« السابقةمتابعة »
epistles, righteousness means justification, in the passive sense of the word. (p. 440.)
"So Rom. x. 4, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth:' that is, in order to the justification of believers. Rom. x. 10, With the heart man believeth unto righteousness;' that is, so as to obtain justification. Gal. ii. 21, 'If righteousness,' that is, justification, 'come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.' This particularly holds, where the word λovigoμzı, or impute, is joined with righteousness. As Rom. iv. 3, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness.' Rom. iv. 5, His faith is counted to him for righteousnes.' It is not avṛ, or veg, for, or instead of righteousness; but Es dixon in order to justificaton or acceptance with God.
"And in other places of Scripture, a work, whether good or evil, is put for the reward of it. Job. xxxiv. 11, The reward of a man will he render unto him;' that is, the recompence of it. So St. Paul desires Philemon, to impute any wrong he had received from Onesimus to himself: that is, not the evil action, but the damage he had sustained.
"Indeed when sin or righteousness is said to be imputed to any man, on account of what himself hath done, the words usually denote both the good or evil actions themselves, and the legal result of them. But when the sin or righteousness of one person is said to be imputed to another, then generally those words mean only the result thereof, that is, a liableness to punishment on the one hand, and to reward on the other.
“But let us say what we will, to confine the sense of the imputation of sin and righteousness, to the legal result, the reward or punishment of good or evil actions: let us ever so explicitly deny, the imputation of the actions themselves to others, still Dr. Taylor will level almost all his arguments against the imputation of the actions themselves, and then triumph in having demolished what we never built, and refuting what we never asserted.
3. "The Scripture does not, that I remember, any where say in express words, That the sin of Adam is imputed to his children or that the sins of believers are imputed to Christ; or, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers. But the true meaning of all these expressions is. sufficiently found in several places of Scripture. (p. 446.)
"Yet since these express words and phrases, of the imputation of Adam's sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ's righteousness to us, are not plainly written in Scripture; we should not impose it on every Christian, to use these very expressions. Let every one take his liberty, either to confine himself to strictly scriptural language; or of manifesting his sense of these plain, scriptural doctrines, in words and phrases of his own. (p. 447.) "But if the words were expressly written in the bible, they could not reasonably be interpreted in any other sense, than this which I have explained by so many examples, both in Scripture, history, and in common life. 09
66 I would only add, If it were allowed, that the very act of Adam's disobedience was imputed to all his posterity; that all the same sinful actions which men have committed, were imputed to Christ, and the very actions which Christ did upon earth, were imputed to believers: what greater punishments would the posterity of Adam suffer? Or what greater blessings could believers enjoy, beyond what Scrips ture has assigned, either to mankind, as the result of the sin of Adam, or to Christ as the result of the sins of men; or to believers, as the result of the righteousness of Christ ???
The Doctrine of Original Sin.
I BELIEVE every impartial reader is now able to judge, whether Dr. Taylor has solidly answered Dr. Watts or not. But there is another not inconsiderable writer whom I cannot find he has answered at all, though he has published
four several tracts, professedly against Dr. Taylor : of which he could not be ignorant, because they are mentioned in the "Ruin and Recovery of Human Nature." I mean, the Rev. Mr. Samuel Hebden, Minister at Wrentham in Suffolk. I think it therefore highly expedient, to subjoin a short abstract of these also; the rather, because the tracts themselves are very scarce, having been for some time out of print.et
ECCLES. vii. 29.
Lo! this only have I found, That God made Man upright but they have sought out many Inventions.
"IN the preceding verse Solomon had declared, how few wise and good persons he had found in the whole course of his life. But lest any should blame the providence of Gon for this, he here observes that these were not what God made man at first: and that their being what they were not, was the effect of a wretched apostasy from God. The original words stand thus, "Only see thou, I have found." (p. 3.) ::
Only: This word sets a mark on what it is prefixed to, as a truth of great certainty and importance. See, observe, thou. He invites every hearer and reader, in particular, to consider what he was about to offer. I have found. I have discovered this certain truth, and assert it on the fullest evidence; That God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. (p. 4.)
"The Hebrew word, which we render upright, is properly opposed to crooked, irregular, perverse. It is applied to things to signify their being straight, or agreeable to rule. But it is likewise applied both to God and man, with the words and works of both. As applied to God, the ways of God, the word of God, it is joined with good, Psalm xxv. 8; with righteous, Psalm cxix. 137; with true and good, Neh. ix. 13, where mention is made of right judgments, true laws, good statutes. The uprightness with which God is said to minister judgment to the people
answers to righteousness. In a word, God's uprightness is the moral rectitude of his nature, infinitely wise and good, just and perfect. The uprightness of man, is his conformity of heart and life to the rule he is under, which is the law or will of God. Accordingly we read of uprightness of heart,' Psalm xxxvi. 10; Job xxxiii. 3; and uprightness of way or conversation, Psalm xxxvii. 14, and often elsewhere. The upright man throughout the Scripture, is a truly good man, a man of integrity, a holy person. (p. 5, 6.) In Job i. 1, 8, and ii. 3, Upright is the same with perfect, (as in, Psalm xxxvii. 37, and many other places,) and is explained by, one who feareth God and escheweth evil.' In Job viii. 6, it is joined, and is the same with, pure. In the same sense it is taken (to mention but a few out of many texts which might be produced) Prov. x. 29, The way of the Lord is strength to the upright, but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity." Chap. xi. 5, The integrity of the upright shall guide them; but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them.' Ver. 6, The righteousness of the upright shall deliver them; but transgressors shall be taken in their own naughtiness. Ver. 11, By the blessing of the upright the city is exalted.' Ch. xv. 8, The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is his delight.' Ch. xxih 20, A wicked man hardeneth his face; but as for the upright, he directeth his way. From all these texts it manifestly ap pears, that uprightness, as applied to man, is the very same with righteousness, holiness, or integrity of heart and conversation.
"When therefore Solomon says, God made man upright,' the plain, undeniable meaning is, God at first formed man righteous or holy: although they have sought out many inventions.' They, this refers to Adam, which is both a singular and a plural noun: they, our first parents, and with them their posterity, have sought out many inventions, many contrivances to offend God and injure themselves. These many inventions are opposed to the upright
ness, the simplicity of heart and integrity, with which our first parents, and mankind in them, were originally made by God. (p. 7.)
"The doctrine of the text then is, that God, at his crea tion made man upright or righteous;' not only rational and a free-agent, but holy. Therefore, to maintain, that "Man neither was nor could be formed holy, because none 66 can be holy, but in consequence of his own choice and "endeavour,” is bold indeed! To prove the contrary, and justify Solomon's assertion, I offer a few plain arguments. (p. 8.)
"1. Moses in his account of the creation writes, And God said, Let us make man in our own image. Now that righteousness or holiness is the principal part of this image of God, appears from Eph. iv. 22, 24, and Col. iii. 9, 10. On which passages I observe, 1. By the old man is not meant an Heathenish life, or an ungodly conversation; but a corrupt nature. For the apostle elsewhere speaks of 6 our old man, as crucified with Christ; and here distin guishes from it their former conversation,' or sinful actions, which he calls the deeds of the old man.' 2. By the new man' is meant, not a new course of life, (a's the Socini ans interpret it,) but a principle of grace, called by St. Peter, "the hidden man of the heart,' and a divine nature.' 3. To put off the old man,' (the same as to crucify the flesh') is to subdue and mortify our corrupt nature: to put on the new man, is to stir up and cultivate that gra cious principle, that new nature. This, saith the apostle, ' is created after God, in righteousness and true holiness." "It is created:' which cannot properly be said, of a new course of life; but may, of a new nature. It is created ' after God,' or in his image and likeness,' mentioned by Moses. But what is it to be created after God,' or in his image?? It is, to be created in righteousness and true holiness: (termed knowledge, the practical knowledge of God, Col. iii. 10.) But if to be created after God,' or ' in his image and likeness,' is to be created in righteous