Images de page
PDF
ePub

Time: Agreeable to Matth. xxiv. 21. and Luke xxi. 22, 23. But at that Time particular Care was taken to distinguish and deliver God's People, as was foretold Dan. xii. 1. And we have in the New Teftament a particular Account of the Care Chrift took for the Prefervation of his Followers He gave them a Sign, by which they might know when the Defolation of the City was nigh, that they that were in Jerufalem might flee to the Mountains, and efcape. And as. History gives Account, the Chriftians followed the Directions given, and efcaped to a Place in the Mountains called Pella, and were preferved. Yet no Care was taken to preserve the Infants of the City, in general; but according to the Predictions of that Event, they were involved with others in that great Deftruction: So heavily did the Calamity fall upon them, that those Words were verified, Luke xxiii. 29. Behold the Days are coming, in which they fhall fay, Bleffed are the barren, and the Womb that never bare, and the Paps which never gave Suck. And that Prophecy in Deut. xxxii. 21-25. which has undoubtedly fpecial Respect to this very Time, and is fo applied by the beft Commentators. I will provoke them to Jealousy, with thofe that are not a People: -For a Fire is kindled in mine Anger,—and it shall burn to the lowest Hell. I will heap Mischiefs upon them: I will spend mine Arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with Hunger, and devoured with burning Heat, and bitter Destruction.—The Sword without, and Terror within, fhall destroy both the young Man, and the Virgin, THE SUCKLING also, with the Man of grey Hairs. And it appears by the Hiftory of that Deftruction, that at that Time was a remarkable Fulfilment of that in Deut. xxviii, 53-57. concerning Parents eating their Children M 4

in

in the Siege, and the tender and delicate Woman eating her new-born Child. And here it must be remembered, that these very Deftructions of that City and Land are spoken of in those Places forementioned, as clear Evidences of God's Wrath, to all Nations which fhall behold them. And if fo, they were Evidences of God's Wrath towards Infants; who, equally with the reft, were the Subjects of the Deftruction. If a particular Kind or Rank of Perfons, which made a very confiderable Part of the Inhabitants, were from Time to Time Partakers of the Overthrow, without any Distinction made in divine Providence, and yet this was no Evidence at all of God's Difpleafure with any of them; then a being the Subjects of fuch a Calamity could not be an Evidence of God's Wrath against any of the Inhabitants, to the Reason of all Nations, or any Nation, or fo much as one Person,

PART

PART II.

Containing Obfervations on particular Parts of the holy Scripture, which prove the Doctrine of Original Sin.

CHAP. I.

Obfervations relating to Things contained in the three firft Chapters of Genefis, with Reference to the Doctrine of Original Sin.

SECT. I.

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

THE

HE Doctrine of Original Righteousness, or the Creation of our firft Parents with holy Principles and Dispositions, has a close Connection, in feveral Respects, with the Doctrine of Original Sin. Dr. T. was fenfible of this; and accordingly he ftrenuously opposes this Doctrine, in his Book against Original Sin. And therefore in handling the Subject, I would in the firft Place remove this Author's main Objection against this Doctrine, and then fhew how the Doctrine may be inferred from the Account which Mofes gives us, in the three first Chapters of Genefis.

Dr. T-r's grand Objection against this Doctrine, which he abundantly infifts on, is this; That it is utterly inconfiftent with the Nature of

Virtue,

Virtue, that it fhould be concreated with any Perfon; because, if fo, it must be by an Act of God's abfolute Power, without-our Knowledge or Concurrence; and that moral Virtue, in its very Nature implieth the Choice and Confent of the moral Agent, without which it cannot be Virtue and Holinefs: That a neceffary Holinefs is no Holiness. So p. 180. where he observes, “That "Adam must exist, he must be created, yea he "muft exercife Thought and Reflection, before "he was righteous." See alfo p. 250, 251. In p. 161. S. he fays, "To fay, that God not only “endowed Adam with a Capacity of being righ

66

teous, but moreover that Righteoufnefs and “true Holiness were created with him, or wrought "into his Nature, at the fame Time he was made, "is to affirm a Contradiction, or what is incon«fiftent with the very Nature of Righteoufnefs." And in like Manner Dr. Turnbull in many Places infifts upon it, that it is neceffary to the very Being of Virtue, that it be owing to our own Choice, and diligent Culture.

With refpect to this, I would obferve, that it confifts in a Notion of Virtue quite inconfiftent with the Nature of Things, and the common Notions of Mankind; and alfo inconfiftent with Dr. T-r's own Notions of Virtue. Therefore if it be truly fo, that to affirm that to be Virtue or Holiness, which is not the Fruit of preceding Thought, Reflection, and Choice, is to affirm a Contradiction, I fhall fhew plainly, that for him to affirm otherwife, is a Contradiction to himself.

In the firft Place, I think it a Contradiction to the Nature of Things, as judged of by the common Senfe of Mankind. It is agreeable to the

Senfe

.

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 fo, 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 Goodnefs from the Principles whence they proceed; and fo that the Act of chufing that which is good, is no further virtuous than it proceeds from a good Principle, or virtuous Difpofition of Mind. Which fuppofes, that a virtuous Difpofition of Mind may be before a virtuous Act of Choice; and that therefore it is not neceffary that there should first be Thought, Reflection, and Choice, before there can be any virtuous Difpofition. If the Choice be firft, before the Exiftence of a good Difpofition of Heart, what fignifies that Choice? There can, according to our natural Notions, be no Virtue in a Choice which proceeds from no virtuous Principle, but from mere Self-love, 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. Hutchefon's Inquiry concerning moral Good and Evil, are evidently agreeable to the Nature of Things, and the Voice of human Senfe and Reafon. Sect. II. p. 132, 133. “Every Action which we apprehend as either morally good or evil, is always fuppofed to FLOW FROM fome Affections towards fenfitive Natures. And whatever we call

[ocr errors]

< Virtue

« PrécédentContinuer »