C and barren ground?" (p. 41.) If this be the case, how can the invisible things of God be clearly seen from' such a ruined creation? Perfectly well. His eternal power and Godhead,' the existence of a powerful and eternal Being may still be inferred from these his works, grand and magnificent, though in ruin. Consequently, these leave the Atheist without excuse. And whatever objections he might form (as Lucretius actually does) from these palpable blemishes and irregularities of the terraqueous globe, the scriptural account of natural, flowing from moral evil, will easily and fectly solve them. All which is well consistent with the words of the Psalmist, O Lord, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches!' So undoubtedly it is, though it bears so visible signs of ruin and de rastation. per "We have no authority from Scripture, to say that the earth, in its present constitution, is at all different from what it was at its first. creation." Certainly we have, if the Scripture affirms, that God said, after Adam sinned, Cursed is the ground for thy sake; thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee,' and, that the earth was of old, standing out of the water, and in the water,' till God destroyed it for the sin of its inhabitants. You go on. "I cannot agree, that disease, anguish, and death, have entered into the bowels and veins of multitudes, by an innocent and fatal mistake, of pernicious plants and fruits for proper food." (p. 43.) Why not? Doubtless multitudes also have perished hereby, if we take in the account of all ages and nations: multitudes also have been the living prey, of bears and tigers, wolves and lions: and multitudes have had their flesh and bones crushed and churned between the jaws of panthers and leopards, sharks, and crocodiles. And would these things have come upon mankind, were it not on account of Adam's sin? Yet you think, we have "now a more extensive dominion over all creatures, than Adam had even in his innocence; because we have the liberty of eating them; which Adam never had." (p. 44.) This will not prove the point. That I have the liberty to eat a lamb, does not prove that I have dominion over a lion. Certainly I have not dominion over any creature which I can neither govern nor resist: yea, and if the dread of me is on every beast and fowl, this does not prove, that I have any dominion over them. I know, on the contrary, that not only a tiger or a bear, but even a dove will not stoop to my dominion. "However, we have no authority to say, man himself was cursed, though the ground was.” (p. 46.) Yes, we have the authority of God himself, Cursed is every man that continueth not in all things' which God hath commanded. The moment therefore that he sinned, Adam fell under this curse. And whether the toil and death to which he and his posterity were sentenced, and the pain of childbirth be termed curses or not, sure it is they are punishments, and heavy ones too, though mercy is often mixed with judgment. The main argument follows, taken from the state of mankind in general, with regard to religion. But you say, "It is impossible we should make a just estimate of the wickedness of mankind :" (p. 51.) Yes, an exactly just estimate of the precise degree of wickedness in the whole world. But it is very possible, nay, very easy, to make an estimate in the gross, with such a degree of justness as sutfices for the present question. Indeed you "think we carry our censures of the Heathens too far." I dare not carry them so far, as to say, no Heathen shall be saved. But this I say: I never knew any Heathen yet, (and I have personally known many out of various nations,) who was not a slave to some gross vice or other. Bad therefore as nominal Christians are, I cannot yet place them on a level with the Heathens: not even with the mild, courteous, conversable Heathens, who border on Georgia and Carolina. Much less would I say, "possibly the Heathens may be less vicious than the Christian world in general." If} believed this, I should bid adieu to Christianity, and commence Heathen without delay. "But if we allow mankind to be ever so wicked, suppose there is not one upon earth, who is truly righteous; it will not follow that men are naturally corrupt: for a sinful action does not infer a sinful nature. If it does, then Adam brought a sinful nature with him into the world. But if we cannot infer from Adam's sin, that his nature was originally corrupt, neither can we infer from the wickedness of all mankind, be it ever so great, that they have a sinful nature." (p. 52, 53.) The consequence is not good. "If one man's committing a sin does not prove that he was naturally inclined to evil, then the wickedness of all mankind for six thousand years, will not prove that they are naturally inclined to evil." For we may easily account for one man's committing sin, though he was not naturally inclined to evil: but not so easily, for all flesh corrupting themselves,' for the wickedness of all mankind in all ages. It is not possible rationally to account for this, for the general wickedness of mankind; for such a majority of men through all generations being so corrupt, but on the supposition of their having a corrupt nature. Sin in one or a few cases, does not prove a sinful nature but sin overspreading the earth, does. Nor is your argument drawn from the sin of the angels, (p. 54, 55.) of any more force than that, drawn from the sin of Adam: unless you can prove that as great a majority of angels as of men, have rebelled against their Creator. "Again. If our first parents felt fear and shame, and yet their nature was not originally corrupt, then it will not follow, that ours is so notwithstanding our uneasy and unruly passions." Empty sound! Had any one said to Adam, "Your nature was originally corrupt, for you feel uneasy and unruly passions:" would he not readily have answered, but these began at such an hour; till then my nature was without either pain or corruption. Apply this to any child of Adam: and if he can answer in like manner, till such an hour no uneasy or unruly passion had any place in my breast:" we will then grant, these passions no more prove a corrupt nature in the sons than in their first father. But no man can answer thus. You, and I, and every man, must acknowledge, that uneasy and unruly passions, are coeval with our understanding and memory at least, if not with our very being. "Again. Adam by his sin brought sufferings on himself and his posterity. Yet it does not follow, that his nature was corrupt. Therefore, though others by their sins bring sufferings on themselves and their posterity, it will not follow that their nature is corrupt, or under the displeasure of God." Two very different things are here blended together. The corruption of their nature is onc thing, the displeasure of God another. None affirms, that those sufferings which men by their sins bring on themselves or posterity prove that their nature is corrupt. But do not the various sufferings of all mankind, prove that they are under the displeasure of God? It is certain no suffering came upon Adam, till he was under the displeasure of God. "Again. If our first parents by their sin brought suffering both on themselves and others, and yet their nature was not originally corrupt, nor under the displeasure of God: it clearly follows, that the nature of those who suffer purely in consequence of their sin, is not originally corrupt, nor are they under God's displeasure." This argument is bad every way. For, 1. at the time when Adam brought the sentence of suffering both on himself and others, his nature was corrupt, and he was under the actual displeasure of God. But, 2. Suppose it were otherwise, all you could possibly infer, with regard to his posterity, is, that their suffering does not prove their corruption, or their being under the displeasure of God. How could you think, their suffering would prove them not corrupt? Not under God's displeasure? Therefore neither this nor the preceding argument, (seeing both are utterly inconclusive)" take off any thing that Dr. Watts has said," touching the present state of the world, as a proof of God's displeasure, and the natural corruption of man. So far, therefore, is his argument from the sinfulness and misery of mankind from being altogether insufficient in every part;" that it is strong and conclusive, any thing you have advanced to the contrary notwithstanding. You add, "Suffering may happen where there is no sin, as in the case of brutes and infants: or where there is the most perfect innocence; as in the case of our blessed Lord." Absolutely true: that is, where there is no personal sin, but only sin imputed. There was no personal sin in our blessed Lord: there can be none either in brutes or infants. He suffered, therefore, for the sins of others, which were thus imputed to him: as is the sin of Adam to infants, who suffer death through him, and in some sense to the whole creation; which was made subject to vanity, not willingly,' but on account of his transgression. But where there is no sin, either personal or imputed, there can be no suffering. "I may add, from the present state of things a directly opposite argument may be taken; from the enjoyments and comforts, the good things and blessings, which abound in the world. I might ask, are these creatures so well provided for under God's displeasure? Are they not the care of his goodness? Does he not love them, and delight to do them good?" (p. 58-61.) I answer, God does still give us many good things, many enjoyments, comforts, and blessings. But all these are given through the Seed of the woman: they are all the purchase of his blood. Through him we are still the care of the divine goodness, and God does delight to do us good. But this does not at all prove, either that we have not a sinful nature, or that. we are not, while sinful, under his displeasure. SECT. IV. Some Consequences of the Doctrine of Original Sin. "BY this doctrine some have been led to maintain, 1. That meir have not a sufficient power to perform their duty. But if so, it ceases to be their duty." (p. 63-69.) I maintain, that men have. not this power by nature. But they have or may have it by grace, therefore it does not cease to be their duty. And if they perform it not, they are without excuse. "Hence some maintain, 2. That we have no reason to thank our Creator for our being." (p. 70-73.) He that will maintain it, may. But it does by no means follow from this doctrine: since whatever we are by nature, we may by grace be children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven. "But unthankfulness is a natural consequence of this doctrine, which greatly diminishes, if not totally excludes the goodness and inercy of God." (p. 74.) St. Paul thought otherwise. He imagined the total ungodliness and impotence of our nature, to be the very thing which most of all illustrated the goodness and mercy of God. For a good man,' says he, 'peradventure one would even dare to die. But God commendeth,' unspeakably, inconceivably, beyond all human precedent, his love to us, in that while we were yet without strength Christ died for the ungodly.' Here is the ground, the real and the only ground for true Christian thankfulness. Christ died for the ungodly that were without strength: such as is every man by nature. And till a man has been deeply sensible of it, he can never truly thank God for his redemption; nor, consequently, for his creation, which is in the event a blessing to those only who are 'created anew in Christ Jesus.' "Hence, 3. Some have poured great contempt upon human nature; whereas God himself does not despise mankind, but thinks. them worthy of his highest regards." (p. 75.) To describe human nature as deeply fallen, as far removed both from virtue and wisdom,, does not argue that we despise it. We know by Scripture as well as by sad experience, that men are now unspeakably foolish and wicked. And such the Son of God knew them to be, when he laid down his life for them. But this did not hinder him from loving thein, no more than it does any of the children of God. You next consider what Dr. Watts observes with regard to infants. (p. 77-82.) Mankind,' says he, in its younger years, before it is capable of proper moral action, discovers the principles of iniquity. and the seeds of sin. What young ferments of spite and envy, what native malice and rage are found in the little hearts of infants, and sufficiently discovered by their little hands and eyes, and their wrathful countenance even before they can speak? You answer, "Our Lord gave us different ideas of them when he taught his apostles to become as little children.'" Not at all. They may be imitable in some respects, and yet have all the tempers above described. And it is certain they have; as any impartial observer will be convinced by his own eyes. Nor is this any way contradicted by St. Paul's words, In wickedness, (xaxia,) be ye children: 1 Cor. xiv. 20, untaught, unexperienced or by those of David, My soul is even as a weaned child. Psalm cxxxi. 2. "But we discover in them also the noble principles of reason and understanding, with several tempers which are capable of improvement, whereby they may be trained up in a good way: and numbers in all ages of the world have risen to very considerable degrees of excellence." All this is true: but it is not at all inconsistent with the account of them given above: by which it clearly appears, that they are strongly inclined to evil, long before any ill habits can be contracted. SECT. V. A general Argument, taken from what God has declared concerning "THERE are three passages from which divines infer the exceltency of Adam's state and nature above our's: I. Gen. i. 28. And God blessed them and said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.'" (p. 84.) With this I have nothing to do; for I infer nothing from it, with regard to the present question. II. "Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.' III. Gen. i. 27. God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.' From these three particulars they deduce the superiority of Adam's nature above our's. But the very same marks of excellency are more expressly pronounced by God upon the human nature, when the race of mankind was to be propagated anew from Noah and his sons." (p. 85.) |