this Head in my Difcourfe on the Freedom of the Will.

Our Author is pleafed to advance another Notion, among others, by Way of Objection against the Doctrine of Original Sin; That if this Doctrine be true, it would be unlawful to beget Children. He fays, "If natural Generation be the "Means of unavoidably conveying all Sin and "Wickedness into the World, it must itself be a "finful and unlawful Thing." Now, if there be any Force of Argument here, it lies in this Propofition, Whatfoever is a Means or Occafion of the certain infallible Existence of Sin and Wickedness, must itfelf be finful. But I imagine Dr. T. had not thoroughly weighed this Propofition, nor confidered where it would carry him. For, God's continuing in Being the Devil, and others that are finally given up to Wickednefs, will be attended, moft certainly and infallibly, with an eternal Series of the moft hateful and horrid Wickedness. But will any be guilty of fuch vile Blafphemy, as to fay, Therefore God's upholding them in Being is itself a finful Thing? In the fame Place our Author fays, "So far as we are generated in Sin, it must be a Sin to generate." But there is no Appearance of Evidence in that Pofition, any more than in This: " So far as any is upheld in Existence in "Sin, it is a Sin to uphold them in Existence." Yea, if there were any Reason in the Cafe, it would be strongest in the latter Pofition: For Parents, as Dr. T. himself obferves, are not the Authors of the Beginning of Exiftence: Whereas, God is truly the Author of the Continuance of Existence. As it is the known. Will of God, to continue Satan and Millions of others in Being, though the most fure Confequence

• Page 145.

Confequence is the Continuance of a vast infernal World, full of everlasting hellish Wickedness: fo it is Part of the revealed Will of God, that this World of Mankind fhould be continued, and the Species propagated, for his own wife and holy Purpofes; which Will is complied with by the Parents joined in lawful Marriage: Whose Children, though they come into the World in Sin, yet are capable Subjects of eternal Holiness and Happiness: Which infinite Benefits for their Children, Parents have great Reafon to encourage a Hope of, in the Way of giving up their Children to God in Faith, through a Redeemer, and bringing them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. I think, this may be Anfwer enough to fuch a Cavil.

Another Objection is, That the Doctrine of Original Sin is no oftner, and no more plainly spoken of in Scripture; it being, if true, a very important Doctrine. Dr. T. in many Parts of his Book fuggefts to his Readers, that there are very few Texts, in the whole Bible, wherein there is the leaft Appearance of their teaching any fuch Doctrine.

Of this I took Notice before, but would here fay further: That the Reader who has perufed the preceding Defence of this Doctrine, must now be left to judge for himself, whether there be any Ground for fuch an Allegation; whether there be not Texts in fufficient Number, both in the Old Teftament and New, that exhibit undeniable Evidence of this great Article of Chriftian Divinity; and whether it be not a Doctrine taught in the Scripture with great Plainnefs. I think, there are few, if any, Doctrines of Revelation, taught more plainly and exprefly. Indeed it is taught in an explicit Manner more in the New Testament, than in the Gg 4 Olds

Old: Which is not to be wondered at; it being thus with respect to all the most important Doctrines of revealed Religion.

But if it had been fo, that this Doctrine were rarely taught in Scripture; yet if we find that it is indeed a Thing declared to us by God, if there be good Evidence of its being held forth to us by any Word of his, then what belongs to us, is, to believe his Word, and receive the Doctrine which he teaches us; and not, instead of this, to prefcribe to him how often he fhall fpeak of it, and to infift upon knowing what Reasons he has for speaking of it no oftner, before we will receive what he teaches us; or to pretend that he should give us an Account, why he did not speak of it fo plainly as we think he ought to have done, fooner than he did. In this Way of Proceeding, if it be reafonable, the Sadducees of old, who denied any Refurrection or future State, might have maintained their Cause against Chrift, when he blamed them for not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God; and for not understanding by the Scripture, that there would be a Refurrection to fpiritual Enjoyment, and not to animal Life, and fenfual Gratifications; and they might have infifted, that thefe Doctrines, if true, were very important, and therefore ought to have been fpoken of in the Scriptures oftner and more explicitly, and not that the Church of God fhould be left, till that Time, with only a few obfcure Intimations of that which fo infinitely concerned them. And they might with Difdain have rejected Chrift's Argument, by Way of Inference, from God's calling himfelf, in the Books of Mofes, the GOD of Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob. For Answer, they might have faid, That Mofes was fent on Purpose to teach the People the

Mind

Mind and Will of God; and therefore, if these Doctrines were true, he ought in Reafon and in Truth to have taught them plainly and frequently, and not have left the People to fpell out fo important a Doctrine, only from God's faying, that he was the God of Abraham, &c.

One great End of the Scripture is, to teach the World what Manner of Being GOD is; about which the World, without Revelation, has been fo wofully in the dark: And that God is an infinite Being, is a Doctrine of great Importance, and a Doctrine fufficiently taught in the Scripture. But yet, it appears to me, this Doctrine is not taught there, in any Measure, with fuch Explicitness and Precifion, as the Doctrine of Original Sin: and the Socinians, who deny God's Omniprefence and Omnifcience, have as much Room left them for Cavil, as the Pelagians, who deny Original Sin.

Dr. T. particularly urges, That Chrift fays not one Word of this Doctrine throughout the four Gofpels; which Doctrine, if true, being fo important, and what fo nearly concerned the great Work of Redemption, which he came to work out (as is fuppofed) one would think, it should have been emphatically spoken of in every Page of the Gospels *.

In Reply to this, it may be observed, that by the Account given in the four Gofpels, Chrift was continually faying thofe Things which plainly implied, that all Men in their original State are finful and miferable. As, when he declared, that they which are whole, need not a Phyfician, but they which are fickt;-That he came to feek and to fave that

Page 242, 243.

Matt. ix. 12.

that which was loft*; That it was neceffary for all to be born again, and to be converted, and that otherwise they could not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven † ;—and, that all were Sinners, as well as thofe whofe Blood Pilate mingled with their Sacri, fices, &c. and that every one who did not repent, fhould perifht-Withal directing every one to pray to God for Forgiveness of Sin || ;-Ufing our Neceffity of Forgivenefs from God, as an Argument with all to forgive the Injuries of their Neighbours §;-Teaching, that earthly Parents, though kind to their Children, are in themfelves evil **;-And fignifying, that Things carnal and corrupt are properly the Things of Men ++; Warning his Difciples rather to beware of Men, than of wild Beafts ;-Often reprefenting the WORLD as evil, as wicked in its Works, at Enmity with Truth and Holiness, and hating him || ;— Yea, and teaching plainly, that all Men are extremely and inexpreffibly finful, owing ten Thoufand Talents to their divine Creditor §§.

And whether Christ did not plainly teach Nicodemus the Doctrine of original total Depravity, when he came to him to know what his Doctrine was, must be left to the Reader to judge, from what has been already observed on Joh. iii. 1-II, And befides, Chrift in the Course of his Preaching took the most proper Method to convince Men of the Corruption of their Nature, and to give them an effectual and practical Knowledge of it, in Ap

* Matt. xviii. 11. Luk. xix. 10. † Luk. xiii. 1-5•

| Matt. vi.

plication

Matt. xviii. 3. 12. Luk. xi. 4:

**Matt. vii. 11.

Matt. vi. 14, 15. and xviii. 35. tt Matt. xvi. 23. 1 Matt. x. 16, 17. 7. and viii. 23. and xiv. 17. and xv. 18, §§ Matt. xviii. 21, to the End.

19.

Il Joh. vii.