his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight: How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water? And no less remarkable is our author's method of managing it. The 16th verse expresses an exceeding degree of wickedness, in as plain and emphatical terms, almost, as can be invented; every word representing this in the strongest manner: How much more abominable and filthy is man, that drinketh iniquity like water? I cannot now recollect where we have a sentence equal to it in the whole bible, for an emphatical, lively, and strong representation of great wickedness of heart. Any one of the words, as such words are used in scripture, would represent great wickedness: If it had been only said, How much more abominable is man? Or, How much more filthy is man? Or, Man that drinketh iniquity. But all these are accumulated with the addition of-like water, the further to represent the boldness or greediness of men in wickedness. Though iniquity be the most deadly poison, yet men drink it as boldly as they drink water, are as familiar with it as with their common drink, and drink it with like greediness as he that is thirsty drinks water. That boldness and eagerness in persecuting the saints, by which the great degree of the depravity of man's heart often appears, is thus represented, Psal. xiv. 4. Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge who eat up my people as they eat bread? And the greatest eagerness of thirst is represented by thirsting as an animal thirsts after water, Psal. xlii. 1. Now let us see the soft, easy, light manner, in which Dr. T. treats this place, (p. 143.) "How much more abominable and filthy is man, IN COMPARISON OF THE DIVINE PURITY, who drinketh iniquity like water? who is attended with so many sensual appetites and so apt to indulge them. You see the argument, man in his present weak and fleshly state cannot be clean before God, Why so? Because he is conceived and born in sin, by reason of Adam's sin? No such thing. But because, if the purest creatures are not pure in comparison of God, much less a being subject to so many INFIRMITIES as a MORTAL man. Which is a demonstration to me, not only that Job and his friends did not intend to establish the doctrine we are now examining, but that they were wholly strangers to it." Thus he endeavours to reconcile this text with his doctrine of the perfect native innocence of mankind; in which we have a notable specimen of his demonstrations, as well as of that great impartiality and fairness in examining and expounding the scripture, of which he so often makes a profession! In this place we are not only told how wicked man's heart is, but also how men come by such wickedness; even by being of the race of mankind, by ordinary generation: What is man that he should be clean? and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Our author (p. 141, 142.) represents man being born of a woman, as a periphrasis to signify man; and that there is no design in the words to give a reason why man is not clean and righteous. But the case is most evidently otherwise, if we may interpret the book of Job by itself. It is most plain that man's being born of a woman is given as a reason of his not being clean; chapter xiv. 4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Job is speaking there expressly of man's being born of a woman, as appears in ver. 1. And here how plain is it, that this is given as a reason of man's not being clean? Concerning this Dr. T. says, That this has no respect to any moral uncleanness, but only common frailty, &c. But how evidently is this also otherwise? when that uncleanness which a man has by being born of a woman, is expressly explained of unrighteousness, in the next chapter at the 14th verse. What is man that he should be clean? and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous? Also in chap. xxv. 4. How then can man be justified with God? And how can he be clean that is born of a woman? It is a moral cleanness Bildad is speaking of, which a man needs in order to his being justified-His design is to convince Job of his moral impurity, and from thence of God's righteousness in his severe judgments upon him; and not of his natural frailty. And without doubt, David has respect to this way of derived wickedness of heart, when he says, Psal. li. 5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. It alters not the case as to the argument we are upon, whether the word () conceive me signifies to conceive, or to nurse; which latter our author takes so much pains to prove For when he has done all, he speaks of it as a just translation of the words to render them thus, I was BORN in iniquity, and in sin did m, mother nurse me. (p. 135.) If it is owned that man is born in sin, it is not worth the while to dispute, whether it is expressly asserted that he is conceived in sin. But Dr. T. after his manner, insists, that such expressions as being born in sin, being transgressors from the womb, and the like, are only phrases figuratively to denote aggravation, and a high degree of wickedness. But the contrary has been already demonstrated, from many plain scripture instances. Nor is one instance produced, in which there is any evidence that such a phrase is used in such a manner. A poetical sentence out of VIRGIL'S Æneid has here been produced, and made much of by some, as parallel with this, in what Dido says to Eneas, in these lines: Nec tibi diva parens, generis nec Dardanus auctor, Caucasus, hyrcanæque admôrunt ubera tygres. In which she tells Eneas, that not a goddess was his mother, nor Anchises his father; but that he had been brought forth by a horrid rocky mountain, and nursed at the dugs of tigers, to represent the greatness of his cruelty to her. But how unlike and unparallel is this? Nothing could be more natural, than for a woman overpowered with the passion of love, and distracted with raging jealousy and disappointment, thinking herself treated with brutish perfidy and cruelty, by a lover whose highest fame had been his being the son of a goddess, to aggravate his inhumanity and hard-heartedness with this, that his behaviour was not worthy the son of a goddess, nor becoming one whose father was an illustrious prince: And that he acted more as if he had been brought forth by hard unrelenting rocks, and had sucked the dugs of tigers. But what is there in the case of David parallel, or at all in like manner leading him to speak of himself as born in sin, in any such figurative sense! He is not speaking himself, nor any one speaking to him, of any excellent and divine father and mother, of whom he was born: Nor is there any appearance of his aggravating his sin, by its being unworthy of his high birth. There is nothing else visible in David's case, to lead him to take notice of his being born in sin, but only his having such experience of the continuance and power of indwelling sin, after so long a time, and so many and great means to engage him to holiness: which shewed that sin was inbred, and in his very nature. Dr. T. often objects to these and other texts, brought by divines to prove original sin, that there is no mention made in them of Adam, nor of his sin. He cries out, Here is not the least mention or intimation of Adam, or any ill effects of his sin upon us. Here is not one word, nor the least hint of Adam, or any consequences of his sin, &c. &c.* He says, "If Job and his friends had known and believed the doctrine of a corrupt nature, derived from Adam's sin only, they ought in reason and truth to have given this as the true and only reason of the human imperfection and uncleanness they mention." But these objections and exclamations are made no less impernently than frequently. It is no more a proof that corruption of nature did not come by Adam's sin, because many times when it is mentioned, his sin is not expressly mentioned as the cause of it; than that death did not come by Adam's sin, as Dr. T. says it did. For though death, as incident to mankind, is mentioned so often in the Old Testament, and by our Saviour in his discourses, yet Adam's sin is not once expressly mentioned, after the three first chapters of Genesis, any * Page 5, 64, 96, 97, 98, 102, 108, 112, 118, 120, 122, 127, 128, 136, 142, 143, 149, 152, 155, 229. † 142. where in all the Old Testament or the four Evangelists, as the occasion of it. 66 What christian has there ever been, that believed the moral corruption of human nature, who ever doubted that it came in the way of which the apostle speaks, when he says, By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin?" Nor indeed have they any more reason to doubt of it, than to doubt of the whole history of our first parents, because Adam's name is so rarely mentioned on any occasion in scripture, after that first account of him, and Eve's never at all; and because we have no more any express mention of the particular manner in which mankind were first brought into being, either with respect to the creation of Adam or Eve. It is sufficient, that the abiding, most visible effects of these things remain in the view of mankind in all ages, and are often spoken of in scripture; aud that the particular manner of their being introduced is once plainly set forth in the beginning of the Bible, in that history which gives us an account of the origin of all things. And doubtless it was expected by the great author of the bible, that the account in the three first chapters of Genesis should be taken as a plain account of the introduction of both natural and moral evil into the world. The history of Adam's sin, with its circumstances, God's threatening, the sentence pronounced upon him after his transgression and the immediate consequences, consisting in so vast an alteration in his state-and the state of the world, with respect to all his posterity-most directly and sufficiently lead us to understand the rise of calamity, sin and death, in this sinful, miserable world. It is fit we all should know, that it does not become us to tell the Most High, how often he shall particularly explain and give the reason of any doctrine which he teaches, in order to our believing what he says. If he has at all given us evidence that it is a doctrine agreeable to his mind, it becomes us to receive it with full credit and submission; and not sullenly to reject it, because our notions and humours are not suited in the manner, and number of times, of his particularly explaining it. How often is pardon of sins promised in the Old Testament to repenting and returning sinners? How many hundred times is God's special favour there promised to the sincerely righteous, without any express mention of these benefits being through Christ? Would it therefore become us to say, that inasmuch as our dependence on Christ for these benefits is a doctrine, which, if true, is of such importance, God ought expressly to have mentioned Christ's merits as the reason and ground of the benefits, if he knew they were the ground of them; and should have plainly declared it sooner, and more frequently, if ever he expected we should believe him when he did tell us of it?-How oft is vengeance and misery threatened in the Old Testament to the wicked, without any clear and express signification of any such thing intended, as that everlasting fire, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, in another world, which Christ so often speaks of as the punishment appointed for all the wicked? Would it now become a christian to object and say, that if God really meant any such thing, he ought in reason and truth to have declared it plainly and fully; and not to have been so silent about a matter of such vast importance. to all mankind, for four thousand years together? CHAP. III. Observations on various other Places of Scripture, principally of the New Testament, proving the Doctrine of Original Sin. SECT. I. Observations on John iii. 6. in Connection with some other Passages in the New Testament. Those words of Christ, giving a reason to Nicodemus, why we must be born again, John iii. 6. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit, have not without good reason been produced by divines, as a proof of the doctrine of original sin: supposing that by flesh here is meant the human nature in a debased and corrupt state. Yet Dr. T. (p. 144.) thus explains these words, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born by natural descent and propagation, is a man consisting of body and soul, or the mere constitution and powers of a man in their natural state." But the constant use of these terms, flesh and spirit, in other parts of the New Testament, when thus set in opposition, and the latter said to be produced by the spirit of God, as here-and when expressive of the same thing which Christ is here speaking of to Nicodemus, viz. the requisite qualifications to salvation-will fully vindicate the sense of our divines. Thus in the 7th and 8th chapters of Romans, where these terms flesh and spirit, (ragg and aveva are abundantly repeated, and set in opposition, as here. So chap. vii. 14. The law is (aveμarı) spiritual, but I am (σapxx) carnal, sold under sin. He cannot only mean, I am a man consisting of body and soul, and having the powers of a man.' Ver. 18. I know that in me, that is, in my FLESH, dwelleth no good thing. He does not mean to condemn his frame, as consisting of body |