meant a Jew? Dr. T. himself does not explain it so, in his exposition of this epistle; and therefore is not very consistent with himself, in supposing that in the other part of the distinction the apostle means Gentiles, as distinguished from the Jews. The apostle himself had been labouring abundantly in the preceding part of the epistle, to prove that the Jews were sinners in opposition to righteous; that all had sinned, that all were under sin, and therefore could not be justified, could not be accepted as righteous, by their own righteous

ness.

7. Another thing which makes it evident that the apostle, when he speaks in this place of the sinners and enemies for whom Christ died, does not mean only the Gentiles, is, that he includes himself among them, saying, while we were sinners, and when we were enemies.

Our author from time to time says, the apostle, though he speaks only of the Gentiles in their heathen state, yet puts himself with them, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles. But this is very unreasonable. There is no more sense in it, than there would be in a father ranking himself among his children, when speaking to his children of the benefits they have by being begotten by himself; and saying, We children. Or in a physician ranking himself with his patients, when talking to them of their diseases and cure; saying, We sick folks. Paul being the apostle of the Gentiles to save them from their heathenism, is so far from being a reason for him to reckon himself among the heathen, that on the contrary, it is the very thing that would render it in a peculiar manner unnatural and absurd for him so to do. Because, as the apostle of the Gentiles, he appears as their healer and deliverer from heathenism; and therefore in that capacity, in a peculiar manner, appears in his distinction from the heathen, and in opposition to the state of heathenism. For it is by the most opposite qualities only, that he is fitted to be an apostle of the heathen, and recoverer from heathenism. As the clear light of the sun is what makes it a proper restorative from darkness; and therefore, the sun being spoken of as such a remedy, none would suppose to be a good reason why it should be ranked among dark things. Besides, the apostle, in this epistle, expressly ranks himself with the Jews, when he speaks of them as distinguished from the Gentiles; as in Chap. iii. 9. What then? are we better than they? That is, are we Jews better than the Gentiles?

It cannot justly be alleged in opposition to this, that the apostle Peter puts himself with the heathen, 1 Pet. iv. 3. "For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles; when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries."

For the apostle Peter (who by the way was not an apostle of the Gentiles) here does not speak of himself as one of the heathen, but as one of the church of Christ in general, made up of those who had been Jews, proselytes, and heathens, who were now all one body, of which body he was a member. It is this society therefore, and not the Gentiles, that he refers to in the pronoun us. He is speaking of the wickedness that the members of this body or society had lived in before their conversion; not that every member had lived in all those vices here mentioned, but some in one, others in another. Yery parallel is the passage with that of the apostle Paul to Titus, Chap. iii. 3. "For we ourselves also (i. e. we of the christian church) were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, (some, one lust and pleasure, others another) living in malice, envy, hateful and hating one another," &c. There is nothing in this but what is very natural. That the apostle speaking to the christian church, and of that church, confessing its former sins, should speak of himself as one of that society, and yet mention some sins that he personally had not been guilty of, and among others, heathenish idolatry, is quite a different thing from what it would have been for the apostle, expressly distinguishing those of the christians which had been heathen, from those which had been Jews, to have ranked himself with the former, though he was truly of the latter.

If a minister in some congregation in England, speaking in a sermon of the sins of the nation, being himself of the nation, should say, 'We have greatly corrupted ourselves, and provoked God by our deism, blasphemy, profane swearing, lasciviousness, venality,' &c. speaking in the first person plural, though he himself never had been a deist, and perhaps none of his hearers, and they might also have been generally free from other sins he mentioned; yet there would be nothing unnatural in his thus expressing himself. But it would be quite a different thing, if one part of the British dominions, suppose our king's American dominions, had universally apostatized from christianity to deism, and had long been in such a state, and if one who had been born and brought up in England among christians, the country being universally christian, should be sent among them to shew them the folly and great evil of deism, and convert them to christianity; and this missionary, when making a distinction between English christians, and these deists, should rank himself the latter, and say, we American deists, we foolish blind infidels, &c. This indeed would be very unnatural and absurd.

Another passage of the apostle, to the like purpose with that which we have been considering in the 5th of Romans, is that in Eph. ii. 3.—“ And were by nature children of wrath,

even as others." This remains a plain testimony to the doctrine of original sin, as held by those who used to be called orthodox christians, after all the pains and art used to torture and pervert it. This doctrine is here not only plainly and fully taught, but abundantly so, if we take the words with the context; where christians are once and again represented as being, in their first state, dead in sin, and as quickened and raised up, from such a state of death, in a most marvellous display of free rich grace and love, and exceeding greatness of God's power, &c.

With respect to those words (ημεν τεκνα φύσει οργης. We were by nature children of wrath, Dr. T. says, (p. 112-114.) “The apostle means no more by this, than truly or really children of wrath; using a metaphorical expression, borrowed from the word that is used to signify a true and genuine child of a family, in distinction from one that is a child only by adoption." In which it is owned, that the proper sense of the phrase is, being a child by nature, in the same sense as a child by birth or natural generation: but only he supposes that here the word is used metaphorically. The instance he produces as parallel, to confirm his supposed metaphorical sense of the phrase as meaning only truly, really, or properly children of wrath, viz. the apostle Paul's calling Timothy his own son in the faith, (vnosov TEXvov) is so far from confirming his sense, that it is rather directly against it. For doubtless the apostle uses the word here (vdov) in its original signification, meaning his begotten son; yvnd being the adjective from yovn, offspring, or the verb, yavaw, to beget; as much as to say, Timothy my begotten son in the faith. For as there are two ways of being begotten, one natural, and the other spiritual; the first generation, and regeneration; so the apostle expressly signifies which of these he means in this place, Timothy my begotten son IN THE FAITH, in the same manner as he says to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. iv. 15. "In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gos pel." To say, the apostle uses the word, quae, in Eph. ii. 3. only as signifying real, true, and proper, is a most arbitrary interpretation, having nothing to warrant it in the whole bible. The word quis is no where used in this sense in the New Testament.*

Another thing which our author alleges to evade the force of this, is, that the word rendered nature sometimes signifies habit contracted by custom, or an acquired nature. But this is not its proper meaning. And it is plain, the word in its common use, in the New Testament, signifies what we properly

*The following are all the other places, where the word is used, Rom. i. 26: and ii. 14. and ver. 27. and xi. 21. and ver. 24. thrice in that verse, 1 Cor. xi. 14 Gal. ii. 15. and iv. 8. Jam. iii. 7. twice in that verse, and 2 Pet. i. 4.

There is but one

express in English by the word nature. place where there can be the least pretext for supposing it to be used otherwise; and that is 1 Cor. xi. 14. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? And even here there is, I think, no manner of reason for understanding nature otherwise than in the proper sense. The emphasis used (aurn n quois,) nature ITSELF, shews that the apostle does not mean custom, but nature in the proper sense. It is true, it was long custom which made having the head covered a token of subjection, and a feminine appearance; as it is custom that makes any outward action or word a sign or signification of any thing. But nature itself, nature in its proper sense, teaches, that it is a shame for a man to appear with the established sign of the female sex, and with significations of inferiority, &c. As nature itself shews it to be a shame for a father to bow down or kneel to his own child or servant, or for men to bow to an idol, because bowing down is by custom an established token or sign of subjection and submission. Such a sight therefore would be unnatural, shocking to a man's very nature. So nature would teach, that it is a shame for a woman to use such and such lascivious words or gestures, though it be a custom that establishes the unclean signification of those gestures and sounds.

It is particularly unnatural and unreasonable to understand the phrase, (Tsxva quasi,) in this place, any otherwise than in the proper sense, on the following accounts. 1. It may be observed, that both the words rsxva and puris, in their original signification, have reference to birth or generation. So the word quis, from quw, which signifies to beget or bring forth young, or to bud forth, as a plant that brings forth young buds and branches. And so the word τεκνον comes from τιτω, which signifies to bring forth children.-2. As though the apostle took care by the word used here to signify what we are by birth, he changes the word he used before for children. In the preceding verse he used uo, speaking of the children of disobedience; but here rsxva, which is a word derived, as observed, from rxr to bring forth a child, and more properly signifies a begotten or born child.-3. It is natural to suppose that the apostle here speaks in opposition to the pride of some, especially the Jews, (for the church in Ephesus was mady up partly of Jews, as well as the church in Rome) who exalted themselves in the privileges they had by birth, because they were born the children of Abraham, and were Jews by nature, quos Isdα, as the phrase is, Gal. ii. 15. In opposition to this proud conceit, he teaches the Jews, that notwithstanding this they were by nature children of wrath, even as others, i. e. as well as the Gentiles, which the Jews had been taught to look upon as sinners, and out of favour with God by nature, and born chil

dren of wrath.-4. It is more plain that the apostle uses the word nature in its proper sense here, because he sets what they were by nature, in opposition to what they are by grace. this verse the apostle shews what they are by nature, viz. children of wrath; and in the following verses he shews how very different their state is by grace; saying, ver. 5. By grace ye are saved; repeating it again ver. 8. By grace ye are saved. But if by being children of wrath by nature, were meant no more than only their being really and truly children of wrath, as Dr. T. supposes, there would be no opposition in the signification of these phrases; for in this sense they were by nature in a state of salvation, as much as by nature children of wrath; for they were truly, really, and properly in a state of salva

tion.

If we take these words with the context, the whole abundantly proves that by nature we are totally corrupt, without any good thing in us. For if we allow the plain scope of the place, without attempting to hide it by doing extreme violence to the apostle's words, the design here is strongly to establish this point; That what christians have that is good in them, or in their state, is in no part of it naturally in themselves or from themselves, but is wholly from divine grace, all the gift of God and his workmanship, the effect of his power, his free and wonderful love. None of our good works are primarily from ourselves, but with respect to them all, we are God's workmanship, created unto good works, as it were out of nothing. Not so much as faith itself, the first principle of good works in christians, is of themselves, but that is the gift of God. Therefore the apostle compares the work of God in forming christians to true virtue and holiness, not only to a new creation, but a resurrection, or raising from the dead. ver. 1. "You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses andsins." And again, ver. 5. "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ." In speaking of Chris tians being quickened with Christ, the apostle has reference to what he had said before, in the latter part of the foregoing chap. of God manifesting the exceeding greatness of his power towards Christian converts in their conversion, agreeable to the operation of his mighty power when he raised Christ from the dead. So that it is plain by every thing in this discourse, the apostle would signify, that by nature we have no goodness; but are as destitute of it as a dead corpse is of life. And that all goodness, all good works, and faith the principle of all, are perfectly the gift of God's grace, and the work of his great, almighty, and exceeding excellent power. I think, there can be need of nothing but reading the chapter and minding what is read, to convince all who have common understanding of this; whatever any of the most subtle critics have done, or ever can do.