where natural and spiritual are opposed just in the same manner, as I have ob served carnal and spiritual often are." In chap. ii. 14, 15, he says, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discernedBut he that is spiritual, judgeth all things." And not only does the apostle here oppose natural and spiritual, just as he elsewhere does carnal and spiritual, but his following discourse evidently shows, that he means the very same distinction, the same two distinct and opposite things. For immediately on his thus speaking of the difference between the natural and the spiritual man, he turns to the Corinthians, in the first words of the next chapter, connected with this, and says, "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal." Referring manifestly to what he had been saying, in the immediately preceding discourse, about spiritual and natural men, and evidently using the word carnal, as synonymous with natural. By which it is put out of all reasonable dispute, that the apostle by natural men means the same as men in that carnal, sinful state, that they are in by their first birth: notwithstanding all the glosses and criticisms, by which modern writers have endeavored to palm upon us another sense of this phrase; and so to deprive us of the clear instruction the apostle gives in that 14th verse, concerning the sinful, miserable state of man by nature. Dr. Taylor says, by puixos, is meant the animal man, the man who maketh sense and appetite the law of his action. If he aims to limit the meaning of the word to external sense, and bodily appetite, his meaning is certainly not the apostle's. For the apostle in his sense includes the more spiritual vices of envy, strife, &c., as appears by the four first verses of the next chapter; where, as l have observed, he substitutes the word carnal in the place of yixos. So the Apostle Jude uses the word in like manner, opposing it to spiritual, or having the spirit, ver. 19, "These are they that separate themselves, sensual (yvyixai), not having the spirit." The vices he had been just speaking of, were chiefly of the more spiritual kind. Ver. 16, "These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration, because of advantage." The vices mentioned are much of the same kind with those of the Corinthians, for which he calls them carnal, envying, strife and divisions, and saying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos; and being puffed up for one against another. We have the same word again, Jam. iii. 14, 15, "If ye have bitter envying and strife, glory not, and lie not against the truth: this wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual (wuxin) and devilish ;" where also the vices the apostle speaks of are of the more spiritual kind.

So that on the whole, 'there is sufficient reason to understand the apostle, when he speaks of the natural man in that 1 Cor. ii. 14, as meaning man in his native, corrupt state. And his words represent him as totally corrupt, wholly a stranger and enemy to true virtue or holiness, and things appertaining to it, which it appears are commonly intended in the New Testament by things spiritual, and are doubtless here meant by things of the Spirit of God. These words also represent that it is impossible man should be otherwise, while in his natu ral state. The expressions are very strong: the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, is not susceptible of things of that kind, neither can he know them, can have no true sense or relish of them, or notion of their real nature and true excellency, because they are spiritually discerned: they are not discerned by means of any principle in nature, but altogether by a principle that is divine, something introduced by the grace of God's Holy Spirit, which is above all that is natural. The words are in a considerable degree parallel with

those of our Saviour, John xiv. 16, 17, "He shall give you the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."

SECTION II.

Observations on Romans iii. 9-24.

If the Scriptures represent all mankind as wicked in their first state, before they are made partakers of the benefits of Christ's redemption, then they are wicked by nature; for doubtless men's first state is their native state, or the state they come into the world in. But the Scriptures do thus represent all mankind.

Before I mention particular texts to this purpose, I would observe that it alters not the case as to the argument in hand, whether we suppose these texts speak directly of infants, or only of such as are capable of some understanding, so as to understand something of their own duty and state. For if it be so with all mankind, that as soon as ever they are capable of reflecting and knowing their own moral state, they find themselves wicked, this proves that they are wicked by nature; either born wicked, or born with an infallible disposition to be wicked as soon as possible, if there be any difference between these, and either of them will prove men to be born exceedingly depraved. I have before proved, that a native propensity to sin certainly follows from many things said in the Scripture of mankind; but what I intend now, is something more direct, to prove by direct Scripture testimony, that all mankind, in their first state, are really of a wicked character.

To this purpose is exceeding full, express and abundant, that passage of the apostle, in Rom. iii., beginning with the 9th verse to the end of the 24th; which I shall set down at large, distinguishing the universal terms which are here so often repeated by a distinct character. The apostle, having in the first chapter, verses 16, 17, laid down his proposition, that none can be saved in any other way than through the righteousness of God, by faith in Jesus Christ, proceeds to prove this point, by showing particularly that all are in themselves wicked, and without any righteousness of their own. First he insists on the wickedness of the Gentiles, in the first chapter, and next, on the wickedness of the Jews, in the second chapter. And then in this place, he comes to sum up the matter, and draw the conclusion in the words following: "What then, are we better than they? No, in no wise; for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God; they are all gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doth good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every inouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law, is manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

ven the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ."

Here the thing which I would prove, viz., that mankind in their first state, before they are interested in the benefits of Christ's redemption, are universally wicked, is declared with the utmost possible fulness and precision. So that if here this matter be not set forth plainly, expressly, and fully, it must be because no words can do it, and it is not in the power of language, or any manner of terms and phrases, however contrived and heaped up one upon another, determinately to signify any such thing.

Dr. Taylor, to take off the force of the whole, would have us to understand, pages 104-107, that these passages, quoted from the Psalms, and other parts of the Old Testament, do not speak of all mankind, nor of all the Jews; but only of them of whom they were true. He observes, there were many that were innocent and righteous; though there were also many, a strong party, that were wicked, corrupt, &c., of whom these texts were to be understood. Concerning which I would observe the following things:

as,

1. According to this, the universality of the terms that are found in these places, which the apostle cites from the Old Testament, to prove that all the world, both Jews and Gentiles, are under sin, is nothing to his purpose. The apostle uses universal terms in his proposition, and in his conclusion, that all are under sin, that every mouth is stopped, all the world guilty-that by the deeds of the law no flesh can be justified. And he chooses out a number of universal sayings or clauses out of the Old Testament, to confirm this universality; "There is none righteous, no, not one: they are all gone out of the way: there is none that understandeth," &c. But yet the universality of these expres. sions is nothing to this purpose, because the universal terms found in them have indeed no reference to any such universality as this the apostle speaks of, nor any thing akin to it; they mean no universality, either in the collective sense, or personal sense; no universality of the nations of the world, or of particular persons in those nations, or in any one nation in the world: "but only of those of whom they are true." That is, there are none of them righteous, of whom it is true that they are not righteous, no, not one; there are none that understand, of whom it is true, that they understand not: they are all gone out of the way, of whom it is true, that they are gone out of the way, &c. Or if these expressions are to be understood concerning that strong party in Israel, in David's and Solomon's days, and in the prophets' days, they are to be understood of them universally. And what is that to the apostle's purpose? How does such a universality of wickedness as this-that all were wicked in Israel, who were wicked; or that there was a particular evil party, all of which were wicked, confirm that universality which the apostle would prove, viz., that all Jews and Gentiles, and the whole world, were wicked, and every mouth stopped, and that no flesh could be justified by their own righteousness.

Here nothing can be said to abate the nonsense but this, that the apostle would convince the Jews that they were capable of being wicked, as well as other nations; and to prove it, he mentions some texts, which show that there was a wicked party in Israel a thousand years ago; and that as to the universal terms which happened to be in these texts, the apostle had no respect to these; but his reciting them is as it were accidental, they happened to be in some texts which speak of an evil party in Israel, and the apostle cites them as they are, not because they are any more to his purpose for the universal

terms, which happen to be in them. But let the reader look on the words of the apostle, and observe the violence of such a supposition. Particularly let the words of the 9th and 10th verses, and their connection, be observed: "All are under sin as it is written, There is none righteous; no, not one." How plain is it, that the apostle cites that latter universal clause out of the 14th Psalm, to confirm the preceding universal words of his own proposition? And yet it will follow from the things which Dr. Taylor supposes, that the universa lity of the terms in the last words, there is none righteous; no, not one, hath no relation at all to that universality he speaks of in the preceding clause, to which they are joined, all are under sin, and is no more a confirmation of it, than if the words were thus: "There are some, or there are many in Israel, that are not righteous.'

2. To suppose the apostle's design in citing these passages, was only to prove to the Jews, that of old there was a considerable number of their nation that were wicked men, is to suppose him to have gone about to prove what none of the Jews denied, or made the least doubt of. Even the Pharisees, the most self-righteous sect of them, who went furthest in glorying in the distinction of their nation from other nations, as a holy people, knew it and owned it: they openly confessed that their forefathers killed the prophets, Matth. xxiii. 29-31. And if the apostle's design had been only to refresh their memories, to put them in mind of the ancient wickedness of their nation, to lead to reflection on themselves as guilty of the like wickedness (as Stephen does, Acts vii.), what need had the apostle to go so far about to prove this; gathering up many sentences here and there, which prove that their Scriptures did speak of some, as wicked men, and then in the next place, to prove that the wicked men spoken of must be of the nation of the Jews, by this argument, "That what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law," or that whatsoever the books of the Old Testament said, it must be understood of that people that had the Old Testament? What need had the apostle of such an ambages or fetch as this, to prove to the Jews, that there had been many of their nation in some of the ancient ages, which were wicked men; when the Old Testament was full of passages that asserted this expressly, not only of a strong party, but of the nation in general? How much more would it have been to such a purpose, to have put them in mind of the wickedness of the people in general, in worshipping the golden calf, and the unbelief, murmuring, and perverseness of the whole congregation in the wilderness, for forty years, as Stephen does! Which things he had no need to prove to be spoken of their nation, by any such indirect argument, as that, "Whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law."

3. It would have been impertinent to the apostle's purpose, even as our author understands his purpose, for him to have gone about to convince the Jews that there had been a strong party of bad men in David's, Solomon's and the prophets' times. For Dr. Taylor supposes, the apostle's aim is to prove the great corruption of both Jews and Gentiles at that day, when Christ came into the world.*

In order more fully to evade the clear and abundant testimonies to the doc trine of Original Sin, contained in this part of the Holy Scripture, our author says, "The apostle is here speaking of bodies of people, of Jews and Gentiles in a collective sense, as two great bodies into which mankind are divided; speaking of them in their collective capacity, and not with respect to particular

* See Key, § 307, 310

persons; that the apostle's design is to prove, neither of these two great collective bodies, in their collective sense, can be justified by law, because both were corrupt; and so that no more is implied, than that the generality of both were wicked."*

On this I observe,

(1.) That this supposed sense disagrees extremely with the terms and lanuage which the apostle here makes use of. For according to this, we must understand, either,

First, That the apostle means no universality at all, but only the far greater part. But if the words which the apostle uses, do not most fully and determinately signify a universality, no words ever used in the Bible are sufficient to do it. I might challenge any man to produce any one paragraph in the Scripture, from the beginning to the end, where there is such a repetition and accumulation of terms, so strongly and emphatically and carefully, to express the most perfect and absolute universality, or any place to be compared to it. What instance is there in the Scripture, or indeed any other writing, when the meaning is only the much greater part, where this meaning is signified in such a manner, by repeating such expressions, "They are all-they are all-they are all-together-every one-all the world," joined to multiplied negative terms, to show the universality to be without exception, saying, "There is no flesh-there is none-there is none-there is none-there is none, four times over; besides the addition of "No, not one-no, not one," once and again!

Or, secondly, if any universality at all be allowed, it is only of the collective bodies spoken of; and these collective bodies but two, as Dr. Taylor reckons them, viz., the Jewish nation, and the Gentile world; supposing the apostle is here representing each of these parts of mankind as being wicked. But is this the way of men's using language, when speaking of but two things, to express themselves in universal terms of such a sort, and in such a manner, and when they mean no more than that the thing affirmed is predicated of both of them? If a man, speaking of his two feet as both lame, should say, "All my feet are lame, they are all lame, all together are become weak: none of my feet are strong, none of them are sound, no, not one ;" would not he be thought to be lame in his understanding, as well as his feet? When the apostle says, that every mouth may be stopped, must we suppose, that he speaks only of these two great collective bodies, figuratively ascribing to each of them a mouth, and means that these two mouths are stopped!

And besides, according to our author's own interpretation, the universal terms used in these texts cited from the Old Testament, have no respect to those two great collective bodies, nor indeed to either of them, but to some in Israel, a particular disaffected party in that one nation, which was made up of wicked So that his interpretation is every way absurd and inconsistent.

men.

(2.) If the apostle is speaking only of the wickedness or guilt of great collective bodies, then it will follow, that also the justification he here treats of, is no other than the justification of such collective bodies. For they are the same he speaks of as guilty and wicked, that he argues cannot be justified by the works of the law, by reason of their being wicked. Otherwise his argument is wholly disannulled. If the guilt he speaks of be only of collective bodies, ther what he argues from that guilt, must be only that collective bodies cannot be justified by the works of the law, having no respect to the justification of particular persons. And indeed, this is Dr. Taylor's declared opinion He sup

Pages 102, 104, 117, 119, 120, and Note on Rom. iii. 10-19.