greeable to what Mr. Hutcheson says, (Ibid. Section III. p. 196, 197.) "I know not, says he, for what reason some will not allow that to be virtue, which flows from instinct or passions. But how do they help themselves? They say, virtue arises from reason. What is reason, but the sagacity we have in prosecuting any end? The ultimate end proposed by common moralists, is the happiness of the agent himself. And this certainly he is determined to pursue from instinct. Now may not another instinct towards the public, or the good of others, be as proper a principle of virtue, as the instinct towards private happiness? If it be said, that actions from instinct are not the effect of prudence and choice, this objection will hold full as strongly against the actions which flow from selflove."

And if we consider what Dr. Taylor declares as his own notion of the essence of virtue, we shall find, what he so confidently and often affirms, of its being essential to all virtue, that it should follow choice, and proceed from it, is no less repugnant to that, than it is to the nature of things, and the general notions of mankind. For it is his notion, as well as Mr. Hutcheson's, that the essence of virtue lies in good affection, and particularly in benevolence or love; as he very fully declares in these words in his Key,* "That the word that signifies goodness and mercy should also signify moral rectitude in general, will not seem strange, if we consider that love is the fulfilling of the law. Goodness, according to the sense of scripture, and the nature of things, includes all moral rectitude, which, I reckon, may every part of it, where it is true and genuine, be resolved into this single principle." If it be so indeed, then certainly no act whatsoever can have moral reçtitude, but what proceeds from this principle. And consequently no act of volition or choice can have any moral rectitude, that takes place before this principle exists. And yet he most confidently affirms, that thought, reflection and choice must go before virtue, and that all virtue or righteousness must be the fruit of preceding choice. This brings his

* Marginal Note annexed to § 358.

scheme to an evident contradiction. For no act of choice cam be virtuous but what proceeds from a principle of benevolence or love; for he insists that all genuine, moral rectitude, in every part of it, is resolved into this single principle; and yet the principle of benevolence itself cannot be virtuous, unless it proceeds from choice, for he affirms, that nothing can have the nature of virtue but what comes from choice. Se that virtuous love, as the principle of all virtue, must go before virtuous choice, and be the principle or spring of it; and yet virtuous choice must go before virtuous benevolence, and be the spring of that. If a virtuous act of choice goes before a principle of benevolence, and produces it, then this virtuous act is something distinct from that principle which follows it, and is its effect. So that here is at least one part of virtue, yea, the spring and source of all virtue, viz. a virtuous choice, that cannot be resolved into that single principle of love.

Here also it is worthy to be observed, that Dr. Taylor, p. 128, says, "The cause of every effect is alone chargeable with the effect it produceth; or which proccedeth from it :" And so he argues, that if the effect be bad, the cause alone is sinful. According to which reasoning, when the effect is good, the cause alone is righteous or virtuous: To the cause is to be ascribed all the praise of the good effect it produceth. And by the same reasoning it will follow, that if, as Dr. Taylor says, Adam must choose to be righteous, before he was righteous, and if it be essential to the nature of rightcousness or moral rectitude, that it be the effect of choice, and hence a principle of benevolence cannot have moral rectitude, unless it proceeds from choice; then not to the principle of benevolence, which is the effect, but to the foregoing choice alone is to be ascribed all the virtue or righteousness that is in the case. And so, instead of all moral rectitude in every part of it, being resolved into that single principle of benevolence, no moral rectitude, in any part of it, is to be resolved into that principle; but all is to be resolved into the foregoing choice, which is the cause.

But yet it follows from these inconsistent principles, that there is no moral rectitude or virtue in that first act of choice,

that is the cause of all consequent virtue. This follows two ways: 1. Because every part of virtue lies in the benevolent principle, which is the effect, and therefore no part of it can lie in the cause. 2. The choice of virtue, as to the first act at least, can have no virtue or righteousness at all, because it does not proceed from any foregoing choice. For Dr. Taylor insists that a man must first have reflection and choice, before he can have righteousness, and that it is essential to holiness that it proceed from choice. So that the first choice of holiness, which holiness proceeds from, can have no virtue at all, because by the supposition it does not proceed from choice, being the first choice. Hence if it be essential to holiness, that it proceeds from choice, it must proceed from an unholy choice; unless the first holy choice can be before itself, or there be a virtuous act of choice before that which is first of all.

And with respect to Adam, let us consider how, upon Dr. Taylor's principles, it was not possible he ever should have any such thing as righteousness, by any means at all. In the state wherein God created him, he could have no such thing as love to God, or any love or benevolence in his heart. For if so, there would have been original righteousness; there would have been genuine moral rectitude: Nothing would have been wanting; for our author says, True, genuine, moral rectitude, in every part of it, is to be resolved into this single principle. But if he were wholly without any such thing as love to God, or any virtuous love, how should he come by virtue? The answer doubtless will be, by act of choice: He must first choose to be virtuous. But what if he did choose to be virtuous? It could not be from love to God, or any virtuous principle, that he chose it; for, by the supposition, he has no such principle in his heart: And if he chooses it without such a principle, still, according to this author, there is no virtue in his choice; for all virtue, he says, is to be resolved into that single principle of love. Or will he say, there may be produced in the heart a virtuous benevolence by an act or acts of choice, that are not virtuous ? But this does not consist with what he implicitly asserts, that to the

cause alone is to be ascribed what is in the effect. So that there is no way that can possibly be devised, in consistence with Dr. Taylor's scheme, in which Adam ever could have any righteousness, or could ever either obtain any principle of virtue, or perform any one virtuous act.

These confused, inconsistent assertions, concerning virtue and moral rectitude, arise from the absurd notions in vogue, concerning Freedom of Will, as if it consisted in the will's selfdetermining power, supposed to be necessary to moral agency, virtue and vice. The absurdities of which, with the grounds of these errors, and what the truth is respecting these matters, with the evidences of it, I have, according to my ability, fully and largely considered, in my Inquiry on that subject; to which I must refer the reader, who desires further satisfaction, and is willing to give himself the trouble of reading that discourse.

Having considered this great argument, and pretended demonstration of Dr. Taylor's against original righteousness; I proceed to the proofs of the doctrine. And in the first place, I would consider, whether there be not evidence of it in the three first chapters of Genesis: Or, whether the history there delivered, does not lead us to suppose, that our first parents were created in a state of moral rectitude and holiness.

I. This history leads us to suppose, Adam's sin, with relation to the forbidden fruit, was the first sin he committed. Which could not have been, had he not always, till then, been perfectly righteous, righteous from the first moment of his existence, and consequently, created, or brought into existence righteous. In a moral agent, subject to moral obligations, it is the same thing to be perfectly innocent, as to be perfectly righteous. It must be the same, because there can no more be any medium between sin and righteousness, or between a being right and being wrong, in a moral sense, than there can be a medium between straight and crooked, in a natural sense. Adam was brought into existence capable of acting immediately, as a moral agent, and therefore he was immediately under a rule of right ac

tion: He was obliged as soon as he existed to act right. And if he was obliged to act right as soon as he existed, he was obliged even then to be inclined to act right. Dr. Taylor says, p. 166, S. "Adam could not sin without a sinful inclination ;"* And just for the same reason he could not do right, without an inclination to right action. And as he was obliged to act right from the first moment of his existence, and did do so till he sinned in the affair of the forbidden fruit, he must have an inclination or disposition of heart to do right the first moment of his existence; and that is the same as to be created or brought into existence, with an inclination to right action, or, which is the same thing, a virtuous and holy disposition of heart.

Here it will be in vain to say, it is true that it was Adam's duty to have a good disposition or inclination, as soon as it was possible to be obtained, in the nature of things, but as it could not be without time to establish such an habit, which requires antecedent thought, reflection, and repeated right action; therefore all that Adam could be obliged to in the first place, was to reflect and consider things in a right manner, and apply himself to right action, in order to obtain a right disposition. For this supposes, that even this reflection and consideration, which he was obliged to, was right action. Surely he was obliged to it no otherwise than as a thing that was right; and therefore he must have an incli nation to this right action immediately, before he could perform those first right actions. And as the inclination to them should be right, the principle or disposition from which he performed even these actions, must be good; otherwise the actions would not be right in the sight of him who looks at the heart; nor would they answer the man's obligations, or be a doing his duty, if he had done them for some sinister end, and not from a regard to God and his duty. Therefore

This is doubtless true; for although there was no natural, sinful incli nation in Adam, yet an inclination to that sin of eating the forbidden fruit, was begotten in hìm by the delusion and err r he was led into, and this in clination to eat the forbidden fruit, must precede his actual eating,