him. I beg the reader's patience however, while I make only one or two brief observations.

If the present actions of mankind be excusable, because they are the consequence of Adam's transgression and not of their own previous sinful actions or volitions in the first instance; it will follow that there is no sin or moral evil in the world, nor ever has been. All the present actions of men, if they be excusable, are no moral evil. The same is true of all the actions of men ever since the fall of Adam. And even Adam's transgression itself is no moral evil; for this did not take place in consequence of any previous criminal choice or action; because by supposition, that transgression was the first sin committed by man. Whatever transgression he first committed, is the very transgression of which we are speaking; and it is absurd to talk of a sin previous to the first sin.

Concerning Dr. C's idea, that mankind are subjected to mortality, infirmity, and the influence of bodily appetites, on account of Adam's sin only, without any regard to their personal sins; and that this subjection was the cause and occasion of all the actual transgressions and temporal calamities of the posterity of Adam; it may be observed:

1. That for reasons already given,† it appears not to be true, that mortality and the calamities of life are brought on men on account of Adam's sin merely, without regard to the personal demerit of those who suffer them.

2. That the human race was indeed, in the sentence of God on Adam, subjected to infirmity and mortality; but it was no more subjected to these, than it was to depravity and sin. At least to assert the contrary would be to beg an important point in dispute; and to be sure, Dr. C. could not with any consistency assert the contrary. He holds throughout this, and all his other works, that the human race is subjected to infirmity on account of Adam's sin, and the Doctor's idea of this infirmity amounts to a proper moral depravity of nature. All that is meant, or that needs to be meant, by the moral depravity natural to mankind, in this fallen state, so far as that depravity is distinct from actual sin, is something in our nature, which universally leads to actual sin. Whether this something exist primarily in the body and bodily appetites, or primarily in the soul, is perfectly immaterial, so long as it is an unfailing source of actual sin, as Dr. C. manifestly considers it. In his Five Dissertations he is very ex

President Edwards' Enquiry into Freedom of Will throughout; particularly Part IV. sect. 1. † Page 169. p. 45, etc.

plicit and abundant in this matter. His words are, “In consequence of the operation of appetites and inclinations scated in our mortal bodies, we certainly shall, without the interposition of grace-do that-the doing of which will denominate us the captives of sin and the servants of corruption."* "He" [the apostle] "ascribes it to the flesh, by means of the overbearing influence of its propensities in this our present mortal state, that we do that which our minds disapprove ;" and in many other passages to the same effect. So that Dr. C. really, though it seems undesignedly, held, that moral depravity of nature comes upon all mankind, on account of Adam's sin; and his favorite construction of Rom. 5: 12, " And so death passed upon all men, for that" (or as he will have it, whereupon, in consequence of which) "all have sinned;" comes to this only; that on account of Adam's sin, a divine sentence was denounced on the whole human race, dooming it to a state of moral depravity; in consequence of which moral depravity all men commit actual sin. What then has the Doctor gained by the construction of this passage, which he has labored so hardly in this and his other works to establish; and in which he claims to be an original; and which perhaps is the only particular in his whole book, with respect to which he has a right to set up his claim? It is also curious to see a gentleman of Dr. C's abilities, both opposing and defending with all his might, the native moral depravity of human nature!

Reasons have been already given, why willingly ought to be understood not to mean through the fault of a person; but in its original proper sense, with the consent of a person. If those reasons be sufficient, there is a further difficulty in Dr. C's construction of this passage, especially of the 20th verse. According to his construction of riois, creature, the apostle declares, that mankind are subject to their bodily appetites, and so to sin, not willingly, not with their own consent. But is it possible, that men should be subject to bodily appetites, and should commit actual, personal sin, without their own consent?-If, to evade this observation, it be said, that they are however by the act of God, without any previous consent of their own, subjected to frailty, mortality, bodily appetites, and so to sin; this would be mere trifling. Who ever imagined, that God first waited for the consent of mankind, and having obtained their consent, established the constitution, by which they became mortal, frail, subject to the influence of their bodily appetites and so to sin? After all, Dr. C's exposition of this paragraph in Rom. viii, is † Ibid.

* Page 277.

by no means, even on his own principles, a proof of universal salvation. His translation of those most important words in the 20th and 21st verses, is this: "The creature was subjected to vanity, not willingly; but by the judicial sentence of him, who subjected it, in consequence of a previous hope that even this very creature should be delivered from its slavery of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." So that the utmost, which this passage teaches, according to his own account, is, that mankind may now hope, that they shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. But what if there be a foundation to hope that this will be the case? Does it thence follow, that this hope will certainly be fulfilled? In consequence of the death of Christ and the proclamation of the gospel, there is a door of hope set open to all men. But does it hence follow, that all men will certainly enter in at this door, and secure the blessings for which there is a foundation to hope? Dr. C. would doubtless grant, that there is a door of hope opened to mankind in general, that they may be saved immediately after death. Yet he would not pretend, that this hope is realized. God delivered the Israelites out of Egypt in such a manner, as gave hope that even that generation would enter the promised land. Yet this hope was not fulfilled. Therefore, though it should be granted, that God hath subjected mankind to vanity in hope, that they shall be delivered from it, into the glorious liberty of the children of God, it would by no means follow, that all men will be saved; and Dr. C. is entirely mistaken, when he says, "Mankind universally is expressly made, in the 21st verse, the subject of this glorious immortality.' No such thing is expressly said, and in these words he contradicts his own paraphrase of that verse, in which he pretends no more, than that there is a foundation for hope, that mankind shall attain to a glorious immortality.

In the preceding remarks on Dr. C's construction of this passage, the sense, which I suppose to be the true one, hath been sufficiently expressed. Yet it may be proper here briefly to repeat it. The earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creation is subject to that use to which it is applied by sinful men, which, as to the end of its existence, the divine glory, is in its own natural tendency, vain and unprofitable, and in many respects positively sinful; I say, to this it is subject not voluntarily, but on account of him, for the sake of his glory, (dia governing the accusative) or for the accomplishment of the mysterious, but wise and glo

* Page 102.

rious purposes of him, who subjected the same in hope, that this same creation shall be delivered from this unprofitable and sinful use, which may justly be considered as a state of bondage to it, into a liberty, in several important respects, similar to that of the children of God; or at least shall be delivered at the time, when the children of God shall be admitted to the enjoyment of their most glorious liberty. For we know, that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, by reason of that vile abuse and perversion, which is made of it by sinful men, and through desire of that deliverance just mentioned, and in due time to be granted it.

Beside the observations on particular parts of Dr. C's construction of Rom. viii, some more general remarks occur. One is, that his construction implies, that the divine law is unjust, and cannot be executed consistently with justice. He says,* that man on the foot of mere law, without grace, is in bondage to bodily appetites; therefore on the foot of mere law, without grace, there is no hope for him. And he speaks of the case of mankind as remediless, without the grace manifested in Jesus Christ. Yet in the same page he says, "It is the thought, that mankind were subjected to suffering, not remedilessly, but with an intention of mercy," and "it is this thought only, that can reconcile the unavoidable sufferings of the race of men, as occa sioned by the lapse of Adam, with the perfections of God." So that God made a law, which could not be executed consistently with his perfections, and he was obligated in justice to show mercy through Christ to mankind. By mere law men were remediless, and if they had been suffered to remain in that remediless state, as they would have remained in it without Christ and the gospel, such a dispensation could not have been reconciled with the perfections of God. Therefore the divine law cannot be reconciled with justice, or with the perfections of God.

According to Dr. C. vanity included in it bondage to bodily appetites, as well as bondage to death. Therefore, as God could not consistently with his perfections, subject mankind to vanity, without an intention of mercy ; and as it would be a reflection on the Deity, to suppose, that he has subjected mankind to vanity, without hope of deliverance || therefore on these principles, God could not consistently with his perfections and character, avoid giving mankind a ground of hope of deliverance from sin, or he could not withhold the grace of the gospel; but he was obliged in justice to his own character, to deliver men from both sin and the sufferings of this life, and it may be pre* Page 109. † p. 122. + p. 109. § p. 122. I p. 103.

sumed, that Dr. C. would have consented to add, and from the sufferings of hell too. Where then is the grace of the gospel, and of the gift of Christ? In the gift of Christ, in the institution of the gospel, and in everything pertaining to it, so far as was necessary to our deliverance from sin and punishment, God has done no more than was necessary to save his own character from reflections and reproach.

It may be further remarked, that Dr. C.* argues, that because men are subjected to a state of suffering, not through their own personal disobedience; "it is congruous to reason to think, that they should be subjected to it, not finally." But why does he say "not finally?" He might with the same strength of argument have said, not at all. The calamities of this life, with temporal death, are inflicted on mankind, either as a punishment, or as sovereign and wise dispensations of Providence. If they be inflicted as a punishment, without any sin by which the subjects deserve them, they are as real an injury as endless misery would be, if it were inflicted as a punishment, in like manner without any sin, by which it should be deserved. And if God do indeed injure his creatures in a less degree, he is an injurious being; and what security have we concerning such a being, that he will not injure them in the highest possible degree? So that if God be a just being, as it is agreed on all hands that he is, it is equally congruous to reason to think," that he would not subject his creatures to a temporary state of suffering, as a punishment, without any sin by which they deserved it, as that he would not subject them to a state of final suffering.

66

If it be said, that death and the calamities of life are not a punishment of mankind, but mere sovereign, wise dispensations of providence; this supposition opens a door for endless misery. For how do we know, that the same sovereign wisdom, which is now supposed to inflict temporal evils on mankind, may not also see fit to inflict on them endless evils?

According to Dr. C. men are by a divine constitution subjected to vanity including mortality, infelicity and bondage to bodily appetites. But why was this constitution made? Was it made for the greater happiness of every individual, or of the system, or of both? Whichever of these answers be given, it will follow, that evil both natural and moral is subservient to good; and is introduced, if not in the first instance of Adam's transgression, yet in every other instance, by the positive design and constitution of God. Evil therefore both natural and moral, makes a part of the scheme of God, takes place by his constitution, and is subPage 103.