to Dr. C's construction of willingly in Rom. 8, the meaning of the apostle is, If I preach the gospel "through some fault of my own," or "by my own criminal choice," I have a reward; but if I do it without any fault or criminal choice of my own, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. Exovolos derivfrom xv, and of the same signification, is in the New Testament used in Phil. 14, only, "That thy benefit should not be of necessity, but willingly;" which I presume even Dr. C. would not expound thus: That thy benefit should not be of necessity, but through some fault of thine own. The adverb, έκουσίως, is used twice in the New Testament, Heb. 10: 26, "If we sin wilfully, after we have received the knowledge of the truth;" and 1 Pet. 5: 2, "Taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint but willingly." To the first of these the Doctor in a quotation from Taylor, refers, as an authority, to confirm his sense of willingly in Rom. viii. But surely both he and Taylor made this reference with little consideration; for according to them the sense of the verse in Hebrews is this: If after we have received the knowledge of the truth, we sin "through our own fault," or "by our own criminal choice." Did Dr. C. or Dr. T. indeed believe, that we ever sin without any fault of our own, or without our own criminal choice? It is plain, that the meaning of Heb. 10: 26, is what is well expressed in the translation: If we sin wilfully, not through some inattention, but pertinaciously, after we know the truth, know our duty and the proper motives to it; there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.

Thus the construction, which Dr. C. gives of willingly, as meaning, "through our own fault," or "by our own criminal choice," appears to be wholly unsupported by any authority; to be a mere invention to help over the difficulty of the supposition, that the inspired apostle should advance so trifling a proposition as this; that mankind do not choose misery; and also appears to be attended with many absurdities.

The error of that construction further appears from this, that if what comes upon us not through our own fault, be properly expressed by saying, that we are subjected to it, not willingly ; then what does come upon us through our own fault, may be properly expressed, by saying, it comes upon us willingly. At this rate the inhabitants of the old world were drowned willingly; Sodom and Gomorrah were burnt up willingly; Pharaoh was first plagued, and then destroyed in the Red Sea willingly ; Korah, Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up in the earth willingly; those whom Dr. C. supposes to be punished in hell for ages of ages, are punished willingly.

Neither is it true, in Dr. C's sense, that mankind are made subject to vanity, not willingly; i. e. "Not through any fault of theirs ;""not by their own criminal choice." By vanity he understands "mortality," "and the infelicities of this vain mortal life." Therefore according to him, men are not made subject to mortality, and the infelicities of this life, through any fault of their own. And if so, then death and the various infelicities of life are not any evidence, that the subjects of death and those infelicities are themselves sinners, or the objects of God's displeasure. But this is contrary to the whole current of scriptural representations; particularly to Ps. 90: 3, etc. "Thou turnest man to destruction, and sayest, Return ye children of men. Thou carriest them away, as with a flood; they are as a sleep. In the morning they are like grass, which groweth up; in the evening it is cut down and withereth. For they are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath they are troubled. Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance. For our days are passed away in thy wrath; we spend our days as a tale that is told. The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath. So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts to wisdom." "How plain and full is this testimony, that the general mortality of mankind is an evidence of God's anger for the sin of those, who are the subjects of such a dispensation ?"*

But if mortality and the calamities of life be an evidence of God's anger at the sin of those who suffer death and those calamities; then it is not true, that men in general are subjected to death and those calamities without any fault of their own; but the truth is, that they are subjected to them on account of their own sin, as this is the very cause of the divine anger, of which calamity and death are the effects and tokens.

If it should be objected, that to be made subject to vanity, in this passage, does not mean, to be made actually to suffer death and infelicity, or does not include the infliction of death and infelicity; but implies mortality only, or that constitution whereby men are made mortal or liable to death and infelicity; this objection grants, that death and infelicity are actually inflicted on

For further proof that temporal death and infelicities come on men, on account of their own sins, I beg leave to refer the reader to President Edwards' book on Original Sin, Part I. Chap. II.

men on account of their own fault or sin; but holds, that the sentence of mortality and liableness to infelicity took place in consequence of Adam's sin only. So that according to this, the sense of the apostle will be, That the human race was put under a sentence of mortality, without any fault of their own; yet this sentence was never to be executed, but on account of their own fault. And the consideration that mankind are put under the sentence of mortality, without any fault of their own, is a ground of hope, that they will be delivered from that sentence of mortality. But as the actual infliction of death is on account of their own fault, there is no such ground of hope, that they will be delivered from death and infelicity themselves. A mighty privilege this (were it possible) to be delivered from the sentence of death, and from mortality, but not from death itself! To be delivered from liableness to infelicity, but not from infelicity itself!

I am not insensible of the absurdity and impossibility of such a supposition. But who is answerable for this absurdity? Doubtless the objector himself, who is of the opinion, that to be made subject to vanity, is to be under the sentence of death, and to be made liable to infelicity, but not to suffer death or infelicity.

The idea, that to be made subject to vanity, nerdyn, means not the state of subjection to vanity, but the act by which the creature was subjected; and that did tov vлorážavia means as Dr. C. says,* by or through him, who subjected it; implies this further absurdity, that the act, by which the creature was made subject to vanity, was by him who subjected it; or that act was really the act of him whose act it was; that he who subjected the creature to vanity, really did subject it to vanity. But who will dare to impute such identical propositions to the inspired apostle ?

V. We at length come to consider Dr. C's sense of the phrase bondage of corruption. This according to him is synonymous with vanity. Therefore the same observations for substance, which were made concerning his sense of vanity, are applicable to his sense of the bondage of corruption. But a few things in particular are worthy of remark. Dr. C. says, that in consequence of the subjection of man "to a frail, mortal, corruptible condition -he is upon the foot of mere law, and without the supposition of grace or gospel, in bondage to bodily or animal appetites and inclinations." It seems then, that since all christianized nations are under not mere law, but grace, and gospel, they are not in bondage to bodily or animal appetites and inclinations, and

doubtless for the same reason, are not in bondage to any principle of depravity. But is this indeed so, that men under mere law are so depraved, as to be in bondage to animal appetites; but as soon as they are placed under the gospel, in the mere external dispensation of it, they are no longer the subjects of any depravity? It seems then, that the natural depravity of men depends on their mere external circumstances; that while they are without the gospel their hearts are in bondage to animal appetites; but as soon as they are placed under the gospel, however they disregard it, they are free from that bondage. But all those nations to whom Christianity is published, are under the gospel ; therefore they are already free from bondage to animal appetites; and it is absurd for them to hope, that they shall be delivered from this part of the bondage of corruption.

Beside; Dr. C. says, that "both these senses of bondage,” [i. e. bondage to death and bondage to animal appetites] "are certainly included in that vanity the creature is subjected to."* Then by the creature Dr. C. must mean, not the whole moral creation, or all mankind including those nations and individuals to whom the gospel is made known; because they are not under mere law, and therefore according to him are not subjected to that part of vanity which consists in bondage to animal appetites. Yet he abundantly holds, that all men are subjected to vanity, which certainly includes, according to him, bondage to animal appetites.

According to Dr. C. vanity includes bondage to bodily or animal appetites. Yet mankind are subjected to vanity not through any fault or crime of their own. But is it not a fault or crime in any man, to be governed by his bodily appetites, or to be in bondage to them? With what truth or consistency then could he hold, that men are subjected to vanity not through any fault or crime of their own, and that therefore their subjection to vanity is a ground of hope of deliverance from it; when the very state of subjection to vanity is a very great fault or crime? Can a fault or crime be a ground of hope of impunity, or of the divine favor?

But perhaps it may be pleaded, that though the state of subjection, or the being subject to vanity, implies a fault; yet the act of subjecting, or the act by which mankind were subjected to vanity, is not through, or on account of any previous fault of mankind in general; and this is the ground of hope that they shall be delivered. If this be the meaning of Dr. C. it comes to this. That because mankind are, in consequence of Adam's sin,

* Page 109.

not their own personal sin, subjected by God to frailty, mortality, bodily appetites and sin; therefore they do not deserve to be left without hope of deliverance; the divine perfections do not admit of it; it would not be just; at least it would be a hard case. Otherwise, where is the ground of hope of deliverance? No promise is pleaded as the ground of this hope. The only pretended ground of hope in this argument is, that mankind were subjected to vanity, not through any fault of their own; as in the following passage: "For if mankind were subjected to a state of suffering, not through any wilful disobedience which they themselves had been personally guilty of, it is congruous to reason to think, that they should be subjected to it not finally-but with room for hope that they should be delivered from it; and was it not for this hope, it cannot be supposed—it would be a reflection on the benevolence of the Deity to suppose, that they would have been subjected to it."* But if this subjection to vanity by God be perfectly just, what right have we to expect, that God will deliver all men from the consequences of it? Have we a right without a divine promise, to expect that God will suffer none of the sinful race of men to bear the consequences of a just and wise constitution? And would it be a reflection on the Deity, not to expect this?

So that this whole argument of Dr. C. implies that God in subjecting mankind, on account of Adam's sin, "to a state of suffering," made an unjust constitution. Yet Dr. C. himself abundantly holds, that this is a real constitution of God.

At the same time, it is implied in all this, that if mankind had been thus subjected to vanity, in consequence of their own personal sin; they might justly have been left without hope. Thus it is really granted by Dr. C. after all his labor to prove the contrary, that the personal sins of men, deserve a hopeless state of suffering. And the whole question in the present view of it, comes to this, Whether the personal actual sins of mankind, under the present divine constitution, be real sins, and deserve the punishment justly due to sin; or whether these sins be not excusable, because they are the established consequence of Adam's transgression, and not the consequence of their own voluntary

act. Or in other words, whether the moral evil of any action consist in the nature of the action itself, or in its cause or antecedents. Of this question I should be very willing to enter into the discussion, were it necessary; but as it has been so particularly considered by another author, I beg leave to refer to

* Page 102.