he works nothing but what he wills), and yet the sinfulness of the action is neither his work nor will.

"But can those passions or propensities be sinful which are neither caused nor consented to by me?" I answer, spite, envy, and those other passions and tempers which are manifestly discernible, even in little children, are certainly not virtuous, not morally good, whether you term them sinful or not; and it is as certain these exist before they are consented to, much less caused, by those that feel them. "But sin, if it is unavoidable, is no sin." Whether you term it sin or not, it is contrary to the nature of God, and a transgression of his holy and good law.

“But a natural moral evil is a contradiction, for if it be natural it cannot be moral." That tempers contrary to the nature and the law of God are natural is a point of daily experience, but if you do not choose to call these morally evil, call them what you please. All I aver is that such tempers do exist in us antecedent to our choice.

"But if the actual sins of men proceed from a corrupt nature they are unavoidable, and consequently no sins at all." Actual sins may proceed from a corrupt nature and yet not be unavoidable; but if actions contrary to the nature of God were unavoidable it would not follow that they were innocent.

To the question, "How comes it to pass that our passions and appetites are now so irregular and strong that not one person has resisted them so as to keep himself pure and innocent?" you answer by another question, "How came Adam not to keep himself pure and innocent?" There is no parity between the one case and the other. I can account for any one man's committing sin, supposing him to be naturally upright, as easily as for Adam's committing it. Any one person, as well as Adam, though naturally inclined to neither, might choose either good or evil; and on this supposition he would be as likely to choose one as the other. But the case is extremely different if you place Adam on one side and all mankind on the other. It is true, "the nature of sin is not altered by its being general." But the case is very widely altered. On this or that man it may "come just as it came upon Adam, by his own choice and compliance with temptation." But how comes it that all men under the sun should choose evil rather than good? How came all the children of Adam, from the beginning of the world till now, to comply with temptation? How is it that, in all ages, the scale has turned the wrong way with regard to every man born into

you find

the world? Can you see no difficulty in this? And can any way to solve that difficulty, but to say with the psalmist, shapen in iniquity, and in sin did our mothers con

we were

ceive" us?

OF ORIGINAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.

(Reply to Dr. Taylor, continued, 1757.)

"ORIGINAL righteousness is said to be 'that moral rectitude in which Adam was created. His reason was clear, and sense, appetite, and passion were subject to it. His judgment was uncorrupted, and his will had a constant propensity to holiness. He had a supreme love to his Creator, a fear of offending him, and a readiness to do his will.' When Adam sinned he lost this moral rectitude, this image of God in which he was created; in consequence of which all his posterity come into the world destitute of that image."-Dr. Taylor.

In order to remove this mistake, you reconsider some of the texts on which it is grounded. "Lie not one to another, seeing ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him" (Col. iii, 9, 10). "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 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" (Eph. iv, 22-24.)

On this, you affirm, "The old' and 'new man,' here, do not signify a course of life, but the old man' signifies the heathen, the 'new man' the Christian profession."

This you prove, 1. From Eph. ii, 15: "Christ abolished the enmity, to make (or create) in himself of twain one new man.” Does this only mean one new profession? It evidently means one Church, both of Jews and Gentiles.

You prove it, 2. From Col. iii, 8-12, where "the apostle tells the Colossian Christians that 'now' they were obliged to 'put off anger,' and 'to put on bowels of mercies;' to admit the Christian spirit into their hearts, and to practise Christian duties; for this reason, because they had put off the old man,' and 'had put on the new.' This shows the new man' was something they might have 'put on,' and yet be defective in personal internal holiness." True; defective so far as still to want more-more "bowels of mercies, meekness, long-suffering." But this does not show that the "new man" does not mean the principle both of internal and external holiness. The consciousness of having

received this is a strong motive both to depart from evil and to labor after a continual increase of every holy and heavenly temper; therefore, here likewise, "the putting off the old and the putting on the new man " does not mean an outward profession, but a real, inward change, a renewal of soul "in righteousness and true holiness."

You prove it, 3. From Eph. iv, 22, 24: "Here," you say, "he considers the putting off the old' and 'putting on the new man as a duty. They had done it by profession, and therefore were obliged to do it effectually." They had done it effectually. So the whole tenor of the apostle's words implies: "Ye have not so learned Christ; if so be," rather seeing that, "ye have been taught by him, that ye put off the old man, 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" (Eph. iv, 20-24). The apostle here manifestly speaks, not of a lesson they had not learned, but of one which God had taught them already; and thence exhorts them to walk worthy of the blessing they had received, to be "holy in all manner of conversation."

But you say, 4. "The putting on the new man' is one thing, and 'the creating him' is another. He must first be created, and then put on." No; he is created and put on at the same time; the former word more directly referring to God, who creates, the latter to man, who is created. "But God," you say, ""created the new man,' when he erected the gospel dispensation, as appears from Eph. ii, 15, 19-22." I answer: (1) If those latter verses are explanatory of that expression, "one new man," in the fifteenth, then it does not mean one outward profession, but the one Church of living believers in Christ. (2) The expression in the fifteenth verse is not the same with that we are now considering. Neither is the meaning of that and this expression the same: "One new man means one Church, and nothing else;" "the new man means quite another thing, the work of God in every individual believer.

You say, 5. "The old man and the new,' and the 'new man's being renewed and created,' and the 'renewing' of the Ephesians, all refer, not to any corruption of nature, but to their late wicked life." What? Does their being "renewed in the spirit of their mind" refer only to their wicked life? If you had not affirmed this I should really wonder at your affirming quickly after, "In all other places of Scripture, except 2 Cor. iv, 16, 'renewing' relates only to a vicious course of life;" seeing you

immediately confute yourself by both the following citations: "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Rom. xii, 2), unless the mind be only another expression for " a vicious course of life:" "We ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures; living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another" (Tit. iii, 3-5). Do these words imply nothing but "a vicious course of life? no inward corruption at all?" "But after that the loving-kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared; he saved us by the renewing of the Holy Ghost." From what? from a vicious course of life only? Nay, but from "foolishness" of heart also, from error, from malice, hatred, envy, evil desire, all which are inward corruptions.

ness

You add: "From all this we may gather that God's creating a new man after his own image in righteousness and true holimeans his erecting the Christian Church with a view to promote righteousness and holiness among men. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works."" Surely, you do not cite this verse also to prove that the " ing of our mind " implies no inward change! It must be something more than an outward profession, or the reforming a vicious course of life, by reason of which we are said to be "God's workmanship, created anew in Christ Jesus."

renew

These texts, therefore, do manifestly refer to personal, internal holiness; and clearly prove that this is the chief part of that "image of God" in which man was originally created.

The other text which you reconsider is Eccl. vii, 29: "God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." But this, you say, does not mean that God made man righteous, but that he made him right, as having those powers, means, and encouragements by a due use of which he may become righteous. In order to prove that this is the true meaning of the words, you affirm, 1. “That man here is not to be understood of Adam, but of all mankind." This cannot be granted without full proof. You affirm, 2. "This appears from the latter part of the sentence: They sought out many inventions."" Adam and Eve did so in and after their fall. This, therefore, proves nothing. You affirm, 3. "The word jashar" (which we translate upright) "does not always imply uprightness or righteousness." But this is its proper meaning, as will its proper meaning, as will appear to any who seriously considers the following texts: (1) "When thou shalt do

that which is right in the sight of the Lord" (Deut. xii, 25). It is taken in the very same sense, verse 28; xiii, 18, and xxi, 9. In all these texts it undeniably implies morally good, or righteous. (2) "A God of truth and without iniquity; just and right is he " (Deut. xxxii, 4). "Good and upright is the Lord" (Psa. xxv, 8). (3) "The word of the Lord is right" (Psa. xxxiii, 4). "The ways of the Lord are right" (Hos. xiv, 9). (4) "Be glad and rejoice, ye righteous" (Psa. xxxii, 11). "Rejoice in the Lord, O ye righteous" (Psa. xxxiii, 1). In the very same sense it occurs in numberless places. As the word is therefore properly applied to God himself, to his word, his providences, and his people (in all which cases it must necessarily mean righteous), we cannot lightly depart from this its proper signification.

But you think there is a necessity of departing from it here; because "to say God created Adam righteous is to affirm a contradiction, or what is inconsistent with the very nature of righteousness. For a righteousness wrought in him without his knowledge or consent would have been no righteousness at all." You may call it by any name you like better. But we must use the old name still; as being persuaded that the love of God, governing the senses, appetites, and passions, however or whenever it is wrought in the soul, is true, essential righteousness.

Nay, "righteousness is right action." Indeed, it is not. Here (as we said before) is your fundamental mistake. It is a right state of mind, which differs from right action as the cause does from the effect. Righteousness is, properly and directly, a right temper or disposition of mind, or a complex of all right tempers.

For want of observing this you say, "Adam could not act before he was created. Therefore, he must exist and use his intellectual powers before he could be righteous." "But, according to this reasoning," as Dr. Jennings observes, "Christ could not be righteous at his birth." You answer, "He existed before he was made flesh." I reply, He did-as God. But the man Christ Jesus did not. Neither, therefore, did he use his intellectual powers. According to your reasoning, then, the man Christ Jesus could not be righteous at his birth.

The doctor adds: "Nay, according to this reasoning God could not be righteous from eternity; because he must exist before he was righteous." (Jennings's Vindication.) You answer: "My reasoning would hold even with respect to God, were it true that he ever did begin to exist. But neither the existence nor the holiness of God was prior to each other." (Taylor's Supplement,