dam, and its co fe

quences.

dam, and its confe quences.

106 The temp

ed.

That this fentence has been fully inflicted on the ferpent, ter punish no reasoning can be neceffary to evince. Every fpecies of that reptile is more hateful to man than any other terreftrial crcature; and there is literally a perpetual war between them and the human race. It is remarkable too that the head of this animal is the only part which it is fafe to bruife. His tail may be bruifed, or even cut off, and he will turn with fury and death on his adversary: but the flightest ftroke on the head infallibly kills him. That the ferpent, or at least the greater part of ferpents, go on their belly, * Delanay's every one knows; though it is faid, that in fome parts of Rev. cram the caft ferpents have been feen with wings, and others with feet, and that these species are highly beautiful. If there be any truth in this ftory, we may fuppofe that thefe walking and flying ferpents have been fuffered to retain their original elegance, that mankind might fee what the whole genus was before the curfe was denounced on the tempter of Eve: but it is certain that most of the fpecies have neither wings nor feet, and that many of the moft poifon ous of them live in burning deferts, where they have nothing See B.- to eat but the duft among which they craw! .

red with candour.

ebart and Pliny on Serpents, Travels.

To this degradation of the ferpent, infidels have objected, that it implies the punishment of an animal which was in capable of guilt; but this objection is founded in thought leffnels and ignorance. The elegant form of any fpecies of inferior animals adds nothing to the happiness of the animals themselves: the afs is probably as happy as the horfe, and the ferpent that crawls as he that flies. Fine proportions attract indeed the notice of man, and tend to imprefs upon his mind just notions of the wildom and goodness of the Creator; but furely the lymmetry of the horse or the beauty of the peacock is more properly displayed for this purpofe than the elegance of the inftrument employed by the enemy of mankind. The degradation of the ferpent in the prefence of our first parents must have served the best of purpofes. If they had fo little reflection as not yet to have difcovered that he was only the inftrument with which a more powerful Being had wrought their ruin, they would be convinced, by the execution of this entence, that the forbidden fruit had no power in itself to improve the nature either of man or of beait. But it is impoffible that they could be lo ftupid as this objection fuppofes them. They doubtlefs knew by this time that fome great and wicked fpirit had actuated the organs of the ferpent; and that when enmity was promised to be put between its feed and the feed of the woman, that promife was not meant to be fulfilled by ferpents occafionally hiting the heels of men, and by men in return bruising the heads of ferpents! If fuch enmity, though it has literally taken place, was all that was meant by this prediction, why was not Adam directed to bruife the head of the identical ferpent which had feduced his wife? If he could derive any confolation from the exercife of revenge, furely it would be greater from his revenging himself on his own enemy, than from the knowledge that there fhould be

We are told, that when the foundations of the earth were laid, the morning ftars tang together, and all the fons of God fhouted for joy; and it is at leaft probable that there would be fimilar rejoicing when the fix days work of creation was finifhed. I fo, Adam and Eve, who were but a little lower than the angels, might be admitted into the chorus, and thus be made acquainted with the existence of good and evil (pirits. At all events, we cannot doubt but their gra cious and merciful Creator would inform them that they had a powerful enemy; that he was a rebellious angel capable of deceiving them in many ways; and that they ought therefore to be conftantly on their guard againit his wiles. They must have known too that they were themfelves animated by fomething different from matter; and when they found they were deceived by the ferpent, they might furely, without any remarkable ftretch of fagacity, infer that their ma lignant enemy had actuated the organs of that creature in a manner fomewhat fimilar to that in which their own fouls actuated their own bodies. If this be admitted, the degra dation of the ferpent would convince them of the weakness of the tempter when compared with their Creator; and confirm their hopes, that fince he was not able to preferve unhurt his own inftrument of mifchief, he should not be able finally to prevail against them; but that though he had bruifed their heels, the promiled feed of the woman fhould at latt bruife his head, and recover the inheritance which they had loft. See PROPHECY, no 9, 10. Having thus punished the original inftigator to evil, the Sentence Almighty Judge turned to the fallen pair, and faid to the Pal woman, "I will greatly multiply thy forrow and thy con- Eve. ception: in forrow halt thou bring forth children; and thy defire shall be to thy husband, and he fhall rule over thee. And unto Adam he faid, Because thou haft hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and haft eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, faying, Thou fhalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy fake; in forrow fhalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns alfo and thiftles thall it bring forth unto thee, and thou fhall eat the herb of the field. In the fweat of thy face fhalt thou eat bread till thou retura unto the ground; for out of it waft thou taken: for duft thou art, and unto duft fhalt thou return.”

107

affed on

Adam and

Here is a terrible denunciation of toil and mifery and death upon two creatures; who, being inured to nothing, and formed for nothing but happinefs, muft have felt infinitely more horror from such a sentence, than we, who are familiar with death, intimate with mifery, and "born to forrow as the fparks fly upward," can form any adequate conception of. The hardship of it, too, feems to be aggra vated by its being feverer than what was originally threatened against the breach of the covenant of life. It was indeed faid, "In the day thou eatelt thereof, thou shalt furely die:" but no mention was made of the woman's incurring forrow in conception, and in the bringing forth of children; of the curfe to be inflicted on the ground; of its bringing forth thorns and thiftles instead of food for the use of man; and of Adam's eating bread in forrow and the fweat of his face till he fhould return to the duft from which he was taken. Thefe feeming aggravations, however, are in reality in- An obfcure ftances of divine benevolence. Adam and Eve were now intimation fubjected to death; but in the fentence paffed on the fer- given them pent, an obfcure intimation had been given them that they were not to remain for ever under its power. It was there-it. fore their intereft, as well as their duty, to reconcile themfelves as much as poffible to their fate; to wean their affections from this world, in which they were to live only for a

108.

of deliver.

ance from

1

Fall of A- time; and to hope, with humble confidence, in the promise dam, and of their God, that, upon their departure from it, they fhould

1ts conte. quences

109

Doubtf: 1 whether -men would have been exempted

firit cove Dant,

be received into fome better ftate. To enable them to wean their affections from earth, nothing could more contribute than to combine fenfual enjoyment with forrow, and lay them under the neceffity of procuring their means of fub fiftence by labour, hard and often fruitlefs. This would daily and hourly imprefs upon their minds a full conviction that the prefent world is not a place fit to be an everlasting habita tion; and they would look forward, with pious refignation, to death, as putting a period to all their woes. Had they indeed been furnished with no ground of hope beyond the grave, we cannot believe that the Righteous Judge of all the earth would have added to the penalty originally threatened. That penalty they would doubtless have incurred the very day on which they fell; but as they were promited a deliverance from the confequences of their fall, it was proper to train them up by fevere difcipline for the happiness referved for them in a future ftate.

After the paffing of their fentence, the man and woman were turned out into the world, where they had formerly lived before they were placed in the garden of Eden; and all future access to the garden was for ever denied them. They were not, however, in the fame flate in which they were originally before their introduction into Paradise 'They were now confcious of guilt; doomed to severe labour; liable to forrow and sickness, disease and death: and all these miferies they had brought, not only upon themselves, but alfo, as we learn from different paffages of the New Teftament, upon their unborn pofterity to the end of time. It may feem indeed to militate against the moral attributes of God, to inflict mifery upon children for the fins of their parents; but before any thing can be pronounced concerning the Divine goodness and juftice in the prefent cafe, we muft know precifely how much we fuffer in confequence of Adam's tranf/reffion, and whether we have ourselves any fhare in that guilt which is the cause of our fufferings.

That women would have had lefs forrow in conception and in the bringing forth of children; that we fhould have been fubjected to lefs toil and exempted from death, had our first parents not fallen from their paradifaical statefrom pain are truths incontrovertible by him who believes the infpiraunder the tion of the Holy Scriptures; but that mankind would in that state have been wholly free from pain and every bodily diftreis, is a propofition which is not to be found in the Bible, and which therefore no man is bound to believe. The bodies of Adam and Eve confifted of flesh, blood, and bones, as ours do; they were furrounded by material objects as we are; and their limbs were unquestionably ca. pable of being fractured. That their fouls fhould never be feparated from their bodies while they abftained from the forbidden fruit, they knew from the infallible promise of him who formed them, and breathed into their noftrils the breath of life; but that not a bone of themfelves or of their numerous pofterity fhould ever be broken by the fall of a ftone or of a tree, they were not told, and had no reafon to expe. O fuch tractures, pain would furely have been the confequence; though we have reason to believe that it would have been quickly removed by fome infallible remedy, probably by the fruit of the tree of life.

Perhaps it may be faid, that if we fuppofe our firft parents or their children to have been liable to accidents of this kind in the garden of Eden, it will be difficult to conceive how they could have been preserved from death, as a ftone might have fallen on their heads as well as on their feet, and have at once deftroyed the principle of vitality. But this can be faid only by him who knows little of the phyfical world, and ftill lefs of the power of God. There

its cor quenc

are many animals which are fufceptible of pain, and yet not fail of easily killed; and man in paradife might have refembled dam, thefe. At any rate, we are fure that the Omnipotent Creator could and would have preferved him from death; but we have no reason to believe that, by a conftant miracle, he would have preferved him from every kind of pain. Indeed, if, under the first covenant, mankind were in a state of probation, it is certainly conceivable that fome one individual of the numerous race might have fallen into fin, without actually breaking the covenant by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge; and fuch a finner would undoubteddy have been punished by that God who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity: but how punishment could have been inflicted on a being exempted from all poffibility of pain as well as of death we confets ourselves unable to imagine. Remorfe, which is the infeparable confequence of guilt, and conftitutes in our present ftate great part of its punishment, flows from the fearful looking for of judgment, which the finner knows fhall, in a future ftate, devour the adverfaries of the gospel of Chrift; but he, who could neither fuffer pain nor death, had no caufe to be afraid of future judge. ment, and was therefore not liable to the tortures of remorfe. We conclude, therefore, that it is a mistake to fuppofe pain to have been introduced into the world by the fall of our firfl parents, or at least that the opinion contrary to ours has no foundation in the word of God.

110

from dead

I Cor.

Death, however, was certainly introduced by their fall; Though for the infpired apoftle affures us, that in Adum all die; they woul and again, that through the offence of ONE many are dead. But concerning the full import of the word death in this xv. 22. place, and in the fentence pronounced upon our first parents, † Rom, divines hold opinions extremely different. Many contend, v. 15. that it includes death corporal, fpiritual, or moral and eternal; and that all mankind are subjected to these three kinds of death, on account of their fhare in the guilt of the original tranfgreffion, which is ufually denominated original fin, and confidered as the fource of all moral evil

That all men are fubjected to death corporal in confe quence of Adam's tranfgreffion, is univerfally admitted; but that they are in any fenfe partakers of his guilt, and on that account fubjected to death fpiritual and eternal, has been very ftrenuously denied. To difcover the truth is of great importance; for it is intimately connected with the Chriftian doctrine of redemption. We fhall therefore ftate, with as much impartiality as we can, the arguments commonly urged on each fide of this much agitated question: but fhould the reader perceive, as very probably he may, that we lean more to the one fide than to the other, he will do well to fhut our book, and, difregarding all artificial fyftems, ftudy, with an unbiassed mind, the writings only of the prophets and apostles.

Thofe who maintain that all men finned in Adam, gene-Dorme rally flate their doctrine thus: "The covenant being made original f with Adam as a public perfon, not for himself only but tated. for his pofterity, all mankind defcending from him by ordinary generation finned in him and fell with him in that firft tranfgreffion; whereby they are deprived of that origi nal righteoutnefs in which he was created, and are utterly indifpofed, disabled, and made oppofite to all that is fpiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original fin, and from which do proceed all actual tranfgreffions, fo as we are by nature children of wrath, bond-flaves to Satan, and juftly liable to all punishments in this world and in that which is to come, even to everlasting separation from the comfortable prefence of God, and to moft grievous torments in foul and body, without intermiffion, in hell fire for ever."

3

That which in this paffage we are first to examine, is the fentence

112

For it.

, and

onfe

ces.

12, 15-20.

of A- sentence which affirms all mankind defcending from Adam an by ordinary generation to have finned in him and fallen with him in his firft tranfgreffion; the truth of which is attempted to be proved by various texts of Holy Scripture. Thus St Paul fays exprefsly, that " by one man fin entered into the world, and death by fin; and fo death paffed upon all men, for that all have finned. But not as the offence, Arguments fo alfo is the free gift. For if, through the offence of one, many be dead; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jefus Chrift, hath abounded unto many; and not as it was by one that finned, fo is the gift (for the judgment was by one unto condemnation); but the free gift is of many offences unto juftification, For if, by one man's offence, death reigned by one; much more they, who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, fhall reign in life by one, Jefus Chrift. Therefore as, by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even fo, by the righteoufnefs of One, the free gift came upon all men unto juftification of life. For as by one man's difobedience many were made finners; Rom. v. fo by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous‡." In this paffage the apostle affures us, that all upon whom death hath paffed have finned; but death hath paffed upon infants, who could not commit actual fin. Infants there fore must have finned in Adam, fince death hath paffed upon them; for death "is the wages only of fin." He tells us likewife, that by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; and therefore, fince the Righteous Judge of heaven and earth never condemns the innocent with the wicked, we must conclude, that all men partake of the guilt of that offence for which judgment came upon them to condemnation. Thefe conclufions are confirmed by his faying exprefsly, that " by one man's difobedience * Rom. i.many (i. e. all mankind) were made finners;” and elsewhere, Jc. and that "there is none righteous, no not one;" and that his Eph. ii. 1. Ephefian converts "were dead in trefpaffes and fins, and were by nature children of wrath even as others." The fame doctrine, it is faid, we are taught by the infpired writers of the Old Teftament. Thus Job, expoftulating with God for bringing into judgment with him fuch a creature as man, says, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an un-clean? Not one." And Eliphaz, reproving the patient pa Job xiv. triarch for what he deemed prefumption, afks +, "What is man that he should be clean, or he who is born of a woman that he should be righteous?" From these two paffages it is plain, that Job and his unfeeling friend, though they a greed in little elfe, admitted as a truth unqueftionable, that man inherits from his parents a finful nature, and that it is impoffible for any thing born of a woman by ordinary generation to be righteous. The Pfalmift taiks the very fame 5 Pfalm li. language; when acknowledging his tranfgreffions, he fays §, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in fin did my mother conceive me."

and 3

4. and xv.

14.

113 Adam's

Having thus proved the fact, that all men are made finguilt impu ners by Adam's difobedience, the divines, who embrace this ted to his fide of the queftion, proceed to inquire how they can be polterity. partakers in guilt which was incurred fo many ages before they were born. It cannot be by imitation; for infants, according to them, are involved in this guilt before they be capable of imitating any thing. Neither do they admit that fin is by the apoftle put for the confequences of fin, and many faid to be made finners by one man's difobedience, becaufe by that difobedience they were fubjected to death, which is the wages of fin. This, which they call the doctrine of the Arminians, they affirm to be contrary -to the whole fcope and defign of the context; as it confounds together fin and death, which are there reprefented, the one as the cause, and the other as the effect. It like. VOL. XVIII. Part II.

its confe

quences.

wife exhibits the apoftle reafoning in fuch a manner as Fall of a.. would, in their opinion, difgrace any man of common fenfe, dani, and and much more an infpired writer; for then the fense of these words, "Death hath paffed upon all men, for that all have finned," must be, death hath paffed upon all men, because it hath paffed upon all men; or, all men are ob noxious to death, because they are obnoxious to it. The only way therefore, continue they, in which Adam's pote rity can be made finners through his disobedience, is by the IMPUTATION of his difobedience to them; and this imputation is not to be confidered in a moral fenfe, as the action of a man committed by himself, whether good or bad, is reckoned unto him as his own; but in a forensic fenfe, as when one man's debts are in a legal way placed to the account of another. Of this we have an inftance in the apoftle Paul, who faid to Philemon concerning Onefimus, "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee any thing (xy), let it be imputed to me," or placed to and put on my account. And thus the pofterity of Adam are made finners by his difobedience; that being imputed to them and put to their account, as if it had been committed by them perfonally, though it was not.

Some few divines of this fchool are indeed of opinion, that the phrafe," By one man's difobedience many were made finners," means nothing more than that the pofterity of Adam, through his fin, derive from him a corrupt nature. But though this be admitted as an undoubted truth, the more zealous abettors of the fyftem contend, that it is not the whole truth. "It is true (fay they) that all men are made of one man's blood, and that blood tainted with fin; and fo a clean thing cannot be brought out of an unclean. What is born of the flesh is flef, carnal and corrupt: every man is conceived in fin and flapen in iniquity: but then there is a difference between being made finners and becoming finful. The one refpects the guilt, the other the pollution of nature; the one is previous to the other, and the foundation of it. Men receive a corrupt nature from their immediate parents; but they are made finners, not by any act of their difobedience, but only by the imputation of the fin of Adam.”

14

To confirm and illuftrate this doctrine of imputed fin, they obferve, that the word xallabear, used by the apoftle, fignifies conflituted in a judicial way, ordered and appointed in the difpenfation of things that fo it fhould be; just as Chrift was made fin or a finner by imputation, or by that conftitution of God which laid upon him the fins of all his people, and dealt with him as if he had been the guilty perfon. That this is the fenfe of the paffage, they argue further from the punishment inflicted on men for the fin of Adam. The punishment threatened to that fin was death; The unif which includes death corporal, moral, and eternal. Corpo- ment of inral death, fay they, is allowed by all to be fuffered on ac-puted guilt. count of the fin of Adam; and if fo, there must be guilt, and that guilt made over to the fufferer, which can be done only by imputation. A moral death is no other than the lofs of the image of God in man, which confifted in righte oufnefs and holinefs; and particularly it is the lofs of original righteoufuefs, to which fucceeded unrighteoufnef and unholinets. It is both a fin and a punishment for fin; and fince it comes upon all men as a punishment, it must fuppole preceding fin, which can be nothing but Adam's difobedience; the guilt of which is made over to his pofterity by imputation. This appears ftill more evident from the pofterity of Adam being made liable to eternal death in confequence of his tranfgreffion; for the wages of fin, we are affured, is death, even death eternal, which never can be inflicted on guiltless perfons. But from the pallage before us we learn, that" by the offence of one judgment came upon 3 L

all

its confe

Fa of A- all men to condemnation ;" and therefore the guilt of that dam, and offence must be reckoned to all men, or they could not be quences. juftly condemned for it. That Adam's fin is imputed to his pofterity, appears not only from the words, " by one man's disobedience many were made finners;" but likewife from the oppofite clause, "fo by the obedience of One fhall many be made righteous;" for the many ordained to eternal life, for whom Chrift died, are made righteous, or jufti. fied, only through the imputation of his righteoufnefs to them; and therefore it follows, that all men are made finners only through the imputation of Adam's difobedience.

12.

9, 10.

rity.

14.

115

To this doctrine it is faid to be no objection that Adam's pofterity were not in being when his fin was committed; for though they had not then actual being, they had yet a virtual and representative one. They were in him both feRom. v. minally and federally, and finned in him; jut as Levi was in the loins of Abraham, and paid in him tithes to Melchi+ Heb. vi. zedeckt. From Adam, as their common parent, they derive a corrupt nature; but it is only from him, as their federal head, that they derive a fhare of his guilt, and are Adam a fe-fubjected to his punishment. That he was a federal head deral head to all his pofterity, the divines of this fchool think evident to his pofte-from his being called a figure of Chrift; and the firft ARom. v. dam defcribed as natural and earthly, in contradiftinction to Chrift the fecond Adam defcribed as fpiritual and the Lord from heaven; and from the punishment threatened against his fin being inflicted not on himself only, but on all his fucceeding offspring. He could not be a figure of Chrift, fay they, merely as a man; for all the fons of Adam have been men as well as he, and in that fenfe were as much figures of Christ as he; yet Adam and Christ are conftantly contrafed, as though they had been the only two men that ever exifted, because they were the only two heads of their respective offspring. He could not be a figure of Chrift on account of his extraordinary production; for though both were produced in ways uncommon, yet each was brought into the world in a way peculiar to himself. The first Adam was formed of the duft of the ground; the fecond, though not begotten by a man, was born of a woman. They did not therefore resemble each other in the manner of their formation, but in their office as covenantheads; and in that alone the comparison between them is exact.

1:6

No caufe of complaint in this conftitution of things.

Nor have any of the pofterity of Adam, it is faid, reafon to complain of fuch a procedure. Had he ftood in his integrity, they would have been, by his ftanding, partakers of all his happiness; and therefore fhould not murmur at receiving evil through his all. If this do not fatisfy, let it be confidered, that fince God, in his infinite wifdom, thought proper that men fhould have a head and represen tative, in whose hands their good and happiness should be placed, none could be fo fit for this high ftation as the common parent, made after the image of God, so wife, fo holy, juft, and good. Laftly, to filence all objections, let it be remembered, that what God gave to Adam as a federal head, relating to himself and his pofterity, he gave as the Sovereign of the univerfe, to whom no created being has a See Gill's right to afk, "What doft thou* ?" Body of Diwinity.

117

Such are the confequences of Adam's fall, and fuch the doctrine of original fin, as maintained by the more rigid followers of Calvin. That great reformer, however, was not the author of this doctrine. It had been taught, fo St Auguf- early as in the beginning of the fifth century, by St Autine of us gultine, the celebrated bishop of Hippo (fee AUGUSTINE); and the authority of that father had made it more or lefs prevalent in both the Greek and Roman churches long before the Reformation. Calvin was indeed the most eminent modern divine by whom it has been held in all its rigour;

tine the au

doctrine.

its confe

and it conftitutes one great part of that theological fyftem Fall of Awhich, from being taught by him, is now known by the dam, and name of Calvinism. Thofe by whom it is embraced main- quences. tain it with zeal, as, in their opinion, forming, together with the other tenets of their mater, the only pure fyftem of evangelical truths; but it hath met with much oppofition in fome of the Lutheran churches, as well as from private divines in the church of England, and from the great body of Dutch remonftrants (fee CALVINISM, ARMINIANS, and SYNOD OF DORT); and of their objections it is now our duty to give a candid view, as well as of the doctrine which they fubftitute in its ftead.

The

118

They begin then with alleging, that if it was as fove-Objections reign of the univerfe that God gave to Adam what he re- to it, ceived in paradife relating to himself and his pofterity, Adam could in no fenfe of the words be a federal head; becaufe, upon this fuppofition, there was no covenant. Sovereign of the Univerfe may unquestionably difpenfe his benefits, or withhold them, as feems expedient to his infinite wifdom; and none of his fubjects or creatures can have a right to fay to him, What doft thou? But the difpenfing or withholding of benefits is a tranfa&tion very different from the entering into covenants; and a judgment is to be formed of it upon very different principles. Every thing around us proclaims that the Sovereign of the Universe is a being of perfect benevolence; but, fay the difciples of the fchool now under confideration, the difpenfation given to Adam in paradife was fo far from being the offspring of benevolence, that, as it is understood by the followers of Calvin, it cannot poffibly be reconciled with the eternal laws of equity. The felf-existent and all-fufficient God might or might not have created fuch a being as man; and in either cafe there would have been no realon for the question "What doft thou?" But as foon as he determined to create him capable of happiness or mifery, he would not have been either benevolent or juft, if he had not placed him in a state where, by his own exertions, he might, if he chofe, have a greater fhare of happiness than of mifery, and find his exiftence, upon the whole, a bleffing. They readily acknowledge, that the existence of any created being may be of longer or fhorter duration, according to the good pleasure of the Creator; and therefore they have no objection to the apoftolic doctrine, that " in Adam all die :" for immortality being not a debt, but a free gift, may be bestowed upon any terms whatever, and with perfect juftice withdrawn when thefe terms are not complied with. Between death,. however, as it implies a lofs of conscioufnefs, and the extreme mifery of eternal life in torments, there is an immense difference. To death all mankind might juflly be subje&ed through the offence of one; because they had originally no claim of right to be exempted from it, though that one and they too had remained for ever innocent: but eternal life in torments is a punishment which a God of justice and fiftent with benevolence can never inflict but upon perfonal guilt of the the juftice deepeft die. That we can perfonally have incurred guilt of God. from a crime committed fome thoufands of years before we were born, is impoffible. It is indeed a notion, if fuch a notion can be formed, as contrary to Scripture as to reason and common fenfe: for the apoftle exprefsly informs us *,*1 John iži. "that fin is the tranfgreffion of fome law;" and the fin of 4. Adam was the tranfgreffion of a law which it was never in our power either to oblerve or to break. Another apoftle+ + Rom. iv. affures us, that "where no law is, there is no tranfgreffion;”15but there is now no law, nor has been any thefe 5000 years, forbidding mankind to eat of a particular fruit; for, according to the Calvinifts themselves, Adam had no fooner Gill's Bo committed his first fia, by which the covenant with him wasdy of Divi broken, than he ceased to be a covenant-head, The law ity, book iii. ch. 10 6 given

119 As incon

its confequences.

120

Fall of A given him was no more; the promife of life by it ceafed; dam, and and its fanction, death, took place. But if this be fo, how is it poffible that his unborn pofterity fhould be under a law which had no existence, or that they fhould be in a worse flate in confequence of the covenant being broken, and its promife having ceafed, than he himself was before the covenant was first made? He was originally a mortal being, and was promifed the fupernatural gift of immortality on the fingle condition of his abftaining from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that fruit he did not abftain; but by eating it fell back into his natural ftate of mortality. Thus far it is admitted that his pofterity fell with him; for they have no claim to a fupernatural gift The icripwhich he had forfeited by his tranfgreffion. But we cannot ture, and admit, fay the divines of this school, that they fell into his the nature guilt; for to render it poffible for a man to incur guilt by of things. the tranfgreffion of a law, it is neceflary not only that he have it in his power to keep the law, but also that he be capable of tranfgreffing it by a voluntary deed. But furely no man could be capable of voluntarily eating the forbidden fruit 5000 years before he himself or his volitions exifted. The followers of Calvin think it a fufficient objection to the doctrine of tranfubftantiation, that the fame numerical body cannot be in different places at the fame inftant of time. But this ubiquity of body, fay the remonftrants, is not more palpably abfurd, than the fuppofition that a man could exert volitions before he or his will had any exiftence. If indeed there be any difference between the two cafes, it is in favour of the Catholic doctrine of the real prefence; for we are by no means so intimately acquainted with the internal fubftance of body, and what can be predicated of it, as we are with the nature of guilt and the exercise of volition. These we know thoroughly as they really are in themselves; the former only relatively as it is feen in its qualities.

121

The word

TION re. moves no

difficulties.

Nor will the introduction of the word imputation into this IMPUTA- important question remove a fingle difficulty. For what is it that we mean by faying that the fin of Adam is imputed to his pofterity? Is the guilt of that fin transferred from him to them? So furely thought Dr Gill, when he faid that it is made over to them. But this is the fame abfurdity as the making over of the fenfible qualities of bread and wine to the internal fubftance of our Saviour's body and blood! This imputation either found the pofterity of Adam guilty of his fin, or it made them fo. It could not find them guilty for the reafon already affigned; as well as because the apoftle fays exprefsly, that for the offence of one judgment came upon all men, which would not be true had all offended. It could not make them guilty; for this reafon, that if there be in phyfics or metaphyfics a single truth felf-evident, it is, that the numerical powers, actions, or qualities, of one being cannot poffibly be transferred to another, and be made its powers, actions, or qualities. Different beings may in diftant ages have qualities of the fame kind; but as eafily may 4 and 3 be made equal to 9, as two beings be made to have the fame identical quality. In Scripture we nowhere read of the actions of one man being imputed to another. "Abraham (we are told) believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteoufnefs;" but it was his own faith, and not the faith of another man, that was fo counted. "To him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith (not another's) is imputed for righteoufnefs." And of our faith in him that raifed Chrift from the dead, it is faid, that "it fhall be imputed, not to our fathers or our children, but to us for righteousness.” Meaning of When this phrafe is ufed with a negative, not only is the that word man's own perfonal fin fpoken of, but the non-imputation in fcripof that fin means nothing more but that it brings not upon the finner condign punishment. Thus when Shemei "iaid

122

ture.

its confequences.

2 Cor. v.

unto David, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me;" it Fall of A. could not be his meaning that the king fhould not think dam, and that he had offended; for with the fame breath he added, "Neither do thou remember that which thy fervant did perverfely, the day that my lord the king went out of Jerufa lem, that the king fhould take it to his heart. For thy fervant doth know that I have finned." Here he plainly confeffes his fin, and declares, that by intreating the king not to impute it to him, he wished only that it fhould not be fo remembered as that the king fhould take it to heart, and punish him as his perverfenefs deferved. When therefore it is faid, that "God was in Chrift reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their iniquities, the meaning 19. is only that for Chrift's fake he was pleafed to exempt them from the punishment due to their fins. In like manner, when the prophet, foretelling the fufferings of the Meffiah, fays, that "the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all," his meaning cannot be, that the Lord by imputation made his immaculate Son guilty of all the fins that men have ever committed; for in that cafe it would not be true that the "juft fuffered for the unjuft," as the apostle expressly teaches : but the fenfe of the verfe must be as Bishop Co-1 Peter iii« verdale tranflated it, " through him the Lord pardoneth all is. our fins." This interpretation is countenanced by the ancient verfion of the Seventy, και Κύριος παρέδωκεν αυτόν ταις dualiais hear; words which express a notion very different from that of imputed guilt. The Meffiah was, without a breach of jultice, delivered for fins of which he had voluntarily offered to pay the penalty; and St Paul might have been juitly charged by Philemon with the debts of Onefimus, which he had delired might be placed to his account. Had the apoftle, however, expreffed no fuch defire, furely Philemon could by no deed of his have made him liable for debts contracted by another; far lefs could he by imputation, whatever that word may mean, have made him virtually concur in the contracting of thofe debts. Just fo it feems to be with refpect to the sufferings of Chrift for the fins of men: He could not have been justly fubjected to fuffering without his own content; and he could not poffibly have been made guilty of the fins of thofe for whom he fuffered.

The doctrine of imputed guilt therefore, as understood by the Calvinifts, is, in the opinion of their opponents, without foundation in Scripture, and contrary to the nature of things. It is an impious abfurdity (fay they), to which the mind can never be reconciled by the hypothefis, that all men were in Adam both feminally and federally, and fiuned in him, as Levi paid tithes to Melchizedeck in the loins of Abraham. The apoftle, when he employs that argument to leffen in the minds of his countrymen the pride of birth and the lofty opinions entertained of their priesthood, plainly intimates, that he was ufing a bold figure, and that Levi's paying tithes is not to be understood in a strict and literal fenfe. "Now confider (fays he) how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the fpoils. And, as I may fo fay, Levi allo, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham: for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedeck met him." This is a very good argument to prove that the Levitical priesthood was inferior in dignity to that of Melchizedeck; and by the apoftle it is employed for no other purpose. Levi could not be greater than Abraham, and yet Abraham was inferior to Melchizedeck. This is the whole of St Paul's reafoning, which lends no fupport to the doctrine of original fin, unless it can be fhown that Levi and all his de- Moral guilt fcendants contracted from this circumftance fuch a strong ted propenfity to the paying of tithes, as made it a matter of from fa.her extreme difficulty for them, in every fubfequent generation, to fun.

123

cannot be