faith the principle of all, are perfectly the gift of God’s grace, and the work of his great, almighty, and exceeding excellent power. I think, there can be vi.^A of nothing but reading the chapter and minding what is read, ‘o convince all who have common linderstanding, of this; whatever any of the most subtle critics have done, w ever can do, to twist, rack, perplex, and pervert the words and phraipes here used.

Dr. Tayhr here again insists, that the apostle speaks only of the Gentiles in their heathen stale, when he speaks of those that were dead in sin, and by nature children of wrath; and that though he seems to include himself among these, saying, “We were by nauire children of wrath, we were dead in sins;” yet he only puis himself among them because he wa:^ the apostle ol the (it.niilos. The gross absurdity of which may appear from what was said before. But besides the things which have been alrealy observed, there arc some thin which make it peculhrly unreasonable to understand it so here. It is true, the greater part of the church of £ph©- sus had been heathens, and therefore the aposile often has reference to their heathen state, in this epistle. But the »ords in this chap. ii. 3, plainly shew, that he means himself «Uid other Jews in distinction from the Gentiles; for the distinction is fully expressed- After he had told the Ephcsiani, who had been generally heathen, that they had lpcen dead in sin, and had walked according to the course of thia world, 8cc. ver. 1 and 2, he makes a distinction, and says, “Among whom life also had our conversation, &c. and were by nature children of wrath, even as others,** Here first he changes the per(kpn; whereas, before he had spoken in the second person, “Ye were dead....y”e in time past walked,’* &c. Now he changes ?<lile, and uses the first person, in a most manifest distinction, Among whom lue also** that is, lue Jews, as well as yc Gen 4iles: Not only changing the person, but adding a particle of distinction, also; which would be nonsense, if he meant the same without distinction. And besides all this, more fully to express the distinction, the apostle further adds a pronoun of distinction: “IVe also, even as others** or, we as well as others: Most evidently having respect to the notions, so generally entertained by the Jews, of their being much better than the Gentiles, in being Jews by nature, children of Abraham, and children of God; when they supposed the Gentiles to be utterly cast off, as born aliens, and by nature children ofiirath: In opposition to this, the apostle says,” We Jews, after all our glorying in our distinction, luere by nature children of vprath, as luell as the rest of the ivorld.’* And a yet further evidence, that the apostle here means to include the Jews, and even himself, is the universal term he uses, “Among whom also we all had our conversation,” €cc. Though wickedness was supposed by the Jews to be the course of this ^voorlcl, as to the generality of mankind, yet they supposed themselves an exempt people, at least the Pharisees, and the devout observers of the law of Moses, and traditions of the elders; whatever might be thought of publicans and harlots. But in oppo* sition to this, the apostle asserts, that they rU were no belter by nature than others, but were to be reckoned among the

children of disobedience, and children of wrath.

And then besides, if the apostle chooses to put himself among the Gentiles, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, I would ask, why does he not do so in the 1 1th verse of the same chapter, where he speaks of their Gentile state expressly? Remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh. Why does he here make a distinction between the Gentiles and himself? Why did he not say, Let us remember, that we being in times past Gentiles? And why does the same apostle, even universally, make the same distinction, speaking either in the second or third person, and never in the first, where he expressly speaks of the Gentilism of those that he wrote to; or speaks of them with reference to their distinction from the Jews? So every where in this same epistle; as in chap. i. 12, 13, where the distinction is made just in the same manner as here, by the change of the person, and by the distinguishing particle, also. “That ive should be to the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ (the first believers in Christ being of the Jews, before the Gentile* were called) in whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation,” And in all the following part of this second chapter, as ver. 11, 17, 19, and 22, in which last verse the same distinguishing particle again is used: “In whom ye also are buikled together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” See also the following chapters: Chap. iii. 6, and iv. 17. And not only in this epistle, but constantly in other epistles; as Rom. i. 12, 13; chap, xi. 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,22,23,24, 25, 28, 30, 31; chap, XV. 15, 16; 1 Cor. xii. 2; Gal. iv. 8; Col. i. 27; chap. ii. 13; 1 Thess. i. 5, 6, 9; chap. ii. 13, 14, 15, 16,

Though I am far from thinking our author’s exposition of the 7lh chapter of Romans to be in any wise agreeable to the true sense of the apostle, yet it is needless here to stand particularly to examine it; because the doctrine of Original Sin may be argued not the less strongly, though we should allow the thing wherein he mainly differs from such as he oppose* in his interpretation, viz. That the apostle does not speak in his own name, or to represent the state of a true Christian, but as representing the state of the Jews under the law. For even on this supposition, the drift of the place will prove, that every one who is under the law, and with equal reason everyone of mankind, L» carnal, sold under ain, in his first state, and till delivered by Christ. For it is plain, that the apostle’s design is (o shew the insufficiency of the law t« give life to any one whatsoever. This appears by what he says when he comes to draw his conclusion, in the continuation of this discourse; chap. viii. 3.* “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak ihrouch the flesh; God sending his own Son,” &c. Our author supposes this here spoken of, viz. “That the law cannot give life, because it is weak through the flesh,” is true with respect to every one of mankind.^ And when the apostle gives this reason, In that it is -ivcak throng/y the Jlesh, it is plain, that by the ,flesh, which here he opposes to the Sfiirit, he means the same thing which, in the preceding part of the same discourse, in the foregoing chapter, he had called by t+ie nameT^e*/;, ver. 5, 1 4, 18; and the Imv of the viembers, ver. 23; and the body of death, ver. 24. Which is the thing that through this chapter he insists on as the grand hindrance and reason why the law could not give life, just as he does in his conclusion, chap. viii. S. Which in this last place, is given as a reason why the law cannot give life to any of mankind. And it being the same reanon of the same thing, spoken of in the same discourse, in the former part of it; as appears, because this last place is the conclusion, of which that former part is the premises: And inasmuch as the reason there given is being in the flesh, and a be ing carnal, sold under sin: Therefore taking the whole of the apostle’s discourse, this is justly understood to be a reason why the law cannot give life to any of mankind; and consequently, that all mankind are in the fesh, and are carnal, sold -under sin, and so remain till delivered by Ghrist: And consequently, all mankind in their first or original state arc very sinful; which was the thing to be proved.

Dr. Taylor himself reckons this a part of the siine disrourc or par graph, in the division he makes of liie epis’.K-, in his painpliras- and notes :iP0D it. + See Note on Rom. v.