rupted, and his will had a constant propensity to holiness. He had a supreme love to his Creator, a fear of offending him, and a readiness to do his will. When Adam sinned, he lost his moral rectitude, this image of God in which he was created in consequence of which all his posterity come into the world destitute of that image." (p. 147-149.)

In order to remove this mistake, you reconsider some of the texts on which it is grounded. Lie not one to another, seeing ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him.' (Col. iii. 9, 10.) That ye put off, concerning the former conversation, the old man which is corrupt, according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.' (Eph. iv. 22-24.)

On this you affirm, "The old and new man here do not signify a course of life. But the old man signifies the Heathen, the new man, the Christian profession." (p. 150, 151.)

This you prove, 1. From Eph. ii. 15, Christ abolished the enmity, to make (or create) in himself, of twain one new man.' Does this only mean one new profession? It evidently means, one church, both of Jews and Gentiles.

You prove it, 2. From Col. iii. 8-12, where " the apostle tells the Colossian Christians, that now they were obliged to put off anger, and to put on bowels of mercies; to admit the Christian spirit into their hearts, and to practise Christian duties; for this reason, because they had put off the old man, and had put on the new.' This shows the new man was something they might have put on, and yet be defective in personal, internal holiness." True: defective so far, as still to want more: more bowels of mercies, meekness, long suffering.' But this does not show, that the new man does not mean, the principle both of internal and external holiness. The consciousness of having received this, is a strong motive both to depart from evil, and to labour after a continual increase of every holy and heavenly temper. Therefore here likewise, the putting off the old and the putting on the new man,' does not mean an outward profession, but a real, inward change: a renewal of soul in righteousness and true holiness.'

You prove it, 3, from Eph. iv. 22. 24. Here you say, "He considers the putting off the old, and putting on the new man,' as a duty. They had done it by profession, and therefore were obliged to do it effectually." They had done it effectually. So the whole tenor of the apostle's words implies, 'Ye have not so learned Christ: if so be (rather, seeing that) ye have been taught by him,―That ye put off the old man :-And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.' (Eph. iv. 20, 24.) The apostle here manifestly speaks not of a lesson they had not learned, but of one which God had taught them already and thence exhorts them to

walk worthy of the blessing they had received, to be 'holy in all manner of conversation.'

But, 4. "The putting on the new man is one thing, and the creating him is another. He must first be created, and then put on." (p. 152.) No. He is created and put on at the same time: the former word more directly referring to God who creates, the latter to man who is created. "But God, you say, created the new man, when he erected the gospel-dispensation: as appears from Eph. ii. 15. 19-22." I answer, 1. If those latter verses are explanatory of that expression, one new man' in the 15th, then it does not mean, one outward profession, but the one church of living believers in Christ: 2. The expression in the 15th verse, is not the same with that we are now considering. Neither is the meaning of that and this expression the same: one new man means one church and nothing else the new man means quite another thing; the work of God in every individual believer.

You say, 5. "The old man and the new, and the new man's being renewed and created, and the renewing of the Ephesians, all refer not to any corruption of nature, but to their late wicked life." (p. 153.) What! Does their being renewed in the spirit of their mind, refer only to their wicked life? If you had not affirmed this, I should really wonder at your affirming quickly after, "In all other places of Scripture, except 2 Cor. iv. 16, renewing relates only to a vicious course of life:" (p. 154,) seeing you immediately confute yourself, by both the following citations, Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewal of your mind:' (Rom. xii. 2,) unless the mind be only another expression for "a vicious course of life."We ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures; living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.' Do these words imply nothing but "a vicious course of life?" No inward eorruption at all? But after that the loving kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared-He saved us by the renewing of the Holy Ghost.From what? From a vicious course of life only? Nay, but from foolishness of heart also, from error, from malice, hatred, envy, evil desire; all which are inward corruptions.

·

You add," From all this we may gather, that God's creating the new man after his own image in righteousness and true holiness, means his erecting the Christian church with a view to promote righteousness and holiness among men. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.'" (p. 155.) Surely you do not cite this verse also to prove, that the renewing of our mind implies no inward change? It must be something more than an outward profession, or the reforming a vicious course of life, by reason of which we are said to be God's workmanship, created anew in Christ Jesus.

These texts therefore do manifestly refer to personal, internal holiness, and clearly prove, that this is the chief part of that image of God in which man was originally created..

The other text which you reconsider is Eccles. vii. 29, 'God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." "But this, you say, does not mean, that God made man righteous; but that he made him right, as having those powers, means, and encouragements, by a due use of which he may become righteous." In order to prove that this is the true meaning of the words, you affirm, 1. "That man is here not to be understood of Adam, but of all mankind." This cannot be granted without full proof. You affirm, 2. "This appears from the latter part of the sentence: They sought out many inventions.'" Adam and Eve did so, in. and after their fall. This therefore proves nothing. You affirm, 3. The word jashar (which we translate upright) "does not always imply uprightness or righteousness." But this is its proper meaning, as will appear to any who seriously considers the following texts, 1. Deut. xii. 25, • When thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.' It is taken in the very same sense ver. 28, chap. xiii. 18, and xxi. 9. In all these texts it undeniably implies morally good or righteous. 2. Deut. xxxii. 4, A God of truth and without iniquity; just and right is he.' Psalm xxv. 8, 'Good and upright is the Lord.' 3. Psalm xxxiii. 4, The word of the Lord is right.' Hos. xiv. 9, The ways of the Lord are right.' 4. Psalm xxxii. 11, Be glad and rejoice, ye righteous.' Psalm xxxiii. 1, 'Rejoice in the Lord, O ye righteous.' In the very same sense it occurs in numberless places. As the word is therefore properly applied to God himself, to his word, his providences, and his people in all which cases it must necessarily mean righteous, we cannot lightly depart from this its proper signification.

But you think, there is a necessity of departing from it here: because, "to say, God created Adam righteous, is to affirm a contradiction, or what is inconsistent with the very nature of righteousness. For a righteousness wrought in him without his knowledge or consent, would have been no righteousness at all." (p. 161.) You may call it by any name you like better. But we must use the old name still as being persuaded, that the love of God, governing the senses, appetites, and passions, however or whenever it is wrought in the soul, is true, essential righteousness.

Nay, "Righteousness is right action." Indeed it is not. Here, (as we said before) is your fundamental mistake. It is a right state of mind, which differs from right action, as the cause does from the effect. Righteousness is properly and directly, a right temper or disposition of mind, or a complex of all right tempers.

For want of observing this, you say, "Adam could not act before he was created, Therefore he must exist, and use his intellectual powers, before he could be righteous." "But according to this reasoning, as Dr. Jennings observes, Christ could not be righteous at his birth." "He existed before he was made flesh." I reply, he did, as GOD. But the man Christ Jesus did not. Neither therefore did he use his intellectual powers. According to your reasoning then, the Man Christ Jesus could not be righteous at his birth. The Doctor adds, "Nay, according to this reasoning, God could

You answer,

not be righteous from eternity; because he must exist, before he was righteous." You answer, "My reasoning would hold even with respect to God, were it true that he ever did begin to exist. But neither the'existence nor the holiness of God was prior to each other." Nay, but if his existence was not prior to his holiness, if he did not exist before he was holy, your assertion, that every being must exist before it is righteous, is not true.

Besides, (to pursue your reasoning a little farther,) if "God did always exist," yet unless you can prove, that he always acted, it will not clear your argument. For let him exist millions of ages, he could not be righteous (according to your maxim) before he acted right.

One word more on this article. You say, "My reasoning would hold good, even with respect to God, were it true, that he ever did begin to exist." Then I ask concerning the Son of God, Did he ever begin to exist? If he did not, he is the one, eternal GoD: (for there cannot be two Eternals) if he did, and your reasoning hold good, when he began to exist, he was not righteous.

"But St. John saith, He that doeth righteousness is righteous."" Yes, it appears he is, by his doing or practising righteousness. "But where doth the Scripture speak one word of a righteousness infused into us?" Where it speaks of the love of God (the essence of righteousness) shed abroad in our hearts.

And cannot God, by his almighty power, infuse any good tempers into us? You answer, "No. No being whatever can do for us, that which cannot be at all, if it be not our own choice, and the effect of our own industry and exercise. But all good tempers are the effect of our own industry and exercise. Otherwise they cannot be at all."

Nay then, it is certain, they cannot be at all. For neither lowliness, meekness, long-suffering, nor any other good temper, can ever be the effect of my own industry and exercise. But I verily believe they may be the effect of God's Spirit working in me whatsoever pleaseth him. See Isa. xxvi. 12.

You add, "The thing cannot exist, unless we choose, because our choosing to do what is right, is the very thing which is to exist.” No: the thing which is to exist is, a right state of mind. And it is certain God can give this to any creature, at the very first moment of its existence. Nay, it may be questioned, whether God can create an intelligent being in any other state?

"But a habit is gained by repeated acts. Therefore habits of righteousness could not be created in man." Mere playing upon words! He could be, he was created full of love. Now, whether you call this a habit or not, it is the sum of all righteousness.

"But this love is either under the government of my will, or it is not." It is. The love of God which Adam enjoyed, was under the government of his will." But if so, it could be righteous only so far as applied to right action in heart and life." (p. 165.) Stop here. The love of God is righteousness, the moment it exists in any soul. And it must exist before it can be applied to action. Accordingly

it was righteousness in Adam the moment he was created. And yet he had a power either to follow the dictates of that love, (in which case his righteousness would have endured for ever,) or to act contrary thereto but love was righteousness still; though it was not irresistible.

"I might add, Adam's inclination to sin (for he could not sin without a sinful inclination) must be so strong as to overcome his (supposed) inbred propensity to holiness: and so malignant, as to expel that principle at once, and totally. Consequently, the supposed original righteousness, was consistent with a sinful propensity, vastly stronger and more malignant than ever was or can be in any of his posterity: who cannot sin against such resistance, or with such dreadful consequences. Thus original righteousness in Adam proves far worse than original sin in his posterity." (p. 166.)

I have set down your argument at large, that it may appear in its full strength. Now let us view it more closely. 1. "Adam could not sin without a sinful inclination." The sentence is ambiguous. "Either it may mean, " Adam could not choose ill, without some sinful temper preceding ;" and in this sense it is false or he could not commit outward sin, without first inclining, that is, choosing so to do: 2. "This his sinful inclination (or temper) was so strong as to overcome his inbred propensity to holiness." It was not any sinful inclination (in this sense) which overcame his propensity to holiness: but strong temptation from without: how strong we know not: and the circumstances of it, we know not. 3. "That his sinful inclination was so malignant, as to expel that principle at once and totally." Not by any sinful inclination, but by yielding to temptation, he did lose the love and image of God. But that this was totally, and at once, we have no authority to affirm. 4. "Consequently original righteousness in Adam was consistent with a sinful propensity, vastly stronger and more malignant, than ever was or can be in any of his posterity." It was consistent with no sinful propensity at all, but barely with a power of yielding to temptation. It declined in the same proportion, and by the same degrees, as he did actually yield to this. And when he had yielded entirely and eaten the fruit, original righteousness was no more. Therefore the 5th proposition, "Thus original righteousness proves to be far worse than original sin," is flourish. What a figure does this fair argument make, now it is turned inside out!

From all this it may appear, that the doctrine of Original Righteousness, (as well as that of Original Sin,) hath a firm foundation in Scripture, as well as in the attributes of a wise, holy, and gracious God.

As you do not offer any new argument in your conclusion, I need not spend any time upon it.

You subjoin Remarks on Dr. Watts's additions to his book. (P 186.) Some of these deserve a serious consideration.

1. "Either the new-created man loved God supremely, or not. If he did not, he was not innocent: since the very law and light of