304 RCIN Aifo aacO /ikY, &c. sistible connexion of causés and effects ; some of these allowed a first causeor some divine being to set things in motion at first, but without any subsequent interposure or .:overtiment of a wise, a righteous, or a merciful being. The best of them, that is the platonics, fell into the doctrine of the pre-existence of all human souls, and thought that all of them had sinned iu a former state, and were thrust down into these bodies,. 'subject to such perverse appetites, unruly passions, and huge miseries, as a punishment for those former sins. Others indulged a fancy that there were two supreme beings, one the spring of all good, and the other the spring of all evil : The Persiansalso took up with this opinion; and even a sect of christians was deluded with this doctrine, who were called Prlanichees. So great were the darknesses that surrounded this enquiry, how came sin and misery, that is, evil both natural and moral, to be so universal among men 2 It is evident that this general corruption and calamity which has over- spread all the race of man, carries in it at first sight such a hard or <loubtfiil idea of theconduct of God, their Maker, and has raised in many a thoughtful person such reflections upon the good- ness andjustice of God, and such hard thoughts of the Almighty Being who formed them, that it ought to be esteemed a great happiness, if we can but by way of conjecture and humble rea- soning find a probable method, whereby these difficultiesmay be relieved, and the objection against the goodness and justice of our Maker refuted or silenced *. Il. Though Goa hath not thought fit to reveal to us at large in his word, all these particular transactions between him- self, and.the first man whom he created, yet there might he all this and more revealed to the first man ; and it might be set before him in full light, to secure 'his obedience and deter him * Those who oppose the doctrine of original sin will neither allow our argu- ing from reason or revelation. Our fathers, as well as some present writers, have abundantly proved this doctrine from several places óf scripture : and our adversaries have endeavoured to show from the light of reason, that it does not agree with the reason and natnre of things, and therefore, say they, scripture must be otherwise explained and they are forced to labour hard to give some strained and perversé interpre- tations of it to support their scheme: And yet when we corne in our turn to search what the reason of things will say on this subject, as is done in the pre- sent treatise, then it is replied, tt why do we not immediately take our account from scripture ?" And we are upbraided, that we set a candle before the noon- day stín, that we weaken the evidence of a certain rule by bringing over it what is doub'.ful and fallacious, . Whereas all that I have attempted to dohere, is to skew that reason goes a great way to teach and prove what scripture asserts, and that reason and scrip- ture agree, as far an reason goes, in one and the some account of this matter. And thas we confirm our belief of this great article of original sin, which we learn both from observation and reason, as well as revelation. Sometimes indeed we iotrodnce one first in order, and sometimes the other, and we place this subject in every light, both of scripture and reason, while we are represeat- ine their mutual agreement : trd what is there in this conduct that to worthy of aecosation, reproach or blame?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=