by dreaming, ignorant, superstitious monks, too conceited to be satisfied with plain gospel, and has long remained in that deplorable state." But how came the whole Christian world, without any blinding depravity, to hearken to these ignorant, foolish men, rather than unto wiser and better teachers? Especially, when the latter had plain gospel on their side, and the doctrines of the other were (as our author supposes) so very contrary, not only to the plain gospel, but to men's reason and common sense! Or were all the teachers of the Christian church nothing but a parcel of ignorant dreamers? If so, this is very strange indeed, unless mankind naturally love darkness, rather than light, seeing in all parts of the Christian world there was so great a multitude of those in the work of the ministry, who had the gospel in their hands, and whose whole business it was to study and teach it, and therefore had infinitely greater advantages to become truly wise, than the Heathen philosophers. But if it did happen so, by some strange and inconceivable means, that notwithstanding all these glorious advantages, all the teachers of the Christian church through the world, without any native evil propensity, very early became silly dreamers, and also in their dreaming, generally stumbled on the same individual, monstrous opinions, and so the world might be blinded for a while; yet why did they not hearken to that wise and great man, Pelagius, and others like him, when he plainly held forth the truth to the Christian world! Especially seeing his instructions were so agreeable to the plain doctrines, and the bright and clear light of the gospel of Christ, and also so agreeable to the plainest dictates of the common sense and understanding of all mankind; but the other so repugnant to it, that (according to our author) if they were true, it would prove understanding to be no understanding, and the Word of God to be no rule of truth, nor at all to be relied upon, and God to be a Being worthy of no regard!

And besides, if the ineffectualness of the gospel to restrain sin and promote virtue, be owing to the general prevalence of these doctrines, which are supposed to be so absurd and contrary to the gospel, here is this further to be accounted

for, namely, why, since there has been so great an increase of light in religious matters (as must be supposed on Dr. Taylor's scheme) in this and the last age, and these monstrous doctrines of Qriginal Sin, Election, Reprobation, Justification, Regeneration, &c. have been so much exploded, especially in our nation, there has been no reformation attending this great advancement of light and truth; but on the contrary, vice, and every thing that is opposite to practical Christianity, has gone on to increase, with such a prodigious celerity, as to become like an overflowing deluge, threatening, unless God mercifully interpose, speedily to swallow up all that is left of what is virtuous and praiseworthy.

Many other things might have been mentioned under this head, of the means which mankind have had to restrain vice, and promote virtue; such as wickedness being many ways contrary to men's temporal interest and comfort in this world, and their having continually before their eyes so many instances of persons made miserable by their vices; the restraints of human laws, without which men cannot live in society; the judgments of God brought on men for their wickedness, with which history abounds, and the providential rewards of virtue, and innumerable particular means that God has used from age to age to curb the wickedness of mankind, which I have omitted. But there would be no end of a particular enumeration of such things. Enough has been said. They that will not be convinced by the instances which have been mentioned, probably would not convinced, if the world had stood a thousand times so long, and we had the most authentic and certain accounts of means having been used from the beginning, in a thousand times greater variety, and new dispensations had been introduced, after others had been tried in vain, ever so often, and still to little effect. He that will not be convinced by a thousand good witnesses, it is not likely that he would be convinced by a thousand thousand. The proofs that have been extant in the world, from trial and fact, of the depravity of man's nature, are inexpressible, and as it were infinite, beyond the representation of all comparison and similitude. If there were a piece of ground, which

abounded with briars and thorns, or some poisonous plant, and all mankind had used their endeavors, for a thousand years together, to suppress that evil growth, and to bring that ground by manure and cultivation, planting and sowing, to produce better fruit, but all in vain, it would still be overrun with the same noxious growth; it would not be a proof, that such a produce was agreeable to the nature of that soil, in any wise to be compared to that which is given in divine providence, that wickedness is a produce agreeable to the nature of the field of the world of mankind; which has had means used with it, that have been so various, great and wonderful, contrived by the unsearchable and boundless wisdom of God; medicines procured with infinite expence, exhibited with so vast an apparatus; so marvellous a succession of dispensations, introduced one after another, displaying an incomprehensible length and breadth, depth and height, of divine wisdom, love, and power, and every perfection of the godhead, to the eternal admiration of the principalities and powers in heavenly places.

SECTION IX.

Several Evasions of the Arguments for the Depravity of Nature, from trial and events, considered.

EVASION 1. DR. TAYLOR says, p. 231, 232. Adam's nature, it is allowed, was very far from being sinful; yet he sinned. And therefore, the common doctrine of Original Sin, is no more necessary to account for the sin that has been, or is in the world, than it is to account for Adam's sin." Again, p. 52....54. S. &c. "If we allow mankind to be as wicked as R. R. has represented them to be; and suppose that there is not one upon earth that is truly righteous, and without sin, and that some are very enormous sinners, yet it

will not thence follow, that they are naturally corrupt. For, if sinful action infers a nature originally corrupt, then, where. as Adam (according to them that hold the doctrine of Original Sin) committed the most heinous and aggravated sin, that ever was committed in the world; for, according to them, he had greater light than any other man in the world, to know his duty, and greater power than any other man to fulfil it, and was under greater obligations than any other man to obe dience; he sinned, when he knew he was the representative of millions, and that the happy or miserable state of all mankind, depended on bis conduct; which never was, nor can be, the case of any other man in the world: Then, I say, it will follow, that his nature was originally corrupt, &c. Thus their argument from the wickedness of mankind, to prove a sinful and corrupt nature, must inevitably and irrecoverably fall to the ground; which will appear more abundantly, if we take in the case of the angels, who in numbers sinned, and kept not their first estate, though created with a nature superior to Adam's." Again, p. 145. S. "When it is inquired, how it comes to pass that our appetites and passions are now so irregular and strong, as that not one person has resisted them, so as to keep himself pure and innocent? If this be the case, if such as make the inquiry will tell the world, how it came to pass that Adam's appetites and passions were so irregular and strong, that he did not resist them, so as to keep himself pure and innocent, when, upon their principles, he was far more able to have resisted them; I also will tell them how it comes to pass, that his posterity does not resist them. Sin doth not alter its nature, by its being general; and therefore how far soever it spreads, it must come upon all just as it came upon Adam.”

These things are delivered with much assurance. But is there any reason in such a way of talking? One thing implied in it, and the main thing, if any thing at all to the purpose, is, that because an effect's being general, does not alter the nature of the effect, therefore nothing more can be argued concerning the cause, from its happening constantly, and in the most steady manner, than from its happening but once.

But how contrary is this to reason? If such a case should happen, that a person, through the deceitful persuasions of a pretended friend, once takes an unwholesome and poisonous draught, of a liquor he had no inclination to before; but after he has once taken of it, he be observed to act as one that has an insatiable, incurable thirst after more of the same, in his constant practice, and acts often repeated, and obstinately continued, in as long as he lives, against all possible arguments and endeavors used to dissuade him from it; and we should from hence argue a fixed inclination, and begin to suspect that this is the nature and operation of the poison, to produce such an inclination, or that this strong propensity is some way the consequence of the first draught in such a case, could it be said with good reason, that a fixed propensity can no more be argued from his consequent constant practice, than from his first draught? Or, if we suppose a young man, no otherwise than soberly inclined, and enticed by wicked companions, should drink to excess, until he had got a habit of excessive drinking, and should come under the power of a greedy appetite after strong drink, so that drunkenness should become a common and constant practice with him ; and some observer, arguing from this his general practice, should say,

It must needs be that this young man has a fixed inclination to that sin; otherwise, how should it come to pass that he should make such a trade of it?" And another, ridiculing the weakness of his arguing, should reply, "Do you tell me how it came to pass, that he was guilty of that sin the first time, without a fixed inclination, and I will tell you how he is guilty of it so generally without a fixed inclination. Sin does not alter its nature by being generals and therefore, how common soever it becomes, it must come at all times by the same means that it came at first." I leave it to every one to judge, who would be chargeable with weak arguing in such a case.

It is true, as was observed before, there is no effect without some cause, occasion, ground or reason of that effect, and some cause answerable to the effect. But certainly it will not follow from thence, that a transient effect requires a permanent cause, or a fixed influence or propensity. An ef