under the hand of the oppressor, or the extortioner has entered into their labors. You see, then, in all these cases, want (though in various ways) is the effect of sin. But is there no rich man

near? none that could relieve these innocent sufferers without impairing his own fortune? Yes; but he thinks of nothing less. They may rot and perish for him. See, more sin is implied in their suffering.

But is not the family of that rich man himself happy? No; far from it, perhaps farther than his poor neighbors. For they are not content, their "eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor" their "ear with hearing." Endeavoring to fill their souls with the pleasures of sense and imagination, they are only pouring water into a sieve. Is not this the case with the wealthiest families you know? But it is not the whole case with some of them. There is a debauched, a jealous, or an ill-natured husband; a gaming, passionate, or imperious wife; an undutiful son, or an imprudent daughter, who banishes happiness from the house. And what is all this but sin in various shapes, with its sure attendant, misery?

In a town, a corporation, a city, a kingdom, is it not the same thing still? From whence comes that complication of all the miseries incident to human nature, war? Is it not from the tempers "which war in the soul?" When nation rises up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, does it not necessarily imply pride, ambition, coveting what is another's; or envy, or malice, or revenge on one side, if not on both? Still, then, sin is the baleful source of affliction, and consequently the flood of miseries which covers the face of the earth-which overwhelms not only single persons, but whole families, towns, cities, kingdoms-is a demonstrative proof of the overflowing of ungodliness in every

nation under heaven.

THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF DEPRAVITY.

(Written in reply to Dr. John Taylor's treatise on Original Sin," in 1757.)

I. 1. THE fact, then, being undeniable, I would ask, How is it to be accounted for? Will you resolve it into the prevalence of custom, and say, "Men are guided more by example than reason?" It is true: they run after one another like a flock of sheep (as Seneca remarked long ago), Non qua eundum est, sed qua itur : "Not where they ought to go, but where others go." But I gain no ground by this; I am equally at a loss to account for this cus

tom. How is it (seeing men are reasonable creatures, and nothing is so agreeable to reason as virtue) that the custom of all ages and nations is not on the side of virtue rather than vice? If you say, "This is owing to bad education, which propagates ill customs,' I own education has an amazing force far beyond what is commonly imagined. I own, too, that as bad education is found among Christians as ever obtained among the heathens. But I am no nearer still; I am not advanced a hair's breadth toward the conclusion. For how am I to account for the almost universal prevalence of this bad education? I want to know when this prevailed first, and how it came to prevail. How came wise and good men (for such they must have been before bad education commenced) not to train up their children in wisdom and goodness, in the way wherein they had been brought up themselves! They had then no ill precedent before them; how came they to make such a precedent? And how came all the wisdom of after ages never to correct that precedent? You must suppose it to have been of ancient date. Profane history gives us a large account of universal wickedness, that is, universal bad education, for above two thousand years last past. Sacred history adds the account of above two thousand more; in the very beginning of which (more than four thousand years ago) "all flesh had corrupted their ways before the Lord!" or, to speak agreeably to this hypothesis, were very corruptly educated. Now, how is this to be accounted for, that, in so long a tract of time, no one nation under the sun has been able, by wholesome laws, or by any other method, to remove this grievous evil, so that, their children being well educated, the scale might at length turn on the side of reason and virtue?

These are questions which I conceive will not easily be answered to the satisfaction of any impartial inquirer. But to bring the matter to a short issue: the first parents who educated their children in vice and folly either were wise and virtuous themselves or were not. If they were not their vice did not proceed from education; so the supposition falls to the ground: wickedness was antecedent to bad education. If they were wise and virtuous, it cannot be supposed but they would teach their children to tread in the same steps. In no wise, therefore, can we account for the present state of mankind from example or education.

2. Let us, then, have recourse to the oracles of God. How do they teach us to account for this fact, that “all flesh corrupted their way before God," even in the antediluvian world; that mankind was little, if at all, less corrupt from the flood to the giving

of the law by Moses; that from that time till Christ came even God's chosen people were a "faithless and stubborn generation," little better, though certainly not worse, than the heathens who knew not God; that when Christ came both "Jews and Gentiles" were "all under sin, all the world was guilty before God;" that, even after the Gospel had been preached in all nations, still the wise and virtuous were a "little flock," bearing so small a proportion to the bulk of mankind that it might yet be said, "The whole world lieth in wickedness; that from that time "the mystery of iniquity" wrought even in the Church, till the Christians were little better than the heathens; and, lastly, that at this day "the whole world," whether pagan, Mohammedan, or nominally Christian (little, indeed, is the flock which is to be excepted), again "lieth in wickedness," doth not "know the only true God," doth not love, doth not worship him as God; hath not "the mind which was in Christ," neither "walketh as he walked;" doth not practice justice, mercy, and truth, nor do to others as they would others should do to them;-how, I say, do the oracles of God teach us to account for this plain fact?

3. They teach us that "in Adam all die" (1 Cor. xv, 22, compared with Gen. ii and iii); that "by" the first "man came" both natural and spiritual "death;" that "by" this " one man sin entered into the world, and death" in consequence of sin; and that from him "death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned" (Rom. v, 12).

But you aver that "no evil but temporal death came upon men

in consequence of Adam's sin.”* And this you endeavor to prove by considering the chief Scriptures which are supposed to relate thereto.

The first you mention is Gen. ii, 17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

On this you observe: "Death was to be the consequence of his disobedience. And the death here threatened can be opposed only to that life God gave Adam when he created him." True; but how are you assured that God, when he created him, did not give him spiritual as well as animal life? Now, spiritual death is opposed to spiritual life. And this is more than the death of the body.

"But this is pure conjecture without a solid foundation, for no

* Dr. Taylor's Doctrine of Original Sin, Part 1, to whom I address myself in what follows. What is quoted from him, generally in his own words, is inclosed in commas.

other life is spoken of before." Yes; there is: "the image of God" is spoken of before. This is not, therefore, pure conjecture, but is grounded upon a solid foundation, upon the plain word of God.

Allowing, then, that "Adam could understand it of no other life than that which he had newly received," yet would he naturally understand it of the life of God in his soul, as well as of the life of his body.

"In this light, therefore, the sense of the threatening will stand thus: "Thou shalt surely die;' as if he had said, I have 'formed thee of the dust of the ground, and breathed into thy nostrils the breath of lives;'" both of animal life and of spiritual life; and in both respects thou "art become a living soul." "But if thou eatest of the forbidden tree, thou shalt cease to be a living soul. For I will take from thee" the lives I have given, and thou shalt die spiritually, temporally, eternally.

But "here is not one word relating to Adam's posterity. Though it be true, if he had died immediately upon his transgression all his posterity must have been extinct with him." It is true; yet "not one word" of it is expressed. Therefore, other consequences of his sin may be equally implied, though they are no more expressed than this.

4. The second scripture you cite is Gen. iii, from verse 7 to 24. On this you observe: Here "we have some consequences of our first parents' sin before God judged them, some appointed by his judicial sentence, and some which happened after that sentence was pronounced."

"Immediately upon their transgression they were seized with shame and fear. Guilt will always be attended with shame. And a state of guilt is often in Scripture expressed by being naked. Moses 'saw that the people were naked; for Aaron had made them naked to their shame among their enemies' (Exod. xxxii, 25)." Certainly, naked does not mean guilty here; but either stripped of their ornaments (xxiii, 5, 6), or of their swords, or their upper garment. "Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen" (Isa. xlvii, 3). Here also nakedness does not mean guilt; but is to be taken literally, as manifestly appears from the words immediately preceding: "Make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers" (verse 2). And, "blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame" (Rev. xvi, 15). The plain meaning is, lest he lose the graces he hath received, and so be ashamed before men and angels.

"Their fear is described: 'Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden' (Gen. iii, 8). They had no such fear while they were innocent; but now they were afraid to stand before their judge."

This is all you can discern in the Mosaic account as the consequence of our first parents' sin before God judged them. Mr. Hervey discerns something more. I make no apology for transcribing some of his words:

“Adam violated the precept, and, as the nervous original expresses it, 'died the death.' He before possessed a life incomparably more excellent than that which the beasts enjoy. He possessed a divine life, consisting, according to the apostle, 'in knowledge, in righteousness, and true holiness.' This, which was the distinguishing glory of his nature, in the day that he ate the forbidden fruit was extinct.

"His understanding, originally enlightened with wisdom, was clouded with ignorance. His heart, once warmed with heavenly love, became alienated from God his maker. His passions and appetites, rational and regular before, shook off the gov ernment of order and reason. In a word, the whole moral frame was unhinged, disjointed, broken.

"The ignorance of fallen Adam was palpable. Witness that absurd attempt to hide himself from the eye of Omniscience among the trees of the garden. His aversion to the all-gracious God was equally plain; otherwise, he would never have fled from his Maker, but rather have hastened on the wings of desire into the place of the divine manifestation.

"A strange variety of disorderly passions were evidently predominant in his breast. Pride; for he refuses to acknowledge his guilt, though he cannot but own the fact. Ingratitude; for he obliquely upbraids the Creator with his gift, as though it had been a snare rather than a blessing: The woman thou gavest me.' The female criminal acts the same unhumbled part. She neither takes shame to herself, nor gives glory to God, nor puts up a single petition for pardon.

"As all these disasters ensued upon the breach of the commandment, they furnish us with the best key to open the meaning of the penalty annexed. They prove beyond any argument that spiritual death and all its consequences were comprised in the extent of the threatening." (Theron and Aspasio, Dial. II.)

5. However, you say, "No other could in justice be punishable for that transgression which was their own act and deed only." If no other was justly punishable, then no other was punished for that transgression. But all were punished for that transgression, namely, with death. Therefore, all men were justly punishable for it. By punishment I mean suffering consequent upon sin, or pain inflicted because of sin preceding. Now, it is plain all mankind suffer death, and that this suffering is consequent upon Adam's sin. Yea, and that this pain is inflicted on all men because of his sin. When, therefore, you say, "Death does descend to us in consequence of his transgression," you allow the point we contend for, and are very welcome to add, "Yet it is not a punishment for You allow the thing. Call it by what name you please.