The Doctrine of Original Sin, Theological treatise · Part 2 · Chapter 1

The Doctrine of Original Sin · Theological treatise · Part 2 · Chapter 1

p. 139CHAP. I.

Observations relating to Things contained in the three first Chapters of Genesis, with Reference to the Doctrine of Original Sin.

SECT. I.

Concerning Original Righteousness; and whether our first Parents were created with Righteousness or moral Rectitude of Heart?

THE Doctrine of Original Righteousness, or the Creation of our first Parents with holy Principles and Dispositions, has a close Connection, in several Respects, with the Doctrine of Original Sin. Dr.T.—was sensible of this; and accordingly he strenuously opposes this Doctrine, in his Book against Original Sin. And therefore in handling the Subject, I would in the first Place remove this Author's main Objection against this Doctrine; and then shew how the Doctrine may be infer'd from the Account which Moses gives us, in the three first Chapters of Genesis.

Dr. T—r's grand Objection against this Doctrine, which he abundantly insists on, is this: That it is utterly inconsistent with the Nature of Virtue, that it should be concreated with any Person; because, if so, it must be by an Act of God's absolute Power, without our Knowledge or Concurrence; and that moral Virtue, in it's very Nature implieth the Choice and Consent of the moral Agent, p. 140without which it cannot be Virtue and Holiness: that a necessary Holiness, is no Holiness. So P. 179, 180. Where he observes, That Adam must exist, he must be created, yea he must exercise Thought and Reflection, before he was righteous. See also P. 250, 251. In P. 437. he says, To say, that God not only endowed Adam with a Capacity of being righteous, but moreover that Righteousness and true Holiness were created with him, or wrought into his Nature, at the same Time he was made, is to affirm a Contradiction, or what is inconsistent with the very Nature of Righteousness. And in like Manner Dr. Turnbull in many places insists upon it, that it is necessary to the very Being of Virtue, that it be owing to our own Choice, and diligent Culture.

With respect to this, I would observe, that it consists in a Notion of Virtue quite inconsistent with the Nature of Things, and the common Notions of Mankind; and also inconsistent with Dr.T—r's own Notions of Virtue. Therefore, if it be truly so, that to affirm that to be Virtue or Holiness which is not the Fruit of preceeding Thought, Reflection and Choice, is to affirm a Contradiction, I shall shew plainly, that for him to affirm otherwise, is a Contradiction to himself.

In the first Place, I think it a Contradiction to the Nature of Things, as judged of by the common Sense of Mankind. It is agreable to the Sense of the Minds of Men in all Nations and Ages, not only that the Fruit or Effect of a good Choice is virtuous, but the good Choice itself, from whence that Effect proceeds; yea, and not only so, but also the antecedent good Disposition, Temper or Affection of Mind, from whence proceeds that good Choice, is virtuous. This is the general Notion, not that Principles derive their Goodness from Actions, but that Actions derive their Goodness from the Principles whence they proceed; and so that the Act of chusing that which is good, is no further virtuous than it proceeds from a good Principle, or virtuous Disposition of Mind. Which supposes, that a virtuous Disposition of Mind may be before a virtu…us p. 141Act of Choice; and that therefore it is not necessary that there should first be Thought, Reflection and Choice, before there can be any virtuous Disposition. If the Choice be first, before the Existence of a good Disposition of Heart, what signifies that Choice? There can, according to our natural Notions, be no Virtue in a Choice which proceeds from no virtuous Principle, but from me…r Selflove, Ambition, or some animal Appetite. And therefore a virtuous Temper of Mind may be before a good Act of Choice, as a Tree may be before the Fruit, and the Fountain before the Stream which proceeds from it.

The following Things in Mr. Hutcheson's Enquiry concerning moral Good and Evil, are evidently agreable to the Nature of Things, and the Voice of human Sense and Reason. Sect. II. P. 132, 133. Every Action which we apprehend as either morally good or evil, is always supposed to FLOW FROM some Affections towards sensitive Natures. And whatever we call Virtue or Vice, is either some such Affection, or some Action CONSEQUENT UPON IT.—All the Actions counted religious in any Country, are supposed by those who count them so, to FLOW FROM some Affections towards the Deity: and whatever we call social Virtue, we still suppose to FLOW FROM Affections towards our Fellow-Creatures.—Prudence, if it is only employed in promoting private Interest, is never imagined to be a Virtue. In these Things Dr. Turnbull expresly agrees with Mr. Hutcheson, who is his admired Author.**M…r. Phil. P. 11…,—115. P. 142. … ▪

If a virtuous Disposition or Affection is before Acts that proceed from it, then they are before those virtuous Acts of Choice which proceed from it. And therefore there is no Necessity that all virtuous Dispositions or Affections should be the Effect of Choice: and so no such supposed Necessity can be a good Objection against such a Disposition's being natural, or from a Kind of Instinct, implanted in the Mind in it's Creation. Agreable to what Mr. p. 142Hutcheson says (Ibid. Sect. III. P. 196, 197.) I know not, says he, for what Reason some will not allow that to be Virtue, which flows from Instinct or Passions. But how do they help themselves? They say, Virtue arises from Reason. What is Reason, but the Sagacity we have in prosecuting any End? The ultimate End proposed by common Moralists, is the Happiness of the Agent himself. And this certainly he is determined to pursue from Instinct. Now may not another Instinct towards the Publick, or the Good of others, be as proper a Principle of Virtue, as the Instinct towards private Happiness?—If it be said, that Actions from Instinct are not the Effect of Prudence and Choice, this Objection will hold full as strongly against the Actions which flow from Self-love.

And if we consider what Dr. T. declares as his own Notion of the Essence of Virtue, we shall find, what he so confidently and often affirms, of it's being essential to all Virtue that it should follow Choice and proceed from it, is no less repugnant to that, than it is to the Nature of Things, and the general Notions of Mankind. For 'tis his Notion, as well as Mr. Hutcheson's, that the Essence of Virtue lies in good Affection, and particularly in Benevol…nce or Love: as he very fully declares in these Words in his Key, **Marginal Note annexed to §. 326.That the Word that signifies Goodness and Mercy, should also signify moral Rectitude in general, will not seem strange, if we consider that Love is the fulfilling of the Law. Goodness according to the Sense of Scripture, and the Nature of Things, includes all moral Rectitude; which, I reckon, may every Part of it, where it is true and genuine, be resolved into this single Principle. If it be so indeed, then certainly no Act whatsoever can have moral Rectitude, but what proceeds from this Principle. And consequently no Act of Volition or Choice can have any moral Rectitude, that takes Place before this Principles exists. And yet he most p. 143confidently affirms, that Thought, Reflection and Choice must go before Virtue, and that all Virtue or Right…ousness must be the Fruit of preceeding Choice. This brings his Scheme to an evident Contradiction. For no Act of Choice can be virtuous but what proceeds from a Principle of Benevolence or Love; for he insists that all genuine moral Rectitude, in every Part of it, is resolved into this single Principle: And yet the Principle of Benevolence is self, can't be virtuous, unless it proceeds from Choice; for he affirms that Nothing can have the Nature of Virtue but what comes from Choice. So that virtuous Love, as the Principle of all Virtue, must go before virtuous Choice, and be the Principle or Spring of it; and yet virtuous Choice must go before virtuous Benevolence, and be the Spring of that. If a virtuous Act of Choice goes before a Principle of Benevolence, and produces it, then this virtuous Act is something distinct from that Principle which follows it, and is it's Effect. So that here is at least one Part of Virtue, yea the Spring and Source of all Virtue, viz. a virtuous Choice, that cannot be resolved into that single Principle of Love.

Here also it is worthy to be observed, that Dr. T. P. 128. says, The Cause of every Effect, alone, is chargeable with the Effect it produceth, or which proceedeth from it: And so he argues that if the Effect be bad, the Cause alone is sinful. According to which Reasoning, when the Effect is good, the Cause alone is righteous or virtuous; to the Cause is to be ascribed all the Praise of the good Effect it produceth. And by the same Reasoning it will follow, that if, as Dr. T. says, Adam must chuse to be righteous, before he was righteous, and if it be essential to the Nature of Righteousness or moral Rectitude, that it be the Effect of Choice, and hence a Principle of Benevolence can't have moral Rectitude, unless it proceeds from Choice; then not to the Principle of Benevolence, which is the Effect, but to the foregoing Choice alone, is to be ascribed all the Virtue or Righteousness that is in the Case. And so in Stead of all moral Rectitude, in every Part of it, being p. 144resolved into that single Principle of Benevolence, no moral Rectitude, in any Part of it, is to be resolved into that Principle: But all is to be resolved into the foregoing Choice, which is the Cause.

But yet it follows from these inconsistent Principles, there is no moral Rectitude or Virtue in the first Act of Choice, that is the Cause of all consequent Virtue. This follows two Ways; 1. Because every Part of Virtue lies in the benevolent Principle, which is the Effect; and therefore no Part of it can lie in the Cause. 2. The Choice of Virtue, as to the first Act at least, can have no Virtue or Righteousness at all, because it don't proceed from any foregoing Choice. For Dr. T. insists, that a Man must first have Reflection and Choice, before he can have Righteousness; and that it is essential to Holiness, that it proceed from Choice. So that the first Choice of Holiness, which Holiness proceeds from, can have no Virtue at all, because by the Supposition it don't proceed from Choice, being the first Choice. Hence if it be essential to Holiness, that it proceeds from Choice, it must proceed from an unholy Choice; unless the first holy Choice can be before it self, or there be a virtuous Act of Choice before that which is first of all.

And with respect to Adam, let us consider how upon Dr. T—r's Principles, it was possible he ever should have any such Thing as Righteousness, by any Means at all. In the State wherein God created him, he could have no such thing as Love to God, or any Love or Benevolence in his Heart. For if so, there would have been Original Righteousness; there would have been genuine moral Rectitude; Nothing would be wanting: For our Author says, True genuine moral Rectitude, in every Part of it, is to be resolved into this single Principle. But if he were wholly without any such thing as Love to God, or any virtuous Love, how should he come by Virtue? The Answer doubtless will be, By Act of Choice: he must first chuse to be virtuous. But what if he did chuse to be virtuous? It could not be from Love to God, or any p. 153virtuous Principle, that he chose it; for, by the Supposition, he has no such Principle in his Heart: And if he chuses it without such a Principle, still, according to this Author, there is no Virtue in his Choice; for all Virtue, he says, is to be resolved into that single Principle of Love. Or will he say, there may be produced in the Heart a virtuous Benevolence by an Act or Acts of Choice, that are not virtuous? But this don't consist with what he implicitly asserts. That to the Cause alone is to be ascribed what is in the Effect. So that there is no Way can possibly be devised, in Consistence with Dr. T—r's Scheme, in which Adam ever could have any Righteousness, or could ever either obtain any Principle of Virtue, or perform any one virtuous Act.

These confused inconsistent Assertions, concerning Virtue and moral Rectitude, arise from the absurd Notions in Vogue, concerning Freedom of Will, as if it consisted in the Will's Self-determining Power, supposed to be necessary to moral Agency, Virtue and Vice. The Absurdities of which, with the Grounds of these Errors, and what the Truth is respecting these Matters, with the Evidences of it, I have, according to my Ability, fully and largely considered, in my Enquiry on that Subject; to which I must refer the Reader, that desires further Satisfaction, and is willing to give himself the Trouble of reading that Discourse.

Having considered this great Argument, and pretended Demonstration of Dr. T—r's against original Righteousness; I proceed to the Proofs of the Doctrine. And in the first Place, I would consider, whether there be not Evidence of it in the three first Chapters of Genesis: Or, whether the History there delivered, don't lead us to suppose, that our first Parents were created in a State of moral Rectitude and Holiness.

1. This History leads us to suppose, Adam's Sin, with Relation to the forbidden Fruit, was the first Sin he committed. Which could not have been, had he not always, till then, been perfectly righteous, righteous from the first p. 154Moment of his Existence; and consequently, created or brought into Existence righteous. In a moral Agent, subject to moral Obligations, it is the same thing, to be perfectly innocent, as to be perfectly righteous. It must be the same, because there can no more be any Medium between Sin and Righteousness, or between being right and being wrong, in a moral Sense, than there can be a Medium between streight and crooked, in a natural Sense. Adam was brought into Existence capable of acting immediately, as a moral Agent: and therefore he was immediately under a Rule of right Action: he was obliged as soon as he existed, to act right. And if he was obliged to act right as soon as he existed, He was obliged even then to be inclined to act right. Dr. T. says, P. 442. "Adam could not sin without a sinful Inclination": **This is doubtless true: for altho' there was no natural sinful Inclination in Adam, yet an Inclination to that Sin of eating the forbidden Fruit, was begotten in him by the Delusion and Error he was led into; and this Inclination to eat the forbidden Fruit, must preceed his actual Eating.And, just for the same Reason, he could not do right, without an Inclination to right Action. And as he was obliged to act right from the first Moment of his Existence, and did do so, 'till he sinned in the Affair of the forbidden Fruit, he must have an Inclination or Disposition of Heart to do right the first Moment of his Existence; and that is the same as to be created, or brought into Existence, with an Inclination to right Action, or, which is the same Thing, a virtuous and holy Disposition of Heart.

Here it will be in vain to say, 'Tis true, that it was Adam's Duty to have a good Disposition or Inclination as soon as it was possible to be obtained, in the Nature of Things: but as it could not be without Time to establish such an Habit, which requires antecedent Thought, Reflexion, and repeated right Action; therefore all that Adam could be obliged to in the first Place, was to reflect and consider Things in a right Manner, and apply himself to p. 155right Action, in order to obtain a right Disposition. For, this supposes, that even this Reflexion and Consideration, which he was obliged to, was right Action. Surely he was obliged to it no otherwise than as a thing that was right: And therefore he must have an Inclination to this right Action immediately, before he could perform those first right Actions. And as the Inclination to them should be right, the Principle or Disposition from which he performed even these Actions, must be good. Otherwise, the Actions would not be right in the Sight of Him who looks at the Heart; nor would they answer the Man's Obligations, or be a doing his Duty, if he had done them for some sinister End, and not from a Regard to God and his Duty. Therefore there must be a Regard to God and his Duty implanted in him at his first Existence: Otherwise, 'tis certain, he would have done Nothing from a Regard to God and his Duty; no, not so much as to reflect and consider, and try to obtain such a Disposition. The very Supposition of a Disposition to right Action being first obtain'd by repeated right Action, is grosly inconsistent with it self: for it supposes a Course of right Action, before there is a Disposition to perform any right Action.

These are no invented Quibbles, or Sophisms. If God expected of Adam any Obedience or Duty to him at all, when he first made him, whether it was in reflecting, considering, or any way exerting the Faculties he had given him, then God expected he should immediately exercise Love and Regard to Him. For how could it be expected, that Adam should have a strict and perfect Regard to God's Commands and Authority, and his Duty to Him, when he had no Love nor Regard to Him in his Heart, nor could it be expected he should have any? If Adam from the Beginning did his Duty to God, and had more Respect to the Will of his Creator, than to other Things, and as much Respect to him as he ought to have; then from the Beginning he had a supreme and perfect Respect and Love to God: And if so, he was created with such a Principle. There is no avoiding the Consequence. Not only external p. 156Duties, but internal Duties, such as summarily consist in Love, must be immediately required of Adam, as soon as he existed, if any Duty at all was required. For 'tis most apparently absurd, to talk of a spiritual Being, with the Faculties of Understanding and Will, being required to perexternal Duties, without internal. Dr.T. himself, observes, that Love is the fulfilling of the Law, and that all moral Rectitude, even every Part of it, must be resolved into that single Principle. Therefore, if any morally right Act at all, Reflexion, Consideration, or any thing else, was required of Adam immediately, on his first Existence, and was performed as required; then he must, the first Moment of his Existence, have his Heart possessed of that Principle of divine Love; which implies the whole of moral Rectitude in every Part of it, according to our Author's own Doctrine; and so the whole of moral Rectitude or Righteousness must begin with his Existence: which is the Thing taught in the Doctrine of original Righteousness.

And let us consider how it could be otherwise, than that Adam was always, in every Moment of his Existence, obliged to exercise such Regard or Respect of Heart towards every Object or Thing, as was agreable to the apparent Merit of that Object. For Instance, would it not at any Time have been a becoming Thing in Adam, on the Exhibition to his Mind of God's infinite Goodness to him, for him to have exercised answerable Gratitude; and the contrary have been unbecoming and odious? And if something had been presented to Adam's View, transcendently amiable in it self, as for Instance, the glorious Perfection of the divine Nature, would it not have become him to love, relish and delight in it? Would not such an Object have merited this? And if the View of an Object so amiable in it self did not affect his Mind with Complacence, would it not, according to the plain Dictates of our Understanding, have shown an unbecoming Temper of Mind? To say, that he had not had Time, by Culture, to form and establish a good Disposition or Relish, is not what would have taken off the Disagreableness & Odiousness of p. 157the Temper. And if there had been never so much Time, I don't see, how it could be expected he should improve it aright, in order to obtain a good Disposition, if he had not already some good Disposition to engage him to it.

That belonging to the Will and Disposition of the Heart, which is in it self either odious or amiable, unbecoming or decent, always would have been Adam's Virtue or Sin, at any Moment of his Existence; if there be any such Thing as Virtue or Vice; by which Nothing can be meant, but That in our moral Disposition and Behaviour, which is becoming or unbecoming, amiable or odious.

Human Nature must be created with some Dispositions; a Disposition to relish some Things as good and amiable, and to be averse to other Things as odious & disagreable. Otherwise, it must be without any such Thing as Inclination or Will: It must be perfectly indifferent, without Preference, without Choice or Aversion towards any Thing, as agreable or disagreable. But if it had any concreated Dispositions at all, they must be either right or wrong, either agreable or disagreable to the Nature of Things. If Man had at first the highest Relish of those Things that were most excellent and beautiful, a Disposition to have the quickest and highest Delight in those Things that were most worthy of it, then his Dispositions were morally right and amiable, and never can be decent and excellent in a higher Sense. But if he had a Disposition to love most those things that were inferiour and less worthy, then his Dispositions were vicious. And 'tis evident there can be no Medium between these.

II. This Notion of Adam's being created without a Principle of Holiness in his Heart, taken with the rest of Dr. T—r's Scheme, is inconsistent with what the History in the Beginning of Genesis leads us to suppose of the great Favours and Smiles of Heaven, which Adam enjoyed, while he remained in Innocency. The Mosaic Account suggests to us, that till Adam sin'd, he was in happy Circumstances, surrounded with Testimonies and Fruits of God's Favour. This is implicitly own'd by Dr. T. when p. 158he says, P. 252. That in the Dispensation our first Parents were under, before the Fall, they were placed in a Condition proper to engage their Gratitude, Love and Obedience. But it will follow on our Author's Principles, that Adam while in Innocency, was placed in far worse Circumstances, than he was in after his Disobedience, and infinitely worse than his Posterity are in; under unspeakably greater Disadvantages for the avoiding Sin, and the Performance of Duty. For by his Doctrine Adam's Posterity come into the World with their Hearts as free from any Propensity to Sin as he, and he was made as destitute of any Propensity to Righteousness as they: and yet God, in Favour to them, does great Things to restrain them from Sin, & excit… them to Virtue, which he never did for Adam in Innocency, but laid him, in the highest Degree, under contrary Disadvantages. God, as an Instance of his great Favour, and fatherly Love to Man, since the Fall, has denied him the Ease and Pleasures of Paradise, which gratified and allured his Senses, and bodily Appetites; that he might diminish his Temptations to Sin: And as a still greater Means to restrain from Sin, and promote Virtue, has subjected him to Labour, Toil & Sorrow in the World: And not only so, but as a Means to promote his spiritual and eternal Good far beyond this, has doom'd him to Death: And when all this was found insufficient, he, in further Prosecution of the Designs of his Love, shortned Men's Lives exceedingly, made them twelve or thirteen times shorter than in the first Ages. And yet this, with all the innumerable Calamities, which God in great Favour to Mankind has brought on the World, whereby their Temptations are so vastly cut short, and the Means and Inducements to Virtue heaped one upon another, to so great a Degree, all have proved insufficient, now for so many Thousand Years together, to restrain from Wickedness in any considerable Degree; innocent human Nature, all along, coming into the World with the same Purity and harmless Dispositions, that our first Parents had in Paradise. What vast Disadvantages indeed then must Adam and Eve be in, p. 159that had no more in their Nature to keep them from Sin, or incline 'em to Virtue, than their Posterity, and yet were without all these additional & extraordinary Means! Not only without such exceeding great Means as we now have, when our Lives are made so very short, but having vastly less Advantages than their Antediluvian Posterity, who to prevent their being wicked, and to make 'em good, had so much Labour and Toil, Sweat and Sorrow, Briars and Thorns, with a Body gradually decaying and returning to the Dust; when our first Parents had the extreme Disadvantage of being placed in the midst of so many and exceeding great Temptations; not only without Toil or Sorrow, Pain or Disease, to humble and mortify 'em, and a Sentence of Death to wean 'em from the World, but in the midst of the most exquisite & alluring sensitive Delights, the Reverse in every respect, and to the highest Degree of that most gracious State of requisite Means, and great Advantages, which Mankind now enjoy! If Mankind now under these vast Restraints, and great Advantages, are not restrained from general, and as it were universal Wickedness, how could it be expected that Adam & Eve, created with no better Hearts than Men bring into the World now, and destitute of all these Advantages, and in the midst of all contrary Disadvantages, should escape it?

These Things are not agreeable to Moses's Account; which represents an happy State of peculiar Favours and Blessings before the Fall, and the Curse coming afterwards: but according to this Scheme, the Curse was before the Fall, and the great Favours and Testimonies of Love followed the Apostacy. And the Curse before the Fall must be a Curse with a Witness, being to so high a Degree the Reverse of such Means, Means so necessary for such a Creature as innocent Man, and in all their Multitude and Fulness proving too little. Paradise therefore must be a meer Delusion! There was indeed a great Shew of Favour, in placing Man in the midst of such Delights. But this delightful Garden, it seems, with all it's Beauty and Sweetness, was in it's real Tendency worse than the Apples p. 160of Sodom: It was but a meer Bait (God forbid the Blasphemy) the more effectually enticing by it's Beauty and Deliciousness, to Adam's eternal Ruin: which might be the more expected to be fatal to him, seeing that he was the first Man that ever existed, having no Superiority of Capacity to his Posterity, and wholly without the Advantage of the Observations, Experiences and Improvements of preceding Generations; which his Posterity have.

I proceed now to take Notice of an Additional Proof of the Doctrine we are upon, from another Part of the holy Scripture. A very clear Text for original Righteousness is that in Eccles. vii. 29. Lo, this only have I found, that God made Man upright; but they have sought out many Inventions.

It is an Observation of no Weight, which Dr. T. makes on this Text, that the Word Man is commonly used to signify Mankind in general, or Mankind collectively taken. It is true, it often signifies the Species of Mankind: but then it is used to signify the Species with regard to it's Duration and Succession from it's Beginning, as well as with regard to it's Extent. The English Word Mankind is used to signify the Species: but what if it be so? Would it be an improper or unintelligible way of Speaking, to say, that when God first made Mankind, he placed them in a pleasant Paradise (meaning in … first Parents) but now they live in the midst of Briars … Thorns? And 'tis certain, that to speak of God's … Mankind in such a Meaning, viz. his giving the Species an Existence in their first Parents, at the Creation of the World, is agreable to the Scripture-Use of such an Expression. As in Deut. iv. 32. Since the Day that God CREATED MAN upon the Earth. Job xx. 4. Knowest thou not this of old, since MAN was placed upon the Earth. Isai. X…v. 12. I have made the Earth, and CREATED MAN upon it: I, even my Hands, have stretched out the Heavens. Jer. xxvii. 5. I HAVE MADE the Earth, the MAN and the Beast that are upon the Ground, by my great Power. All these Texts speak of p. 153God's making Man, by the Word, Man, signifying the Species of Mankind; and yet they all plainly have Respect to God's making Man at first, when God made the Earth, and stretched out the Heavens, and created the first Parents of Mankind. In all these Places the same Word Adam is used, as here in Ecclesiastes; and in the last of them, used with HE emphaticum, as it is here; tho' Dr.T. omits it, when he tells us, he gives us a Catalogue of all the Places of Scripture, where the Word is used. And it argues Nothing to the Doctor's Purpose, that the Pronoun, They, is used. THEY have sought out many Inventions. Which is properly applied to the Species, which God made at first upright: God having begun the Species with more than one, and it being continued in a Multitude. As Christ speaks of the two Sexes, in the Relation of Man & Wife, as continued in successive Generations. Matth. xix. 4. He that MADE THEM at the Beginning, made them Male and Female; having Reference to Adam & Eve.

No less impertinent, and also very unfair is his Criticism on the Word Jashar, translated Upright. Because the Word sometimes signifies Right, he would from thence infer, that it don't properly signify a moral Rectitude, even when used to express the Character of moral Agents. He might as well insist, that the English Word Upright, sometimes, and in it's most original Meaning, signifying right up, or in an erect Posture, therefore it don't properly signify any moral Character, when applied to moral Agents: And indeed less unreasonably; for 'tis known, that in the Hebrew Language, in a peculiar Manner, most Words used to signify moral and spiritual Things, are taken from Things external and natural. The Word Jashar is used, as applied to moral Agents, or to the Words and Actions of such (if I have not mis-reckon'd **Making Use of Buxtor…'s Concordance, which according to the Author's profess'd Design, directs to all the Places where the Word is used.) about 110 Times in Scripture; and about an 100 of them, without all Dispute, p. 154to signify Virtue, or moral Rectitude (tho' Dr.T. is pleased to say, the Word don't generally signify a moral Character;) and for the most Part it signifies true Virtue, or Virtue in such a Sense, as distinguishes it from all false Appearances of Virtue, or what is only Virtue in some Respects, but not truly so in the Sight of God. It is used at least 80 Times in this Sense. And scarce any Word can be found in the Hebrew Language more significant of this. It is thus used constantly in Solomon's Writings (where 'tis often found) when used to express a Character or Property of moral Agents. And it is beyond all Controversy that he uses it in this Place in the viith of Eccles. to signify a moral Rectitude, or Character of real Virtue and Integrity. For the wise Man, in this Context, is speaking of Men with respect to their moral Character, enquiring into the Corruption and Depravity of Mankind (as is confess'd P. 184.) and he here declares, he had not found more than one among a Thousand, of the right Stamp, truly and thoroughly virtuous and upright: which appear'd a strange thing! But in this Text, he clears God, and lays the Blame to Man: Man was not made thus at first. He was made of the right Stamp, altogether good in his Kind (as all other things were) truly and thoroughly virtuous, as he ought to be; But they have sought out many Inventions. Which last Expression signifies things sinful, or morally evil; as is confess'd, P. 185. And this Expression, used to signify those moral Evils he found in Man, which he sets in Opposition to the Uprightness Man was made in, shews, that by Uprightness he means the most true and sincere Goodness. The Word rendered Inventions, most naturally & aptly signifies the subtil Devices, and crooked deceitful Ways of Hypocrites, wherein they are of a Character contrary to Men of Simplicity and godly Sincerity; who, tho' wise in that which is good, are simple concerning Evil. Thus the same wise Man in Prov. xii. 2. sets a truly good Man in Opposition to a Man of wicked Devices, whom God will condemn. Solomon had Occasion to observe many who put on an artful Disguise and fair Sh…w p. 155of Goodness; But on searching thoroughly, he found very few truly upright. As he says, Prov. xx. 6. Most Men will proclaim every one his own Goodness: but a faithful Man who can find? So that it is exceeding plain, that by Uprightness, in this Place in Ecclesiastes, Solomon means true moral Goodness.

What our Author urges concerning many Inventions being spoken of, whereas Adam's eating the forbidden Fruit was but one Invention, is of as little Weight as the rest of what he says on this Text. For the many Lusts and Corruptions of Mankind, appearing in innumerable Ways of sinning, are all the Consequence of that Sin. The great Corruption Men are fallen into by the original Apostacy, appears in the Multitude of wicked Ways they are inclined to. And therefore these are properly mentioned as the Fruits and Evidences of the Greatness of that Apostacy and Corruption.

SECT. II.

Concerning the Kind of Death, threatned to our first Parents, if they should eat of the forbidden Fruit.

DR. T. in his Observations on the three first Chapters of Genesis, says, P. 7. The Threatning to Man in Case of Transgression was, that he should surely die.—Death is the losing of Life. Death is oppos'd to Life, and must be understood according to the Nature of that Life, to which it is opposed. Now the Death here threaten'd can, with any Certainty, be opposed only to the Life God gave, Adam, when he created him, ver. 7. Any thing besides this must be pure Conjecture, without solid Foundation.

To this I would say; 'Tis true, Death is opposed to Life, and must be understood according to the Nature of that Life, to which it is opposed: but does it therefore follow, that Nothing can be meant by it but the Loss of p. 156Life? Misery is opposed to Happiness, and Sorrow is in Scripture often opposed to Joy: but can we conclude from thence, that Nothing is meant in Scripture by Sorrow, but the Loss of Joy? Or that there is no more in Misery, than the Loss or Absence of Happiness? And if it be so, that the Death threatned to Adam can, with Certainty, be opposed only to the Life given to Adam, when God created him; I think, a State of perfect, perpetual and hopeless Misery is properly opposed to that State Adam was in, when God created him. For I suppose, it won't be deny'd, that the Life Adam had, was truly a happy Life; happy in-perfect Innocency, in the Favour of his Maker, surrounded with the happy Fruits and Testimonies of his Love: and I think it has been proved, that he also was happy in a State of perfect Righteousness. And Nothing is more manifest, than that it is agreable to a very common Acceptation of the Word, Life, in Scripture, that it be understood as signifying a State of excellent and happy Existence. Now that which is most opposite to that Life and State Adam was created in, is a State of total confirmed Wickedness, and perfect hopeless Misery, under the divine Displeasure and Curse; not excluding temporal Death or the Destruction of the Body, as an Introduction to it.

And besides, that which is much more evident, than any Thing Dr. T. says on this Head, is this, viz. That the Death, which was to come on Adam as the Punishment of his Disobedience, was opposed to that Life which he would have had as the Reward of his Obedience, in Case he had not sin'd. Obedience and Disobedience are Contraries: And the Threatnings and Promises, that are Sanctions of a Law, are set in direct Opposition: and the promised Rewards, and threatned Punishments, are what are most properly taken as each others Opposites. But none will deny, that the Life which would have been Adam's Reward, if he had persisted in Obedience, was eternal Life. And therefore we argue justly, that the Death which stands opposed to that Life (Dr. T. himself being Judge, P. 396.) is manifestly eternal Death, a Death widely different p. 157from the Death we now die.—to use his own Words. If Adam, for his persevering Obedience, was to have had everlasting Life and Happiness, in perfect Holiness, Union with his Maker, and Enjoyment of his Favour, and this was the Life which was to be confirmed by the Tree of Life; then doubtless the Death threatned in Case of Disobedience, which stands in direct Opposition to this, was a being given over to everlasting Wickedness & Misery, in Separation from God and in enduring his Wrath.

And it may with the greatest Reason be supposed, that when God first made Mankind, and made known to them the Methods of his moral Government towards them, in the Revelation he made of Himself to the natural Head of the whole Species; and let him know, that Obedience to Him was expected as his Duty; and inforced this Duty with the Sanction of a threaten'd Punishment, called by the Name of Death; I say, we may with the greatest Reason suppose in such a Case, that by Death was meant that same Death which God esteemed to be the most proper Punishment of the Sin of Mankind, and which he speaks of under that Name, throughout the Scripture, as the proper Wages of the Sin of Man, & was always from the Beginning understood to be so in the Church of God. It would be strange indeed, if it should be otherwise. It would have been strange, if when the Law of God was first given, & inforced by the Threatning of a Punishment, Nothing at all had been mention'd of that great Punishment, ever spoken of under the Name of Death (in the Revelations which he has given to Mankind from Age to Age) as the proper Punishment of the Sin of Mankind, And it would be no less strange, if when the Punishment which was mentioned and threatned on that Occasion, was called by the same Name, even Death, yet we must not understand it to mean the same Thing, but something infinitely diverse, and infinitely more inconsiderable.

But now, let us consider what that Death is, which the Scripture ever speaks of as the proper Wages of the Sin of Mankind, and is spoken of as such by God's Saints in p. 158all Ages of the Church, from the first Beginning of a written Revelation, to the Conclusion of it. I'll begin with the New-Testament. When the Apostle Paul says, Rom. vi. 23. The Wages of Sin is Death, Dr. T. tells us, P. 396. that this means eternal Death, the second Death, a Death widely different from the Death we now die. The same Apostle speaks of Death as the proper Punishment due for Sin, in Rom. vii. 5. and Chap. viii. 13, 2 Cor. iii. 7. 1 Cor. xv. 56. In all which Places, Dr. T. himself supposes the Apostle to intend eternal Death. **See P. 78. Note on Rom vii. 5. and Note on ver. 6. Note on Rom. v. 20. Note on Rom. vii. 8.Rom 7:5Rom 5:20Rom 7:8And when the Apostle James speaks of Death, as the proper Reward, Fruit and End of Sin, Jam. i. 15. Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth Death: 'tis manifest, that our Author supposes eternal Destruction to be meant.‖‖By comparing what he says P. 126. with what he often says of that Death and Destruction which is the Demerit & End of personal Sin, which he says is the second Death, or eternal Destruction. And the Apostle John, agreable to Dr. T—r's Sense, speaks of the second Death, as that which Sin unrepented of will bring all Men to at last. Rev. xx. 6, 14. and xxi. 8. and Chap. ii. 11. In the same Sense the Apostle John uses the Word in his 1st Epistle, Chap. iii. 14. We know, that we have passed from Death to Life, because we love the Brethren: He that …ateth his Brother, abideth in Death. In the same Manner Christ used the Word from Time to Time, when he was on Earth, and spake concerning the Punishment and Issue of Sin. Joh. v. 24. He that heareth my Word, and believeth, &c. hath everlasting Life; and shall not come into Condemnation; but is passed from Death to Life. Where, according to Dr.T—r's own Way of arguing, it can't be the Death which we now die, that Christ speaks of, but eternal Death, because it is set in Opposition to everlasting Life. Joh. vi. 50. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven, that a Man may eat thereof, and not die. Chap. viii. 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a Man p. 159keep my Saying, he shall never see Death. Chap. xi. 26. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die. In which Places, 'tis plain, Christ don't mean that Believers shall never see temporal Death. See also Matth. x. 29. and Luke x. 28. In like Manner, the Word was commonly used by the Prophets of old, when they spake of Death as the proper End & Recompence of Sin. So, abundantly by the Prophet Ezekiel. Ezek. iii. 18. When I say unto the wicked Man, Thou shalt surely die. In the Original, Dying thou shalt die.—The same Form of Expression, which God used in the Threatning to Adam. We have the same Words again, Chap. xxxiii. 18.—In Chap. xviii. 4. it is said, The Soul that sinneth, it shall die. To the like Purpose are Chap. iii. 19, 20. & xviii. 4, 5, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28. Chap. xxxiii. 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20. And that temporal Death is not meant in these Places, is plain, because it is promised most absolutely that the Righteous shall not die the Death spoken of. Chap▪xvii.21. He shall surely live, he shall not die. So v. 9, 17, 19 & 22. and Chap. iii. 21. And 'tis evident, the Prophet Jeremiah uses the Word in the same Sense; Jer. xxxi. 30. Every one shall die for his own Iniquity. And the same Death is spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah. Isai. xi. 4. With the Breath of his Lips shall be slay the Wicked. See also Chap. lxi. 16. with v. 24.—Solomon, who we must suppose was thoroughly acquainted with the Sense in which the Word was used by the Wise, and by the Ancients, continually speaks of Death as the proper Fruit, Issue and R…compence of Sin, using the Word only in this Sense. Chap. xi. 19. As Righteousness tendeth to Life, so he that pursueth Evil, pursueth it to his own Death. So Chap. xviii. 32. x. 21. xiv. 12. xix. 16. i. 18, 32. i. 18. v. 5, 6, 23. vii. 22, 26, 27. ix. 18. xi. 19. xv. 10. xviii. 21. xxi. 16. & xxiii. 13, 14. In these Places, he cannot mean temporal Death; for he often speaks of it as a Punishment of the Wicked, wherein the Righteous shall certainly be distinguished from 'em: as in Prov. xii. 2…. In the Way of Righteousness is Life, and in the Pathway p. 160thereof is no Death. So in Chap. x.2.—xi.4.—xiii. 14.—xiv. 27. and many other Places. But we find, this same Wise man observes, that as to temporal Death, and temporal Events in general, there is no Distinction, but that they happen alike to good and bad. Eccl. ii. 14, 15, 16.—viii. 14. & ix. 2,3. His Words are remarkable in Eccl. vii. 15. There is a just Man that perisheth in his Righteousness; and there is a wicked Man that prolongeth his Life in his Wickedness.—So we find, David in the Book of Psalms uses the Word Death in the same Sense, when he speaks of it as the proper Wages and Issue of Sin. Psal. xxxiv. 21.Evil shall slay the Wicked. He speaks of it as a certain Thing, Psal. cxxxix. 19. Surely Thou wilt slay the Wicked, O God. And he speaks of it as a Thing wherein the Wicked are distinguished from the Righteous, Psal. lxix. 28. Let them be blotted out of the Book of the Living, and not be written with the Righteous.—And thus we find the Word Death used in the Pentateuch, or Books of Moses: in which Part of the Scripture it is, that we have the Account of the Threatning of Death to Adam. When Death, in these Books, is spoken of as the proper Fruit & appointed Reward of Sin, it is to be understood of eternal Death. So Deut. xxx. 15. See, I have set before thee this Day, Life and Good, and Death and Evil. Ver. 19. I call Heaven and Earth to Record this Day against you, that I have set before you Life and Death, Blessing & Cursing. The Life that is spoken of here, is doubtless the same that is spoken of in Lev. xviii. 5.Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and my Judgments, which if a Man do, he shall live in them. This the Apostle understands of eternal Life; as is plain by Rom. x. 5. and Gal. iii. 12.—But that the Death threatned for Sin in the Law of Moses meant eternal Death, is what Dr.T abundantly declares. So in his Note on Rom. v. 20. Such a Constitution the Law of Moses was, subjecting those who were under it to Death for every Transgression; meaning by Death ETERNAL DEATH. These are his Words. The like he asserts p. 161in many other Places. When it is said, in the Place now mentioned, I have set before thee Life & Death, Blessing and Cursing, without doubt, the same Blessing and Cursing is meant which God had already set before them with such Solemnity, in the 27th and 28th Chapters; where we have the Sum of the Curses in those last Words of the 27th Chapter, Cursed is every one, which confirmeth not all the Words of this Law to do them. Which the Apostle speaks of as a Threatning of eternal Death; and with him Dr. T. himself.**Note on Rom. v. 20. In his Exp. on Rom. P. 371, 373, 374, 376. There in P. 371, he says expresly, "The Law of Moses subjected those who were under it to Death, meaning by Death, … Death."Rom 5:20 In this Sense also Job and his Friends, spake of Death, as the Wages and End of Sin, who lived before any written Revelation, and had their Religion and their Phraseology about the Things of Religion from the Antients.

If any should insist upon it as an Objection against supposing that Death was intended to signify eternal Death in the Threatning to Adam, that this Use of the Word is figurative: tho' this should be allowed, yet it is by no Means so figurative as many other Phrases used in the History contained in these three Chapters: As when it is said, God said, Let there be Light; God said, Let there be a Firmament, &c as tho' God spake such Words with a Voice. So when it is said, God called the Light, Day: God called the Firmament, Heaven, &c. God rested on the seventh Day; as tho' he had been weary, and then rested. And when it is said, They heard the Voice of God walking; as tho' the Deity had two Feet, and took Steps on the Ground. Dr. T. supposes, that when it is said of Adam and Eve, Their Eyes were opened, and they saw that they were naked; by the Word naked, is meant a State of Guilt. (P. 12.) Which Sense of the Word, naked, is much further from the common Use of the Word, than the supposed Sense of the Word Death. So this Author supposes the Promise concerning the Seed p. 162of the Woman's bruising the Serpent's Head, while the Serpent should bruise his Heel, is to be understood of the Messiah's destroying the Power and Sovereignty of the Devil, & receiving some slight Hurt from him. (P. 15, 16.) Which makes the Sentence full of Figures, vastly more beside the common Use of Words. And why might not God deliver Threatnings to our first Parents in figurative Expressions, as well as Promises?—Many other strong Figures are used in these Chapters.

But indeed, there is no Necessity of supposing the Word Death, or the Hebrew Word so translated, if used in the Manner that has been supposed, to have been figurative at all. It does not appear but that this World, in it's true and proper Meaning, might signify perfect Misery, and sensible Destruction; tho' the Word was also applied to signify something more external and visible. There are many Words in our Language, such as Heart, Sense, View, Discovery, Conception, Light, and many others, which are applied to signify external Things, as that muscular Part of the Body called Heart; external Feeling called Sense; the Sight of the bodily Eye called View; the finding of a Thing by it's being uncovered, called Discovery; the first Beginning of the Foetus in the Womb, called Conception; and the Rays of the Sun, called Light: Yet these Words do as truly and properly signify other Things of a more spiritual internal Nature, as those: Such as the Disposition, Affection, Perception & Thought of the Mind, and Manifestation and Evidence to the Soul. Common Use, which governs the Propriety of Language, makes the latter Things to be as much signified by those Words, in their proper Meaning, as the former. 'Tis especially common in the Hebrew, and I suppose, other oriental Languages, that the same Word that signifies something external, does no less properly and usually signify something more spiritual. So the Hebrew Words used for Breath, have such a double Signification; Neshama signifies both Breath, and the Soul; and the latter as commonly as the former: Ruach is used for Breath or Wind, but yet more p. 163commonly signifies Spirit. Nephesh is used for Breath, but yet more commonly signifies Soul. So the Word L…bh, Heart, no less properly signifies the Soul, especially with Regard to the Will and Affections, than that Part of the Body so called. The Word Shalom, which we render Peace, no less properly signifies Prosperity and Happiness, than mutual Agreement. The Word translated,Life, signifies the natural Life of the Body, and also the perfect and happy State of sensible active Being; and the latter as properly as the former. So the Word, Death, signifies Destruction, as to outward Sensibility, Activity & Enjoyment: But it has most evidently another Signification, which, in the Hebrew Tongue, is no less proper, viz. perfect, sensible, hopeless Ruin and Misery.

'Tis therefore wholly without Reason urged, that Death properly signifies only the Loss of this present Life: and that therefore Nothing else was meant by that Death which was threatned for eating the forbidden Fruit. Nor does it at all appear but that Adam, who from what God said concerning the Seed of the Woman, that was so very figurative, could understand, that Relief was promised, as to the Death which was threatned (as Dr. T. himself supposes, P. 18.) understood the Death that was threatned, in the more important Sense; especially seeing temporal Death, as it is originally, and in itself, and is evermore, excepting as changed by divine Grace, an Introduction or Entrance into that gloomy dismal State of Misery, which is shadow'd forth by the dark and awful Circumstances of this Death, naturally suggesting to the Mind the most dreadful State of hopeless, sensible Ruin.

As to that Objection which some have made, that the Phrase, Dying thou shalt die, is several Times used in the Books of Moses to signify temporal Death, it can be of no Force. For it has been shown already, that the same Phrase is sometimes used in Scripture to signify eternal Death, in Instances much more parallel with this. But indeed Nothing can be certainly argued concerning the Nature of the Thing intended, from it's being expressed in such a p. 164Manner. For 'tis evident, that such Repetitions of a Word in the Hebrew Language, are no more than an Emphasis upon a Word in the more modern Languages, to signify the great Degree of a Thing, the Importance of it, or the Certainty of it, &c. When we would signify and impress these, we commonly put an Emphasis on our Words: In Stead of this, the Hebrews, when they would express a Thing strongly, repeated or doubled the Word, the more to impress the Mind of the Hearer; as may be plain to every one in the least conversant with the Hebrew Bible. The Repetition in the Threatning to Adam, therefore only implies the Solemnity, and Importance of the Threatning. But God may denounce either eternal or temporal Death with Peremptoriness and Solemnity, and Nothing can certainly be infer'd concerning the Nature of the Thing threatned, because 'tis threatned with Emphasis, more than this, that the Threatning is much to be regarded. Tho' it be true, that it might in an especial Manner be expected that a Threatning of eternal Death, would be denounced with great Emphasis, such a Threatning being infinitely important, and to be regarded above all others.

SECT. III.

Wherein it is enquired, whether there be any thing in the History of the three first Chapters of Genesis, which should lead us to suppose, that God, in his Constitution with Adam, dealt with Mankind in general, as included in their first Father, and that the Threatning of Death, in Case he should eat the forbidden Fruit, had Respect not only to him, but his Posterity?

Dr. T. rehearsing that Threatning to Adam, Thou shalt surely die, and giving us his Paraphrase of it, P. 7, 8. concludes thus; "Observe, here is not one Word relating to Adam's Posterity." But it may be observed p. 165in Opposition to this, that there is scarcely one Word that we have an Account of, which God ever said to Adam or Eve, but what does manifestly include their Posterity in the Meaning and Design of it. There is as much of a Word said about Adam's Posterity in that Thr…tning, as there is in those Words of God to Adam and Eve, Gen. i. 28. Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it; and as much in Events, to lead us to suppose Adam's Posterity to be included. There is as much of a Word of his Posterity in that Threatning, as in those Words, v. 29. Behold, I have given you every Herb bearing Seed—and every Tree in which is the Fruit of a Tree yielding Seed, &c. Even when God was about to create Adam, what he said on that Occasion, had not Respect only to Adam, but to his Posterity. Gen. i. 26. Let us make Man in our Image, and let them have Dominion over the Fish of the Sea, &c. And, what is more remarkable, there is as much of a Word said about Adam's Posterity in the Threatning of Death, as there is in that Sentence, Gen. iii. 19. Unto Dust shalt thou return. Which Dr.T. himself supposes to be a Sentence pronoun…ed for the Execution of that very Threatning, Thou shalt surely die: And which Sentence he himself also often speaks of as including Adam's Posterity. And, what is much more remarkable still, is a Sentence which D. T. himself often speaks of, as including his Posterity, as a SENTENCE OF CONDEMNATION, as a JUDICIAL Sentence, and a Sentence which God pronounced with Regard to Adam's POSTERITY, ACTING THE PART OF A JUDGE, and as such condemning them to temporal Death. Tho' he is therein utterly inconsistent with himself, inasmuch as he at the same Time abundantly insists, that Death is not brought on Adam's Posterity, in Consequence of his Sin, at all as a Punishment; but meerly by the gracious Disposal of a Father, bestowing a Benefit of the highest Nature upon them.**P. 303.

p. 166But I shall shew that I don't in any of these Things falsely charge, or misrepresent Dr. T.—He speaks of the Sentence in Chap. iii. 19. as pronounced in Pursuance of the Threatning in the former Chapter, in these Words, P. 17, 18. The Sentence upon the Man, v. 17, 18, 19. first affects the Earth, upon which he was to subsist: The Ground should be incumbred with many noxious Weeds, and the Tillage of it more toilsom: Which would oblige Man to procure a Sustenance by hard Labour, till he should die, and drop into the Ground, from whence he was taken. Thus Death enter'd by Sin into the World, and Man became mortal, ACCORDING TO THE THREATNING IN THE FORMER CHAPTER. Now, if Mankind becomes mortal, and must die, according to the Threatning in the former Chapter, then doubtless the Threatning in the former Chapter, Thou shalt die, had Respect not only to Adam, but to Mankind, and included Adam's Posterity. Yea, and Dr. T. is express in it, and very often so, that the Sentence concerning dropping into the Ground, or returning to the Dust, did include Adam's Posterity. So, P. 19, 20 speaking there of that Sentence, Observe (says he) that we their Posterity are in Fact subjected to the same Affliction & Mortality, here by Sentence inflicted upon our first Parents.—P. 42. But yet Men, thro' that long Tract, were all subject to Death, therefore they must be included in the Sentence. The same he affirms in innumerable other Places, some of which I shall have Occasion to mention presently.

The Sentence which is founded on the Threatning, and (as Dr. T. says) according to the Threatning, extends to as many as were included in the Threatning, and to no more. If the Sentence be upon a collective Subject, infinitely (as it were) the greatest Part of which were not included in the Threatning, nor were ever threatned at all by any Threatning whatsoever, then certainly this Sentence is not according to the Threatning, nor built upon it. If the Sentence be according to the Threatning, then p. 167we may justly explain the Threatning by the Sentence: And if we find the Sentence spoken to the same Person, to whom the Threatning was spoken, and spoken in the second Person singular, in like Manner with the Threatning, and founded on the Threatning, and according to the Threatning; and if we find the Sentence includes Adam's Posterity; then we may certainly infer, that so did the Threatning: And hence, that both the Threatning and Sentence were deliver'd to Adam as the publick Head and Representative of his Posterity.

And we may also further infer from it, in another Respect directly contrary to Dr. T—r's Doctrine, that the Sentence which included Adam's Posterity, was to Death as a Punishment to that Posterity, as well as to Adam himself. For a Sentence pronounced in Execution of a Threatning, is to a Punishment. Threatnings are of Punishments. Neither God nor Man are wont to threaten others with Favours and Benefits.

But lest any of this Author's Admirers should stand to it, that it may very properly be said, God threatned Mankind with bestowing great Kindness upon them, I would observe, that Dr. T. often speaks of this Sentence as pronounced by God on all Mankind as condemning them, speaks of it as a Sentence of Condemnation judicially pronounced, or a Sentence which God pronounced on all Mankind acting as their Judge, and in a judicial Proceeding: Which he affirms in Multitudes of Places. In P. 20. speaking of this Sentence, which, he there says, subjects us, Adam's and Eve's Posterity, to Affliction and Mortality, he calls it a judicial Act of Condemnation. The judicial Act of Condemnation (says he) clearly implies, a taking him to Pieces, and turning him to the Ground, from whence he was taken. And P. 28, 29. In all the Scripture, from one End to the other, there is recorded but one Judgment to Condemnation, which came upon all Men, and that is, Gen. iii. 17, 18, 19. Dust thou art, &c. P. 40. speaking of the same, he says, "All Men are brought under Condemnation." In p. 168P. 27, 28. By Judgment, Judgment of Condemnation, it appeareth evidently to me, he [Paul] means the being adjudged to the forementioned Death; he means the Sentence of Death, of a general Mortality, pronounced upon Mankind, in Consequence of Adam's first Transgression. And the Condemnation inflicted by the Judgment of God, answereth to, and is in Effect the same Thing with, being dead. P. 30. The many, that is Mankind, were subject to Death by the judicial Act of God. P. 31. Being made Sinners, may very well signify, being adjudged, or condemned to Death.—For the Hebrew Word, &c. signifies to make one a Sinner by a judicial Sentence, or to condemn. —Paraph. on Rom. V. 19. in his Exp. of the Epistle, Upon the Account of one Man's Disobedience, Mankind were judicially constituted Sinners; that is, subjected to Death, by the Sentence of God the Judge. And there are many other Places where he repeats the same Thing. And 'tis pretty remarkable, that in P. 48, 49. immediately after citing Prov. xvii. 15. He that justifieth the Wicked, and he that condemneth the Just, are both an Abomination to the Lord; And when he is careful in citing these Words, to put us in Mind, that it is meant of a judicial Act; yet in the very next Words, he supposes that God himself does so, since he constantly supposes that Adam's Posterity whom God condemns, are innocent. His Words are these, From all which it followeth, that the Judgment that passed upon all Men to Condemnation, is Death's coming upon all Men, by the judicial Act of God, upon Occasion of Adam's Transgression.—And 'tis very remarkable, that in P. 279, 280, and 283 he insists, That in Scripture no Action is said to be imputed, r… kon'd or accounted to any Person, either for Righteousness or CONDEMNATION, but the proper Act and Deed of that Person.—And yet he thus continually affirms, that all Mankind are made Sinners by a judicial Act of God the Judge, even to Condemnation, and judicially constituted Sinners, and so subjected to a judicial p. 169Sentence of Condemnation, on Occasion of Adam's Sin; and all according to the Threatning denounced to Adam, Thou shalt surely die: Tho' he supposes Adam's Posterity were not included in the Threatning, and are looked upon as perfectly innocent, and treated wholly as such.

I am sensible, Dr.T. don't run into all this Inconsistence, only thro' Oversight and Blundering; but that he is driven to it, to make out his Matters in his Evasion of that noted Paragraph in the fifth Chapter of Romans; especially those three Sentences, v. 16. The Judgment was by one to Condemnation. v. 18. By the Offence of one, Judgment came upon all Men to Condemnation. and v. 19. By one Man's Disobedience many were made Sinners. And I am also sensible of what he offers to salve the Inconvenience, viz. … if the Threatning had immediately been executed on Adam, he would have had no Posterity; and that so far the possible Existence of Adam's Posterity fell under the Threatning of the Law, and into the Hands of the Judge, to be disposed of as he should think fit: And that this is the Ground of the Judgment to Condemnation, coming upon all Men. **P. 95. 366, 367.But this is trifling, to a great Degree: For,

1. Suffering Death, and failing of possible Existence, are entirely different Things. If there had never been any such Thing as Sin committed, there would have been infinite Numbers of possible Beings, which would have fail'd of Existence, by God's Appointment. God has appointed not to bring into Existence numberless possible Worlds, each replenished with innumerable possible Inhabitants. But is this equivalent to God's appointing them all to suffer Death?

2. Our Author represents, that by Adam's Sin the Possible Existence of his Posterity fell into the Hands of the Judge, to be disposed of as he should think fit. But there was no Need of any Sin of Adam's, or any Body's else, in order to their being brought into God's Hands in this p. 170Respect. The future possible Existence of all created Beings, is in God▪s Hands, antecedently to the Existence of any Sin. And therefore by God's sovereign Appointment, infinite Numbers of possible Beings, without any Relation to Adam, or any other sinning Being, do fail of their possible Existence. And if Adam had never sinned, yet it would be unreasonable to suppose, but that innumerable of his possible Posterity, would have fail'd of Existence by God's Disposal. For will any be so unreasonable as to imagine, that God would and must have brought into Existence as many of his Posterity as it was possible should be, if he had not sin'd? Or that in that Case, it would not have been possible, any other Persons of his Posterity should ever have existed, than those individual Persons, who now actually fall under that Sentence of suffering Death, and returning to the Dust?

3. We have many Accounts in Scripture, which imply the actual failing of the possible Existence of innumerable Multitudes of Adam's Posterity, yea, of many more than ever come into Existence. As, of the possible Posterity of Abel, the possible Posterity of all them that were destroy'd by the Flood, and the possible Posterity of the innumerable Multitudes, which we read of in Scripture, destroyed by Sword, Pestilence, &c. And if the Threatning to Adam reached his Posterity, in no other respect than this, that they were liable to be deprived by it of their possible Existence, then these Instances are much more properly a Fulfilment of that Threatning, than the suffering of Death by such as actually come into Existence; and so is that which is most properly the Judgment to Condemnation, executed by the Sentence of the Judge, proceeding on the Foot of that Threatning. But where do we ever find this so represented in Scripture? We read of Multitudes cut off for their personal Sins, who thereby fail'd of their possible Posterity. And these are mentioned as God's Judgments on them, and Effects of God's Condemnation of them: but when are they ever spoken of as God's judicially proceeding against, and condemning their possible Posterity?

p. 1714. Dr. T. in what he says concerning this Matter, speaks of the Threatning of the Law delivered to Adam, which the possible Existence of his Posterity fell under, as the Ground of the Judgment to Condemnation coming upon all Men. But herein he is exceeding inconsistent with himself: For he affirms in a Place forecited, that the Scripture never speaks of any Sentence of Condemnation coming upon all Men, but that Sentence in the third of Genesis, concerning Man's turning to Dust. But according to him, the Threatning of the Law delivered to Adam, could not be the Ground of that Sentence; for he greatly insists upon it, that that Law was entirely abrogated before that Sentence was pronounced, that this Law at that Time was not in Being, had no Existence to have any such Influence, as might procure a Sentence of Death; and that therefore this Sentence was introduced entirely on another Foot, viz. on the Foot of a new Dispensation of Grace. The Reader may see this Matter strenuously urged, and particularly argued by him, P. 389,—396. So that this Sentence could not, according to him, have the Threatning of that Law for it's Ground, as he supposes; for it never stood upon that Ground. It could not be called a Judgment of Condemnation, under any such View; for it could not be viewed under Circumstances, under which it never existed.

5. If it be as our Author supposes, that the Sentence of Death on all Men comes under the Notion of a Judgment to Condemnation by this Means, viz. that the Threatning to Adam was in some respect the Ground of it; then it also comes under the Notion of a Punishment: For Threatnings annexed to Breaches of Laws, are to Punishments; and a Judgment of Condemnation to the Thing threatned, must be to Punishment; and the Thing condemned to, must have as much the Notion of a Punishment, as the Sentence has the Notion of a Judgment to Condemnation. But this Dr.T. wholly denies: he denies that the Death sentenced to, comes as any Punishment at all; but insists that it comes only as a Favour & Benefit, p. 172and a Fruit of fatherly Love to Adam's Posterity, respected not as guilty, but wholly innocent. So that his Scheme will not admit of it's coming under the Notion of a Sentence to Condemnation in any Respect whatsoever. Our Author's Supposition, that the possible Existence of Adam's Posterity comes under the Threatning of the Law, and into the Hands of the Judge, and is the Ground of the Condemnation of all Men to Death, implies, that Death by this Sentence is appointed to Mankind as an Evil, at least, negatively so; as it is a Privation of Good: for he manifestly speaks of a Non-existence as a negative Evil. But herein he is inconsistent with himself: for he continually insists, that Mankind are subjected to Death only as a Benefit, as has been before shewn. According to him, Death is not appointed to Mankind as a negative Evil, as any Cessation of Existence, as any Cessation or even Diminution of Good; but on the contrary, as a Means of a more happy Existence, and a great Increase of Good.

So that this Evasion, or Salvo of Dr. T—r's is so far from helping the Matter, or salving the Inconsistence, that it increases and multiplies it.

And that the Constitution or Law, with the Threatning of Death annexed, which was given to Adam, was to him as the Head of Mankind, and to his Posterity as included in him, not only follows from some of our Author's own Assertions, and the plain and full Declarations of the Apostle in the fifth of Romans (of which more afterwards) which drove Dr. T. into such gross Inconsistencies. But the Account given in the three first Chapters of Genesis, directly and inevitably lead us to such a Conclusion.

Tho' the Sentence, Gen. iii. 19,—Unto Dust thou shalt return, be not of equal Extent with the Threatning in the foregoing Chapter, or an Execution of the main Curse of the Law therein denounced; for, that it should have been so, would have been inconsistent with the Intimations of Mercy just before given: yet tis plain, this Sentence is in Pursuance of that Threatning, being to something that was included in it. The Words of the Sentence were p. 173delivered to the same Person, with the Words of the Threatning, and in the same Manner, in like singular Terms, as much without any express Mention of his Posterity: And yet it manifestly appears by the Consequence, as well as all Circumstances, that his Posterity were included in the Words of the Sentence; as is confess'd on all Hands. And as the Words were apparently deliver'd in the Form of the Sentence of a Judge, condemning for something that he was displeased with, and ought to be condemned, viz. Sin; and as the Sentence to him & his Posterity was but one, dooming to the same Suffering, under the same Circumstances, both the one and the other sentenced in the same Words, spoken but once, and immediately to but one Person, we hence justly infer, that it was the same Thing to both; and not as Dr. T. suggests, (P. 67.) a Sentence to a proper Punishment to Adam, but a meer Promise of Favour to his Posterity.

Indeed, sometimes our Author seems to suppose, that God meant the Thing denounced in this Sentence, as a Favour both to Adam and his Posterity. **P. 301, 321, 322.But to his Posterity, or Mankind in general, who are the main Subject, he ever insists, that it was purely intended as a Favour. And therefore, one would have thought, the Sentence should have been delivered, with Manifestations and Appearances of Favour, and not of Anger. How could Adam understand it as a Promise of great Favour, considering the Manner and Circumstances of the Denunciation? How could he think, that God would go about to delude him, by cloathing himself with Garments of Vengeance, using Words of Displeasure and Rebuke, setting forth the Heinousness of his Crime, attended with Cherubims and a flaming Sword; when all that he meant was only higher Testimonies of Favour than he had before in a State of Innocence, and to manifest fatherly Love and Kindness, in Promises of great Blessings? If this was the Case, God's Words to Adam must be understood thus: p. 174Because thou hast done so wickedly, hast hearken'd unto the Voice of thy Wise, and hast eaten of the Tree of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it; therefore I will be more kind to thee than I was in thy State of Innocence, and do now appoint for thee the following great Favours: Cursed be the Ground for thy sake, &c. And thus Adam must understand what was said; unless any will say (and God forbid that any should be so blasphemous) that God cloathed himself with Appearances of Displeasure, to deceive Adam, and make him believe the contrary of what he intended, and lead him to expect a dismal Train of Evils on his Posterity, contrary to all Reason and Justice, implying the most horribly unrighteous Treatment of Millions of perfectly innocent Creatures! 'Tis certain, there is not the least Appearance in what God said, or the Manner of it, as Moses gives us the Account, of any other, than that God was now testifying Displeasure, condemning the Subject of the Sentence he was pronouncing, as justly exposed to Punishment for Sin, and for that Sin which he mentions.

When God was pronouncing this Sentence, Adam doubtless understood, that God had Respect to his Posterity, as well as Himself; tho' God spake wholly in the second Person singular, Because thou hast eaten,—In Sorrow shalt thou eat,—Unto the Dust shalt thou return. But he had as much Reason to understand God as having Respect to his Posterity, when he directed his Speech to him in like Manner in the Threatning, Thou shalt surely die. The Sentence plainly refers to the Threatning, and results from it. The Threatning says, If thou eat, thou shalt die: The Sentence says, Because thou hast eaten, thou shalt die. And Moses, who wrote the Account, had no Reason to doubt but that the Affair would be thus understood by his Readers; for such a Way of speaking was well understood in those Days: The History he gives us of the Origin of Things, abounds with it. Such a Manner of speaking to the first of the Kind, or Heads of the Race, having Respect to the Progeny, is not only used in p. 175almost every thing that God said to Adam and Eve, but even in what he said to the very Birds and Fishes, Gen. i. 22. And also in what he said afterwards to Noah, Gen. ix. and to Shem, Ham and Japheth, and Canaan, Gen. ix. 25, 26, 27. So in Promises made to Abraham, in which God directed his Speech to him, and spake in he second Person singular, from Time to Time, but meant chiefly his Posterity: To thee will I give this Land. In thee shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed,&c.&c. And in what is said of Ishmael, as of his Person, but meant chiefly of his Posterity, Gen. vi. 12. and xvii. 20. And so in what Isaac said to Esau and Jacob, in his Blessing; in which he spake to them in the second Person singular; but meant chiefly their Posterity. And so for the most Part in the Promises made to Isaac and Jacob; and in Jacob's Blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, and of his twelve Sons.

But I shall take Notice of one or two Things further shewing that Adam's Posterity were included in God's Establishment with him, and the Threatning denounced for his Sin; and that the Calamities which come upon them in Consequence of his Sin, are brought on them as Punishments.

This is evident from the Curse on the Ground; which if it be any Curse at all, comes equally on Adam's Posterity with himself. And if it be a Curse, then against whomsoever it is designed, and on whomsoever it terminates, it comes as a Punishment, and not as a Blessing, so far as it comes in Consequence of that Sentence.

Dr. T. (P. 19.) says, A Curse is pronounced upon the Ground, but no Curse upon the Woman and the Man. And in P. 321, 322. He insists, that the Ground only was cursed, and not the Man: Just as tho' a Curse could terminate on lifeless, senseless Earth! To understand this Curse otherwise than as terminating upon Man, thro' the Ground, would be as senseless as to suppose the Meaning to be, The Ground shall be punished, and shall be miserable for thy sake. Our Author interprets the Curse on the p. 176Ground, of it's being incumbred with noxious Weeds: But would these Weeds have been any Curse on the Ground, if there had been no Inhabitants, or if the Inhabitants had been of such a Nature, that these Weeds should not have been noxious, but useful to 'em? It is said, Deut. xxviii. 17. Cursed shall be thy Basket and thy Store: And would he not be thought to talk very ridiculously, who should say, 'Here is a Curse upon the Basket; but not a Word of any Curse upon the Owner: And therefore we have no Reason at all to look upon it as any Punishment upon him, or any Testimony of God's Displeasure towards him!' How plain is it, that when lifeless Things, which are not capable of either Benefit or Suffering, are said to be cursed or blessed with regard to sensible Beings, that use or possess these Things, or have Connection with them, the Meaning must be, that these sensible Beings are cursed or blessed in the other, or with respect to them? In Exod. xxiii. 25. 'tis said, He shall bless thy Bread & thy Water. And I suppose, never any Body yet proceeded to such a Degree of Subtilty in distinguishing, as to say, 'Here is a Blessing on the Bread and the Water, which went into the Possessors Mouths, but no Blessing on them.' To make such a Distinction with regard to the Curse God pronounc'd on the Ground, would in some Respects be more unreasonable, because God is express in explaining the Matter, declaring that it was for Man's sake, expresly referring this Curse to him, as being with Respect to him, and for the Sake of his Guilt; and as consisting in the Sorrow & Suffering he should have from it: In Sorrow shalt THOU eat of it—Thorns & Thistles shall it bring forth TO THEE. So that God's own Words tell us where the Curse terminates. The Words are parallel with those in Deut. xxviii. 16. but only more plain & explicit, Cursed shalt THOU be in the Field, or in the Ground.

If this Part of the Sentence was pronounced under no Notion of any Curse … punishment at all upon Mankind, but on the contrary, … an Alteration in the Ground, that should be for the …etter, as to them; that in Stead p. 177of the sweet, but tempting, pernicious Fruits of Paradise, it might produce wholsome Fruits, more for the Health of the Soul; that it might bring forth Thorns & Thistles, as excellent Medicines, to prevent or cure mortal Distempers, Diseases which would issue in eternal Death; I say, if what was pronounced was under this Notion, then it was a Blessing on the Ground and not a Curse; and it might more properly have been said, 'BLESSED shall the Ground be for thy sake,—I will make a happy Change in it, that it may be a Habitation more fit for a Creature so infirm, and so apt to be overcome with Temptation, as thou art.'

The Event makes it evident, that in pronouncing this Curse, God had as much Respect to Adam's Posterity, as to himself: And so it was understood by his pious Posterity, before the Flood; as appears by what Lamech, the Father of Noah, says, Gen. v. 29. And he called his Name Noah; saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our Work, and the Toil of our Hands, "because of the Ground which the Lord hath cursed."

Another Thing which argues, that Adam's Posterity were included in the Threatning of Death, and that our first Parents understood, when fallen, that the Tempter, in perswading them to eat the forbidden Fruit, had aimed at the Punishment and Ruin of both them and their Posterity, & had procured it, is Adam's immediately giving his Wife that new Name, Eve, or Life, on the Promise or Intimation of the Disappointment and Overthrow of the Tempter in that Matter, by her Seed; which Adam understood to be by his procuring Life; not only for themselves, but for many of their Posterity, and thereby delivering them from that Death and Ruin which the Serpent had brought upon them. Those that should be thus delivered, and obtain Life, Adam calls the Living: and because he observed, by what God had said, that Deliverance and Life was to be by the Seed of the Woman, he therefore remarks, that she is the Mother of all Living, and thereupon gives her a new Name, calls her Chavah, LIFE, Gen. iii. 20.

p. 178There is a great deal of Evidence, that this is the Occasion of Adams giving his Wife her new Name. This was her new Honour, & the greatest Honour, at least in her present State, that the Redeemer was to be of her Seed. New Names were wont to be given for something that was the Persons peculiar Honour. So it was with regard to the new Names of Abraham, Sarah, and Israel. Dr. T. himself (Key § 255.) observes, that they who are saved by Christ, are called the Livers, foreign (1 Cor. iv. 11.) The living, or, they that live. So we find in the old Testament, the Righteous are called by the name of the Living. Psal. lxix. 28. Let them be blotted out of the Book of the Living, and not be written with the Righteous. If what Adam meant by her being the Mother of all Living, was only her being the Mother of Mankind, and gave her the Name Life upon that Account, it were much the most likely that he would have given her this Name at first; when God first united them, under that Blessing. Be fruitful and multiply, and when he had a Prospect of her being the Mother of Mankind in a State of Immortality, living indeed, living and never dying. But that Adam should at that Time give her only the Name of Isha, and then immediately on that melancholy Change, by their coming under the Sentence of Death, with all their Posterity, having now a new awful Prospect of her being the Mother of Nothing but a dying Race, all from Generation to Generation turning to Dust, thro' her Folly: I say, that immediately on this, he should change her Name into Life, calling her now the Mother of all living, is perfectly unaccountable. Besides, it is manifest, that it was not her being the Mother of all Mankind, or her Relation as a Mother, which she stood in to her Posterity, but the Quality of those she was to be the Mother of, which was the Thing Adam had in View, in giving his Wife this new Name; as appears by the Name it self, which signifies Life. And if it had been only a natural and mortal Life which he had in View, this was Nothing distinguishing of p. 179her Posterity from the Brutes; for the very same Name of living ones, or living Things, is given from Time to Time in this Book of Genesis to them: As in Chap. i. 21, 24, 28. Chap. ii. 19. Chap. vi.19.—vii. 23. & viii. 1. and many other Places in the Bible.—And besides, if by Life was not the Quality of her Posterity meant, there was nothing in it to distinguish her from Adam; for thus she was no more the Mother of all living, than he was the Father of all living; and she could no more properly be called by the Name of Life on any such Account, than he: But Names are given for Distinction. Doubtless Adam took Notice of something distinguishing concerning her, that occasioned his giving her this new Name. And I think, it is exceeding natural to suppose, that as Adam had given her her first Name from the Manner of her Creation, so he gave her her new Name from Redemption, and as it were new Creation, thro' a Redeemer, of her Seed. And that he should give her this Name from that which comforted him, with respect to the Curse that God had pronounced on him and the Earth, as Lamech named Noah, (Gen. v. 29.) Saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our Work, and Toil of our Hands, because of the Ground which the Lord hath cursed. Accordingly, he gave her this new Name, not at her first Creation, but immediately after the Promise of a Redeemer, of her Seed. See Gen. iii. 15,—20.

Now as to the Consequence which I infer from Adam's giving his Wife this Name, on the Intimation which God had given, that Satan should by her Seed be overthrown and disappointed, as to his malicious Design, in that Deed of his which God then spake of, viz. his tempting the Woman; Adam infers from it, that great Numbers of Mankind should be saved, whom he calls the Living; they should be saved from the Effects of this malicious Design of the old Serpent, and from that Ruin which he had brought upon them by tempting their first Parents to Sin; and so the Serpent would be, with respect to them, disappointed and overthrown in his Design. But how is any Death or p. 180Ruin, or indeed any Calamity at all … upon their … by Satan's Malice in that …, if instead of that, all the Death and Sorrow that … consequent, was the Fruit of God's fatherly Love, & not Satan's Malice, and was an Instance of God's free and sovereign Favour, … Favour as Satan could not possibly foresee? And if Multitudes of Eve's Posterity are saved, from either spiritual or temporal Death, by a …, of her Seed, how is that any Disappointment of Satan's Design, in tempting our first Parents? How came he to have any such Thing in View, as the Death of Adam's and Ev…'s Posterity by tempting them to Sin, or any Expectation that their Death would be the Consequence, unless he knew that they were included in the Threatning?

Some have objected against Adam's Posterity's being included in the Threatning delivered to Adam, that the Th…t…ing itself was inconsistent with his having any Posterity: It being that he should die …n the Day that …e sinned.

To this I answer, that the Threatning was not inconsistent with his having Posterity, on two Accounts:

1. Those Words, In the Day thou …atest there of thou shalt surely die, according to the Use of such like Expressions among the Hebrews, don't signify immedi… Death, or that the Execution shall be within twenty-four Hours from the Commission of the Fact; nor did God by those Words, limit himself as to the Time of ex…cuting the threaten'd Punishment; but that was still left to God's Pleasure. Such a Phrase, according to the Idi…m of the Hebrew Tongue, signifies no more than these two Things:

1. A real Connection between the Sin and the Punishment. So Ezek. xxxiii. 12, 13. The Righteousness of the Righteous shall not deliver him IN THE DAY of his Transgression. As for the Wicked…ss of the Wicked, He shall not fall thereby IN THE DAY that the turn…th from his Wickedness: Neither shall the Righteous be able to live IN THE DAY THAT HE SINNETH: But for his Iniquity that he hath committed, p. 181HE SHALL DIE for it. Here … said, that in the Day he sinneth, he shall not be able to live, but he shall die; not signifying the Time when Death shall be executed upon him, but the Connection … his Sin & Death; such a Connection as in our present common Use of Language is signified by the Adverb of Time. When; As if One should say, According to the Laws of our Nation, so long as a Man behaves Himself as a good Subject, he may live; but When he turns Rebel, he must die: Not signifying the Hour, Day or Month, in which he must be executed, but only the Connection between his Crime and Death.

2. Another Thing which seems to be signified by such an Expression, is, that Adam should be exposed to Death for one Transgression, without waiting on him … try him the second Time. If he eat of that Tree, he should immediately fall under Condemnation, tho' afterwards he might abstain ever so strictly. In this Respect, the Words are much of the same Force with those Words of Solomon to Shimei. 1 Kings ii. 37. For it shall be that ON THE DAY that thou goest out, and passest over the Brook Kidron, thou shalt know for "certain, that thou shalt surely die." Not meaning, that he should certainly be executed on that Day, but that he should be … to Death for the first Offence, and that he should not have another Trial, to see whether he would go over the Brook Kidron a second Time.

And then besides,

II. If the Words had implied, that Adam should die that very Day, within 24 or 12 Hours, or that Moment that he transgress'd, yet it will by no Means follow, that God obliged himself to execute the Punishment in its utmost Extent on that Day. The Sentence was in great Part executed immediately; he then died spiritually; he lost his Innocence and original Righteousness, and the Favour of God; A dismal Alteration was made in his Soul, by the Loss of that holy divine Principle, which was in the highest Sense the Life of the Soul. In this he was truly p. 182ruin'd and undone that very Day; becoming corrupt, miserable and helpless. And I think it has been shown, that such a spiritual Death was one great Thing implied in the Thr…tning.—And the Alteration then made in his Body and external State, was the Beginning of temporal Death, Grievous external Calamity is called by the Name of Death in Scripture, Exod. x. 17.—Intreat the Lord that he may take away this Death.—Not only was Adam's Soul ruin'd that Day, but his Body was ruin'd; it lost it's Beauty and Vigour, and became a poor dull, de…ying, dying Thing. And besides all this, Adam was that Day undone in a more dreadful Sense: He immediately fell under the Curse of the Law, and Condemnation to eternal Perdition. In the Language of Scripture, he is dead, that is in a State of Condemnation to Death; ever as our Author often explains this Language in his Expo…tion upon Romans. In Scripture-Language, he that believes in Christ, immediately receives Life. He passes at that Time from Death to Life, & thenceforward (to use the Apostle John's Phrase) "has eternal Life abiding in him." But yet he don't then receive eternal Life in it's highest Completion; he has but the Beginnings of it; and receives it in a vastly greater Degree at Death: but the proper Time for the compleat Fulness is not till the Day of Judgment. When the Angels sinned, their Punishment was immediately executed in a Degree: But their full Punishment is not till the End of the World. And there is nothing in God's Threatning to Adam, that bound him to execute his full Punishment at once; nor any thing which determines, that he should have no Posterity. The Law or Constitution which God established and declared, determin'd, that if he sin'd, and had Posterity, he and they should die: But there was no Constitution determining concerning the actual Being of his Posterity in this Case; what Posterity he should have, how many, or whether any at all. All these Things God had reserved in his own Power: The Law and its Sanction intetmeddl…d not with the Matter.

p. 183It may be proper in this Place also to take some Notice of that Objection of Dr. T—r's against Adam's being supposed to be a federal Head for his Posterity, that it gives him greater H…nour than Christ, as it supposes that all his Posterity would have had eternal Life by his Ob… dience, if he had stood; and so a greater Number would have had the Benefit of his Obedience, than are saved by Christ. **P. 396, &c.—I think, a very little Consideration is sufficient to shew, that there is no Weight in this Objection. For the Benefit of Christ's Merits may nevertheless be vastly beyond that which would have been by the Obedience of Adam. For those that are saved by Christ, are not meerly advanced to Happiness by his Merits, but are saved from the infinitely dreadful Effects of Adam's Sin, and many from immense Guilt, Pollution & Misery by personal Sins; also brought to a holy & happy State, as it were thro' infinite Obstacles; and are exalted to a far greater Degree of Dignity, Felicity & Glory, than would have been due for Adam's Obedience; for aught I know, many Thousand Times so great. And there is enough in the Gospel-Dispensation, clearly to manifest the Sufficiency of Christ's Merits for such Effects in all Mankind. And how great the Number will be, that shall actually be the Subjects of them, or how great a Proportion of the whole Race, considering the vast Success of the Gospel, that shall be in that future extraordinary, exempt, and glorious Season, often spoken of, none can tell. And the Hono…r of these two federal Heads arises not so much from what was proposed to each for his Trial, as from their Success, and the Good actually obtained; and also the Manner of obtaining: Christ obtains the Benefits Men have thro' him by proper Merit of Condignity, and a true Purchase by an Equivalent: which would not have been the Case with Adam, if he had obeyed.

I have now particularly considered the Account which Moses gives us in the Beginning of the Bible, of our first Parents, and God's Dealings with them, the Constitution p. 184he established with them, their Transgression, and what followed. And on the whole, if we consider the Manner in which God apparently speaks to Adam, from Time to Time; and particularly, if we consider how plainly and undeniably his Posterity are included in the Sentence of Death pronounced on Adam after his Fall, founded on the foregoing Threatning; and consider the Curse denounc…d on the Ground for his sake, and for his and his Posterity's Sorrow: And also consider what is evidently the Occasion of his giving his Wife the new Name of Eve, and his Meaning in it, and withal consider apparent Fact in constant and universal Events, with Relation to the State of our first Parents, and their Posterity from that Time forward, through all Ages of the World; I can't but think, it must appear to every impartial Person. that Moses's Account does, with sufficient Evidence, lead all Mankind, to whom his Account is communicated, to understand, that God, in his Constitution with Adam, dealt with him as a publick Person, and as the Head of the human Species, and had Respect to his Posterity, as included in him: And that this History is given by divine Direction, in the Beginning of the first-written Revelation, to exhibit to our View the Origin of the present sinful, miserable State of Mankind, that we might see what that was, which first gave Occasion for all those consequent wonderful Dispensations of divine Mercy & Grace towards Mankind; which are the great Subject of the Scriptures, both of the old and new Testament; and that these Things are not obscurely and doubtfully pointed forth, but delivered in a plain Account of Things, which easily and naturally exhibits them to our Understandings.

And by what follows in this Discourse, we may have, in some Measure, Opportunity to see how other Things in the holy Scripture agree to what has been now observed from the three first Chapters of Genesis.