And this cannot be denied, supposing, 1. Man's original righteousness. 2. Adam's being the federal head of all mankind. (p. 6.)

6

"Man's original righteousness has been largely proved. Let me add only an argument ad hominem. Supposing (not granting) that the Son of God, is no more than the first of creatures, either he was originally righteous, or he was not. If he was not, then time was, when he was not The Holy One of God;' and possibly he never might have been such, no, nor righteous at all: but instead of that, as ungodly, guilty, and wretched as the Devil himself is. For the best creature is (Dr. Taylor grants) alterable for the worse, and the best when corrupted becomes the worst. Again, if the Son of God was a mere creature, and as such made without righteousness (which every creature must be according to Dr Taylor) then he was not, could not be at first as righteous, as like God as the holy angels are now, yea, as any holy man on earth is. But if these suppositions are shockingly absurd, if the Son of God could not have become as bad as the Devil, if he never was unrighteous, if he was not originally less holy, than angels and men are now: then the assertion, "That righteousness must be the effect of a creature's antecedent choice and endeavour," falls to the ground. (p. 7. 9.)

It

"But the Hebrew word Jasher, Dr. Taylor says "does not generally signify a moral character.” This is one of the numerous critical mistakes in this gentleman's books. Of the more than 150 texts in which Jasher, or the substantive Josher occurs, there are very few which do not confirm our interpretation of Eccles. vii. 29. "But Jasher is applied to various things not capable of moral action." is, and what then? Many of these applications are neither for us nor against us. Some make strongly for us; as when it is applied to the words or ways of God and man. But the question now is, what it signifies, when applied to God or to moral agents, and that by way of opposition to a vicious character and conduct? Is it not in the text before us, applied to man as a moral agent, and by way of opposition to a corrupt character and conduct? No man can deny it. Either, therefore, prove, That Jasher, when opposed, as here, to a corrupt conduct and character, does not signify righteous, or acknowledge the truth, that God created man upright or righteous.' (p. 11.)

"To evade the argument from Eph. iv. 24, Dr. Taylor first says, "The old man means an heathenish life," and then says, "The old and new man do not signify a course of life." What then do they signify? Why, "The old man," says he, "relates to the Gentile state and the new man is either the Christian state, or the Christian church, body, society." But, for all this, he says again a page or two after, "The old and new man, and the new man's being renewed, and the renewing of the Ephesians do all manifestly refer to their Gentile state and wicked course of life, from which they were lately converted." (p. 13)

"When then the Apostle says, (Rom. vi. 6.) Our old man is crucified with Christ,' is it the Gentile state or course of life which was so crucified? No: but the corrupt nature,' the body of sin,' as it is

termed in the same verse. And to put off the old man' is (according to St. Paul) to crucify this with its affections and desires.' On the other hand, To put on the new man is to cultivate the divine principle, which is formed in the soul of every believer, by the Spirit of Christ. It is this of which it is said, 1. It is created; and in regard to it we are said to be created unto good works.' 2. It is renewed; for it is indeed no other than original righteousness restored. 3. It is after God, after his image and likeness, now stamped afresh on the soul. 4. It consists in righteousness and holiness, or that knowledge which comprehends both. (p. 14.)

"Again, to that argument, "Either man at first loved God, or he was an enemy to God," Dr. Taylor gives only this slight superficial answer, "Man could not love God before he knew him :" without vouchsafing the least notice of the arguments which prove, that man was not created without the knowledge of God. Let him attend to those proofs, and either honestly yield to their force, or if he is able, fairly confute them.

"The doctrine of original sin pre-supposes,

"2. Adam's being the federal head of all mankind. Several proofs of this having been given already, I need not produce more till those are answered.

"II. God imputes our sins or the guilt of them to Christ. He consented to be responsible for them, to suffer the punishment due for them. This sufficiently appears from Isa. liii. which contains a summary of the scripture doctrine upon this head. He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.' The word Nasa (borne) signifies, 1. To take up somewhat, as on one's shoulders; 2. To bear or carry something weighty, as a porter does a burden; 3. To take away: and in all these senses it is here applied to the Son of God: he carried, as a strong man does a heavy burden (the clear, indisputable sense of the other word, Sabal) our sorrows; the sufferings of various kinds, which were due to our sins. 'He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities.' Wounds and bruises are put for the whole of his sufferings; as his death and blood frequently are. He was wounded and bruised, not for sins of his own; not merely to show God's hatred of sin; not chiefly, to give us a pattern of patience: but for our sins, as the proper, impulsive cause. Our sins were the procuring cause of all his sufferings. His sufferings were the penal effects of our sins. The chastisement of our peace,' the punishment necessary to procure it, was laid on him, freely submitting thereto and by his stripes,' (a part of his sufferings again put for the whole,) we are healed: pardon, sanctification, and final salvation, are all purchased and bestowed upon us. Every chastisement is for some fault. That laid on Christ was not for his own, but ours; and was needful to reconcile an offended Lawgiver, and offending guilty creatures to each other. So 'the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all,' that is, the punishment due to our iniquity. (p. 17-20.)

:

"It is true, as Dr. Taylor says, "Sin and iniquity often signify af

fliction or suffering." But why? Because it is usual for a cause to give denomination to its effect. And so the consequences of sin are called by the same name. But this rather hurts Dr. Taylor's cause than helps it. For sufferings could with no propriety be called sin, if they were not the proper effects of it. Man in innocence was liable to no suffering or sorrow; he was indeed tried; but not by suffering. All sorrow was introduced by sin; and if man is born to trouble,' it is because he is born in sin. God indeed does afflict his children for their good; and turns even death into a blessing. Yet as it is the effect of sin, so is it in itself an enemy to all mankind: nor would any man have been either tried or corrected by affliction, had it not been for sin. (p. 21, 22.)

"The Lord's laying on Christ the iniquity of us all' was eminently typified by the high-priest, putting all the iniquities of Israel on the scape-goat,' who then carried them away. "But the goat," says Dr. Taylor, "was to suffer nothing." This is a gross mistake. It was a sin-offering, (ver. 5,) and as such was to bear upon him all the iniquities' of the people into the wilderness, and there (as the Jewish doctors unanimously hold,) to suffer a violent death, by way of punishment, instead of the people, for their sins put upon him. Yet Dr. Taylor says, "Here was no imputation of sin." No! What is the difference between imputing sins, and putting them upon him? This is just of a piece with "A sin-offering that suffered nothing." A creature "turned loose into a land the properest for its subsistence," while bearing upon him all the iniquities of God's' people!" (p. 23 -25.)

"Thus Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.' Dr. Taylor when he wrote his late books, was not apprised of the usual scripture-meaning of this awful word curse. It is often put to signify, the legal punishment of sin. What the law of God threatens against transgressors, or the threatening itself, is frequently called by this name. What signifies then his trifling observation, "That God inflicted no curse on our first parents, Gen. iii. 16. 18." That is, he did not say in so many words, "Cursed art thou, O man, or, O woman." But God's cursing the ground for man's sake,' was really a curse pronounced against him; and what the Lord said to the woman was really a curse, a penalty legally inflicted on her. For God is then said to curse, when he either threatens to punish, or actually punishes his creatures for sin. See Deut. xxvii. 15, &c. chap. xxviii. 16, &c. Jer. xvii. 5. Zech. v. 3. (p. 39, 40.)

"To conclude. Either we must allow the imputation of Adam's sin, whatever difficulties attend it, or renounce justification by Christ, and salvation through the merit of his blood. Accordingly the Socinians do this. Whether Dr. Taylor does, let every thinking man judge, after having weighed what he writes, particularly at p. 72, 73, of his Scripture-Doctrine. "The worthiness of Christ is his consummate virtue. It is virtue that carrieth every cause in heaven. Virtue is the only price which purchaseth every thing with God.

And

True virtue, or the right exercise of reason, is true worth, and the only valuable consideration, the only power which prevails with God." These passages are indeed connected with others, which carry with them a show of ascribing honour to Christ and grace. But the fallacy lies open to every careful, intelligent, unprejudiced reader. He ascribes to Christ a singular worthiness; but it is nothing more than a superior degree, of the same kind of worthiness which belongs to every virtuous man. He talks of Christ's consummate virtue, or his obedience to God, and good-will to man. to this virtue of his, as imitated by us, he would teach us to ascribe our acceptance with God: which is, indeed, to ascribe. it to ourselves, or to our own virtue; to works of righteousness done by us, in direct opposition to the whole tenor of the gospel. To what dangerous lengths are men carried by an ignorance of God, as infinitely holy and just; by a fond conceit of their own abilities, and a resolved opposition to the doctrine of original sin! Rather than allow this, they renounce Christ, as the meritorious procurer of salvation for sinners. They may seem indeed to acknowledge him as such, and talk of "Eternal life as given by God through his Son." But all this is mere show, and can only impose on the ignorant and unwary. They dare not profess in plain terms, that Christ has merited salvation for any neither can they consistently allow this, while they deny origi nal sin. (p. 80, 81.)

"Let not any then who regard their everlasting interests entertain or even tamper with doctrines, which how plausibly soever recommended, are contrary to many express texts, nay, to the whole tenor of Scripture, and which cannot be embraced without renouncing an humble dependance on Christ, and rejecting the gospel-method of salvation. (p. 82.)

"God grant every reader of this plain treatise may not only be convinced of the truth and importance of the scripture-doctrines maintained therein, but invincibly confirmed in his attachments to them, by an experimental knowledge of their happy influence on faith, holiness, and comfort! Then shall we gladly say, We, who are made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, are made righteous by the obedience of Christ. His righteousness entitles us to a far better inheritance than that we lost in Adam. In consequence of being justified through him, we shall reign in life with him: unto whom, with God the Father, and the sanctifying, comforting Spirit, be ascribed all praise for ever!" (p. 83.)

VOL. 9.-F f

· PART VI.

The Doctrine of Original Sin explained and vindicated.

"The phrase, Original Sin, so far as we can discover, was first used in the fourth century. The first who used it was either St. Chrysostom, or Hilary, some of whose words are these: "The Psalmist says, Behold I was conceived in iniquities, in sins did my mother conceive me.' He acknowledges, that he was born under original sin, and the law of sin." Soon after Hilary's time, St. Augustine and other Christian writers brought it into common use. (p. 2, 3.)

"The scriptural doctrine of original sin may be comprised in the following propositions:

"I. Man was originally made righteous or holy:

every

"II. That original righteousness was lost by the first sin: "III. Thereby man incurred death of kind: for, "IV. Adam's first sin was the sin of a public person, one whom God had appointed to represent all his descendants:

"V. Hence all these are from their birth children of wrath, void of all righteousness, and propense to sin of all sorts.

"I add, VI. This is not only a truth agreeable to Scripture and reason, but a truth of the utmost importance, and one to which the churches of Christ from the beginning, have bore a clear testimony.

"I. Man was originally made righteous or holy formed with such a principle of love and obedience to his Maker, as disposed and enabled him to perform the whole of his duty with ease and pleasure. This has been proved already. And this wholly overturns Dr. Taylor's fundamental aphorism, "Whatever is natural is necessary, and what is necessary is not sinful." For if man was originally righteous or holy, we may argue thus. It was at first natural to man to love and obey his Maker: yet it was not necessary: neither as necessary is opposed to voluntary or free; (for he both loved and obeyed freely and willingly) nor, as necessary means unavoidable; (this is manifest by the event;) no, nor as necessary is opposed to rewardable. For had he continued to love and obey, he would have been rewarded with everlasting happiness. Therefore that assertion "whatever is natural is necessary," is palpably, glaringly false. Consequently, what is natural as well as what is acquired, may be good or evil, rewardable or punishable. (p. 10.)

"II. Man's original righteousness was lost by the first sin. Though he was made righteous, he was not made immutable. He was free to stand or fall. And he soon fell, and lost at once both the favour and image of God. This fully appears, 1. From the ac