and New, collective bodies, nations, peoples, cities, are figuratively represented by persons; particularly the church of Christ is represented as one holy person, and has the same appellatives as a particular saint or believer; and so is called a child and a son of God, Exod. iv. 22—Gal. iv. 1, 2; and a servant of God, Isa. xli. 8, 9, and xliv. 1. The daughter of God, and spouse of Christ, Psalm xlv. 10, 13, 14—Rev. xix. 7. Nevertheless, would it be reasonable to argue from hence, that such appellations, as a servant of God, a child of God, &c., are always or commonly to be taken as signifying only the church of God in general, or great collective bodies; and not to be understood in a personal sense? But certainly this would not be more unreasonable, than to urge, that by the old and the new man, as the phrases are mostly used in Scripture, is to be understood nothing but the great collective bodies of Pagans and of Christians, or the Heathen and the Christian world, as to their outward profession, and the dispensation they are under. It might have been proper, in this case, to have considered the unreasonableness of that practice which our author charges on others, and finds so much fault with in them :* "That they content themselves with a few scraps of Scripture, which, though wrong understood, they make the test of truth, and the ground of their principles, in contradiction to the whole tenor of revelation."

VI. I observe once more, it is very apparent, that a being born again, and spiritually raised from death to a state of new existence and life, having a new heart created in us, being renewed in the spirit of our mind, and being the subjects of that change by which we put off the old man, and put on the new man, is the same thing with that which, in Scripture, is called a being created anew, or made new creatures.

Here, to pass over many other evidences of this, which might be mentioned, I would only observe, that the representations are exactly equivalent. These several phrases naturally and most plainly signify the same effect. In the first birth, or generation, we are created, or brought into existence; it is then the whole man first receives being: the soul is then formed, and then our bodies are fearfully and wonderfully made, being curiously wrought by our Creator: so that a new born child is a new creature. So, when a man is born again, he is created again; in that new birth, there is a new creation; and therein he becomes as a new born babe, or a new creature. So in a resurrection, there is a new creation. When a man is dead, that which was created or made in the first birth or creation is destroyed: when that which was dead is raised to life, the mighty power of the Creator or Author of life, is exerted the second time,. and the subject restored to new existence, and new life, as by a new creation. So giving a new heart is called creating a clean heart, Psal. li. 10, where the word translated create, is the same that is used in the first verse in Genesis. And when we read in Scripture of the new creature, the creature that is called new is man; not angel, or beast, or any other sort of creature; and therefore the phrase, new man, is evidently equivalent with new creature; and a putting off the old man, and putting on the new man, is spoken of expressly as brought to pass by a work of creation. Col. iii. 9, 10," Ye have put off the old man, and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him." So Eph. iv. 22, 23, 24, "That ye put off the old man, which is corrupt, &c., and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." These things absolutely fix the meaning of that in 2 Cor. v. 17, "If

* Page 224.

any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; be hold, all things are become new."

On the whole, the following reflections may be made :

1. That it is a truth of the utmost certainty, with respect to every man, born of the race of Adam, by ordinary generation, that unless he be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. This is true, not only of the Heathen, but of them that are born of the professing people of God, as Nicodemus, and the Jews, and every man born of the flesh. This is most manifest by Christ's discourse in John iii. 3-11. So it is plain by 2 Cor. v. 17, That every man who is in Christ, is a new creature.

2. It appears from this, together with what has been proved above, that it is most certain with respect to every one of the human race, that he can never have any interest in Christ, or see the kingdom of God, unless he be the subject of that change in the temper and disposition of his heart, which is made in repentance and conversion, circumcision of heart, spiritual baptism, dying to sin and rising to a new and holy life; and unless he has the old heart taken away and a new heart and spirit given, and puts off the old man, and puts on the new man, and old things are passed away, and all things made new.

3. From what is plainly implied in these things, and from what the Scripture most clearly teaches of the nature of them, it is certain, that every man is born into the world in a state of moral pollution: for spiritual baptism is a cleansing from moral filthiness. Ezek. xxxvi. 25, compared with Acts ii. 16, and John iii. 5. So the washing of regeneration, or the new birth, is a change from a state of wickedness. Tit. iii. 3, 4, 5. Men are spoken of as Men are spoken of as purified in their regeneration. 1 Pet. i. 22, 23. See also 1 John ii. 29, and iii. 1, 2. And it appears that every man, in his first or natural state, is a sinner; for otherwise he would then need no repentance, no conversion, no turning from sin to God. And it appears, that every man in his original state has a heart of stone; for thus the Scripture calls that old heart, which is taken away, when a new heart and new spirit is given. Ezek. xi. 19, and xxxvi. 26. And it appears, that man's nature, as in his native state, is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and of its own motion exerts itself in nothing but wicked deeds. For thus the Scripture characterizes the old man, which is put off, when men are renewed in the spirit of their minds, and put on the new man, Eph. iv. 22, 23, 24-Col. iii. 8, 9, 10. In a word, it appears, that man's nature, as in its native state, is a body of sin, which must be destroyed, must die, be buried, and never rise more. For thus the old man is represented, which is crucified, when men are the subjects of a spiritual resurrection, Rom. vi. 4, 5, 6. Such a nature, such a body of sin as this, is put off in the spiritual renovation, wherein we put on the new man, and are the subjects of the spiritual circumcision. Eph. iv. 21, 22, 23.

It must now be left with the reader to judge for himself, whether what the Scripture teaches of the application of Christ's redemption, and the change of state and nature necessary to true and final happiness, does not afford clear and abundant evidence to the truth of the doctrine of Original Sin.

PART IV.

CONTAINING ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS.

CHAPTER I.

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

SOME of the objections made against the doctrine of Original Sin, which have reference to particular arguments used in defence of it, have been already considered in the handling of those arguments. What I shall therefore now consider, are such objections as I have not yet had occasion to take any special notice of.

There is no argument Dr. Taylor insists more upon, than that which is taken from the Arminian and Pelagian notion of freedom of will, consisting in the will's self-determination, as necessary to the being of moral good or evil. (He often urges, that if we come into the world infected with sinful and depraved dispositions, then sin must be natural to us; and if natural then necessary; and if necessary, then no sin, nor any thing we are blamable for, or that can in any respect be our fault, being what we cannot help and he urges, that sin must proceed from our own choice, &c.*

Here I would observe in general, that the forementioned notion of Freedom of Will, as essential to moral agency, and necessary to the very existence of virtue and sin, seems to be a grand favorite point with Pelagians and Arminians, and all divines of such characters, in their controversies with the orthodox. There is no one thing more fundamental in their schemes of religion; on the determination of this one leading point depends the issue of almost all controversies we have with such divines. Nevertheless, it seems a needless task for me particularly to consider that matter in this place; having already largely discussed it, with all the main grounds of this notion, and the arguments used to defend it, in a late book on this subject, to which I ask leave to refer the reader. It is very necessary, that the modern prevailing doctrine concerning this point, should be well understood, and therefore thoroughly considered and examined for without it there is no hope of putting an end to the controversy about Original Sin, and innumerable other controversies that subsist, about many of the main points of religion. I stand ready to confess to the forementioned modern divines, if they can maintain their peculiar notion of freedom, consisting in the self-determining power of the will, as necessary to moral agency, and can thoroughly establish it in opposition to the arguments lying against it, then they have an impregnable castle, to which they may repair, and remain invincible, in all the controversies they have with the reformed divines, concerning Original Sin, the sovereignty of grace, election, redemption, conversion, the efficacious operation of the Holy Spirit, the nature of saving faith, per

▸ Pages 125, 128, 129, 130, 186, 187, 188, 190, 200, 245, 246, 253, 258, 63, 64, 161, S., and other places VOL. II.

60

severance of the saints, and other principles of the like kind. However, at the same time I think this same thing will be as strong a fortress for the deists, in common with them, as the great doctrines, subverted by their notion of freedom, are so plainly and abundantly taught in the Scripture. But I am under no apprehension of any danger, the cause of Christianity, or the religion of the reformed is in, from any possibility of that notion's being ever established, or of its being ever evinced that there is not proper, perfect, and manifold demonstration lying against it. But as I said, it would be needless for me to enter into a particular disquisition of this point here; from which I shall easily be excused by any reader who is willing to give himself the trouble of consulting what I have already written: and as to others, probably they will scarce be at the pains of reading the present discourse; or at least would not, if it should be enlarged by a full consideration of that controversy.

I shall at this time therefore only take notice of some gross inconsistencies that Dr. Taylor has been guilty of, in his handling this objection against the doctrine or Original Sin.

In places which have been cited, he says, that " Sin must proceed from our own choice and that if it does not, it being necessary to us, it cannot be sin, it cannot be our fault, or what we are to blame for :" and therefore all our sin must be chargeable on our choice, which is the cause of sin: for he says, "The cause of every effect is alone chargeable with the effect it produceth, and which proceedeth from it."* Now here are implied several gross contradictions. He greatly insists that nothing can be sinful, or have the nature of sin, but what proceeds from our choice. Nevertheless he says, " Not the effect, but the cause alone is chargeable with blame." Therefore the choice, which is the cause, is alone blamable, or has the nature of sin; and not the effect of that choice. Thus nothing can be sinful, but the effect of choice; and yet the effect of choice never can be sinful, but only the cause, which alone is chargeable with all the blame.

pro

Again, the choice which chooses and produces sin, or from which sin ceeds, is itself sinful. Not only is this implied in his saying, "the cause alone is chargeable with all the blame," but he expressly speaks of the choice as faulty, and calls that choice wicked, from which depravity and corruption proceeds. Now if the choice itself be sin, and there be no sin but what proceeds from a sinful choice, then the sinful choice must proceed from another antecedent choice; it must be chosen by a foregoing act of will, determining itself to that sinful choice, that so it may have that which he speaks of as absolutely essential to the nature of sin, namely, that it proceeds from our choice, and does not happen to us necessarily. But if the sinful choice itself proceeds from a foregoing choice, then also that foregoing choice must be sinful; it being the cause of sin, and so alone chargeable with the blame. Yet if that foregoing choice be sinful, then neither must that happen to us necessarily, but must likewise proceed from choice, another act of choice preceding that: for we must remember, that "nothing is sinful but what proceeds from our choice." And then, for the same reason, even this prior choice, last mentioned, must also be sinful, being chargeable with all the blame of that consequent evil choice, which was its effect. And so we must go back till we come to the very first volition, the prime or original act of choice in the whole chain. And this, to be sure, must be a sinful choice, because this is the origin or primitive cause of all the train of evils which follow; and according to our author, must therefore be "alone

* Page 128.

↑ Page 190.

Page 200. See also page 216.

can

chargeable with all the blame." And yet so it is, according to him, this “ not be sinful," because it does not "proceed from our own choice," or any foregoing act of our will; it being, by the supposition, the very first act of will in the case. And therefore it must be necessary, as to us, having no choice of ours to be the cause of it.

In page 232, he says, "Adam's sin was from his own disobedient will; and so must every man's sin, and all the sin in the world be, as well as his." By this, it seems, he must have a " disobedient will" before he sins; for the cause must be before the effect: and yet that disobedient will itself is sinful; otherwise it could not be called disobedient. But the question is, How do men come by the disobedient will, this cause of all the sin in the world? It must not come necessarily, without men's choice; for if so, it is not sin, nor is there any disobedience in it. Therefore that disobedient will must also come from a disobedient will; and so on, in infinitum. Otherwise it must be supposed, that there is some sin in the world, which does not come from a disobedient will; contrary to our author's dogmatical assertions.

In page 166, S., he says, "Adam could not sin without a sinful inclination.” Here he calls that inclination itself sinful, which is the principle from whence sinful acts proceed; as elsewhere he speaks of the disobedient will from whence all sin comes; and he allows,* that "the law reaches to all the latent principles of sin;" meaning plainly, that it forbids, and threatens punishment for, those latent principles. Now these latent principles of sin, these sinful inclinations, without which, according to our author, there can be no sinful act, cannot all proceed from a sinful choice; because that would imply great contradiction. For, by the supposition, they are the principles from whence a sinful choice comes, and whence all sinful acts of will proceed; and there can be no sinful act without them. So that the first latent principles and inclinations, from whence all sinful acts proceed, are sinful; and yet they are not sinful, because they do not proceed from a wicked choice, without which, according to him, "nothing can be sinful."

Dr. Taylor, speaking of that proposition of the Assembly of Divines, wherein they assert, that Man is by nature utterly corrupt, &c.,† thinks himself well warranted by the supposed great evidence of these his contradictory notions, to say, "Therefore sin is not natural to us; and therefore I shall not scruple to say, this proposition in the Assembly of Divines is false." But it may be worthy to be considered, whether it would not have greatly become him, before he had clothed himself with so much assurance, and proceeded, on the foundation of these his notions, so magisterially to charge the Assembly's proposition with falsehood, to have taken care that his own propositions, which he has set in opposition to them, should be a little more consistent; that he might not have contradicted himself, while contradicting them; lest some impartial judges, observing his inconsistence, should think they had warrant to declare with equal assurance, that "They shall not scruple to say, Dr. Taylor's doctrine is false."

* Contents of Rom. chap. viii., in Notes on the Epistle.

+ Page 125.