2. The original state and standing of man.

And, first, let it be observed, that there can be no sin in what exists in man originally, i. e. constitutionally; nor in all the temptations to which he is liable in that state. For sin consists not in being tempted, but in giving way to temptation. The great High Priest of our profession was capable of being touched with the feelings of our infirmities, and was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. iv. 15.) This shows that sin does not consist in temptation. The original state of man, therefore, was a state of innocence; though subject to temptation, and, through the imbecility and weakness of his nature, or want of experience, liable to

err.

Where, then, shall we find, or in what consisted, that original righteousness, which, it is supposed, man possessed, previous to his transgression? If this means innocence, it is what every child of Adam possesses when it is born into the world. But if, by original righteousness, any thing more than innocence be meant, what evidence have we that our first parents possessed it? This is often asserted, often referred to, and often appealed to, as a standing maxim in divinity; but where is the evidence on which this doctrine is predicated? I have diligently sought, but have not been able to find it.

In regard to outward circumstances, our first parents, according to the account, certainly had fewer temptations than any of the human race have had since their day, or at least, since the giving of the law by Moses. Man has now to eat bread by the sweat of his face; whereas they were in a garden of delights, planted by the hand of their Maker, where every thing grew spontaneously for their comfort.* We are surrounded by various temptations, which

* That is, on the supposition that the account is literally true.

assail us on every side, but from which we are both morally and religiously bound to abstain; they were both morally and religiously free, except one single prohibition! Now see the trial. Do we discover any serious struggles of conscience? any great conflict with the adversary? any attempt to resistance? No! Nothing of this kind! But no sooner were they told by that subtle deceiver, who was a liar from the beginning, that the forbidden tree was good for food; that it was to be desired; that God knew it was good to make one wise; and that they should be as gods, knowing good and evil, they take of the fruit thereof, and eat, and, seemingly, without hesitation. So far, therefore, from discovering a couple of righteous beings, struggling against sin, and with the greatest compunction of conscience, reluctantly yielding to unparalleled temptation, it looks a thousand times more like two innocent, inexperienced, and unsuspecting children led away by a deceiver; or else, perhaps, following the natural inclination of their own propensities.

As a contrast to the above, permit me to mention bat one instance of the struggles and conquests of virtue since that period. I shall select the memorable youth, Joseph, who was hated by his brethren on account of his dreams, as a pattern of moral virtue. See him at an early age (for he was but seventeen when his father made him the coat of many colours) taken from his father's family, and, of course, from his father's instruction, and by his wicked and treacherous brethren sold to a company of Ishmaelites, who carried him down into Egypt. Go with him to the house of Potiphar, see him sold as a slave to this military officer, in whose esteem there was nothing to recommend him but his virtue and faithfulness. See him rise, by degrees, in the esteem of his master; behold the confidence he places in him, in making him overseer of all that he hath. And

now comes both his trial and triumph of virtue; and that too, over temptation unparalleled. It needs neither the pen nor the pencil to paint it; the simple fact speaks for itself; while the future imprisonment and history of Joseph is a sufficient testimony of its truth! Here is a trait of character more luminous, in point of virtue and integrity, than can be shown during the original standing of Adam. And if this be not a specimen of righteousness, and even of complete holiness, what is it?

But it may be said, that Joseph had been renewed; as we read, the Lord was with him. Gen. xxxix. 3.) Admitting this to have been the case, was he in a better condition than Adam was, while in a state of innocence? That Joseph, however, had been renewed, in the sense of the orthodoxy of the present day, is much easier asserted than proved: for if he had been renewed, why have we not equal evidence that Ishmael was renewed, of whom it is said, the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman; for it was also said of him, "God hath heard the voice of the lad-and will make of him a great nation." And again, "Behold I have blessed him." (Gal. iv. 30. Gen. xvii. 20. xxi. 17, 18.) Does God hear the prayers of unrenewed men? or does he bless unrenewed men (according to the doctrine of the schools) or not? But we are not attempting to prove that other men have been either holy or righteous, since the days of Adam; but only to show that Adam gave no evidence, neither is there any evidence, of his being any more holy or righteous, by nature, or in his original state than other men.

There is one text, which may perhaps be brought as an objection to the above, and as proof of the original righteousness of man. (Eccl. vii. 29.) "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

Here I shall appeal to Dr. Taylor, whose crudition, as a Hebrew scholar, I am inclined to think, will not be called in question, as proof that the Hebrew word here rendered upright has no reference. to any inherent righteousness or moral virtue; but would have been more properly rendered right, i. e. God made man just as he intended to make him, a rational intelligent being; capable of moral action, and yet liable to err: or, in the words of our text, God made man subject to vanity; and, of course, being subject to vanity, they have sought out many inventions. It does not necessarily follow, however, that all the inventions of men are vain ; some are of a contrary character; for, man being made right, he is as capable of doing good as evil; and I must be pardoned for thinking that he is much more inclined so to do. I cannot but think, whatever may be the opinion of others, there are many more inventions in the world which are useful, and some very much so, than there are of those which are even useless, and much less, of those which are pernicious. The text under consideration, therefore, while it gives no proof of a state of original righteousness, superior to that state of innocence in which every one is born into the world, (as it will be perceived,) affords no proof of the supposed fallen state of man.*

* Dr. Taylor observes upon this text, (Eccl. vii. 29. see above,) "The wise man in the context, is inquiring into the corruption and depravity of mankind, of the men and women that lived in his times. In this inquiry he met with difficulties. However, in this he was clear, and it was the only thing in which he was clear, that God made man, man collectively, or mankind upright. God had given to men, not only to Adam at first, but to all men in succeeding generations, reason and understanding to distinguish between good and evil, to choose the one and refuse the other; powers to know and perform the duty he (God) requireth of them: and therefore their wickedness must not be ascribed to a good, just and holy God, as if he had given them a vicious and corrupt nature, but to themselves, who have abused the goodness of God, blinded their own minds, misapplied their natural powers and ap

It has been the labour of the clergy for many centuries to degrade the most noble creature of this lower creation, man, and sink him, if possible, even below the brutes. Yea, to make him think of him

petites, by seeking out many inventions to delude, misguide and corrupt themselves. For observe, the text doth not say, God made man upright, but our first parents corrupted themselves and their posterity by seeking out one invention, (for the first transgression was the result of but one invention.) Nor doth the text say, men are led to wickedness by inbred natural corruption: but plainly, that God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions. Which demonstrateth, that the text refers to other inventions besides that one, which our first parents found out, even to all the inventions, in all ages, whereby men have darkened their understandings, and debauched their morals." Taylor on Original Sin. Belfast edition, 1746, part 3, pp. 184, 185.

Again, "The Hebrew word jashar, which we render upright, doth not generally signify a moral character. For 'tis applied to various things not capable of moral action. A right way, or path, 1 Sam. vi. 12. 2 Chron. xxxii. 30. &c. Right judgments, Neh. ix. 13. Right words, Job vi. 25, and to sundry other things. And to persons, or moral agents, it is not applied in one uniform sense. After producing a number of proofs, he adds, "Hence it appears that jashar, right, doth not always imply uprightness, or righ teousness. 23 And further on, after arguing from the passages adduced, where the word is used, viz. Judg. xiv, 3. 2 Kings x, 3,. 15, he adds again, "This makes it evident, that it may be said, God hath made man RIGHT, (for it may, and I think ought to be so translated) and yet thereby may not be denoted his being right in the highest and most perfect sense, or his being actually righteous: But only his being right with regard to his being made with those powers, and favoured with those means and encouragements by a proper use of which he may become righteous, or right in the best and most absolute sense in which a moral agent can be right." Ibid. sup. sect. 8, pp. 432-434,

"This exposition of Dr. Taylor's," says my worthy friend, (to whom I wrote for the above note, but which did not arrive in time for publication in the first edition of these lectures,) "is in perfect accordance with that of the most acute and learned critic of the 18th century, the Rev. Dr. Samuel Clarke. In all respects, he was the greatest scholar that ever adorned this lower world. After the age of seventeen he never looked into the English translation of the Old Testament; he used the Hebrew exclusively. He was the most strenuous and unrivalled advocate of the rectitude of human nature, as it came from Gon. He laid it down as an axiom that the attributes of Deity could not be vindicated