THE

FREETHINKING

CHRISTIANS'

QUARTERLY REGISTER.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE FALL OF MAN DISPROVED.

By an Explanation of the Fifth Chapter of the Romans.

ESSAY IV.

HAVING shewn in our former papers that the three first chapters of Genesis contain nothing more than a simple narrative of the conduct of our first parents, and of the dealings of God with them in the infancy of their existence-and that the whole account, when properly explained, is perfectly consistent with the wisdom and benevolence of Deity, and suited to the nature and circumstances of the beings he had formed-we still adhere to the opinion stated in our last, that any use that might be made of this account by the apostle Paul, could not alter or change the import of the original; and that if there should be found any apparent difference between what we may denominate the text of Moses and the commentary of Paul, the cause must rest either on the want of perspicuity in the writer, or of perspicacity in ourselves, inasmuch as Paul does not, in his remarks on the subject, profess to speak from inspiration, but merely reasons from the record which we have already examined in the Old Testament. But that no possible doubt may remain, we purpose noticing those passages in the New Testament, which are supposed to teach a different doctrine; and feel

VOL. II. NO. VII.

confident that, to every candid mind, we shall make it appear evident, that the apostle Paul viewed the matter in the same light as we have done. It is a remarkable fact, that throughout the Old Testament this subject is never, either directly or indirectly, referred to, except in the three first chapters of Genesis. Even Jesus himself, who, it is said, came to repair the ruins of the fall, is perfectly silent on the subject; neither do any of the apostles, Paul excepted, ever, either directly or indirectly, refer to it, and he only in five places, which it is our object to show, give no support to the generally received doctrines of the fall of man; and make no reference to the sin of Adam, as the cause of man's iniquity (which, indeed, would but palliate his offences) but, on the contrary, every man's sins are there charged upon himself, and he is represented as the more responsible, inasmuch as he ought to have known and acted better. Nothing is said of our becoming mortal in consequence of Adam's transgression, nor any the most distant allusion made to what is called the first prophecy of the Messiah-the seed of the woman bruising the head of the serpent, but both Jesus and Paul, instead of this, always refer the fulfilment of the promises of God to the seed of the man, that is, of Abraham; and the promise made to him, that in him, and in his seed, should "all the "families of the earth be blessed;" and Jesus, so far from laying claim to this title, as being the seed of the woman, who was to bruise the serpent's head, states himself to be of the seed of David, and his apostles always refer to him as such. Surely if Jesus had been this promised seed of the woman, either he or his apostles would have referred to this prophecy in support of his claim to be the Messiah; but, in spite of the absence of all authority, and of the declaration of God himself, men still persist in believing that man is a fallen creature, in consequence of the sin of Adam; some maintaining that it entailed upon him and his posterity-death temporal, death spiritual, and death eternal; whereas it is a curious fact and well worthy of attention, that although Adam, in his state of innocence and supposed moral perfection, yielded to the first temptation and sinned against his Creator, thereby involving, as it is said, all his posterity in misery and ruin; yet that after his fall-after his nature became depraved, his mind darkened, and his heart corrupted-we never read of any sin he was guilty of, though placed in more trying circumstances. The baneful consequences said to result from the sin of Adam, have appeared to others, professing, indeed, more rational views, so inconsistent with reason, and so de

rogatory to the character of God, that they have sought for a different solution: they have conceived it would be altogether cruel and unjust that such dreadful consequences, in the way of punishment, should fall on the posterity of Adam, who could have had no part in the transgression; but, taking it for granted that Adam's fall was, in some way or other, to affect his descendants, they have concluded that he was originally created immortal, but that, by his transgression, he became mortal, and, as a natural and necessary consequence, all his posterity, who would otherwise have been immortal, became like himself also mortal. If this explanation lessens the difficulty in any degree it does not certainly remove it; for if it be unjust to lay a heavy punishment upon one for the sin of another, it must he equally unjust to inflict a lighter, or any at all; the difference can only be in degree, not in the principle of the thing, and for this opinion we have the authority of Jesus himself (Luke xvi. 10)—“ He "that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much;" it may be reckoned indeed a small injustice only, that we should forfeit immortality by the sin of Adam. As compared with the other system it may indeed appear so; but if it be true that, but for his sin, we should have enjoyed uninterrupted health, happiness, and an unending life; that we, who, could have no part in his offence, have thus been deprived of all those advantages and subjected to all the various ills that flesh is heir to, and that we shall finally be exposed to death, certainly it would appear no small punishment, no very trifling injustice on the part of that being who inflicted these things. But we have said, that men maintain this absurd and revolting system, not only in the absence of all authority, from Moses and the prophets to Jesus and his apostles, but in contradiction to the express declaration of God himself. Let us now proceed to establish this position; and if we succeed in doing this, we may with perfect safety leave our opponents to settle the difference-not with us but with the Bible. In the second commandment Jehovah, speaking of himself, declares—“For I am a jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me," &c. Now this has appeared so unjust to the enemies of divine revelation, that its advocates, even the orthodox themselves, have been obliged to find a solution that should vindicate the conduct and character of the Most High; which they have done, and certainly most effectually, by shewing that when he represents himself as visiting the sins of the fathers on

the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate him, and as shewing mercy to thousands of (generations) of those who love him and keep his commandments; it is only to shew that his mercies are comparatively to his punishments as 1000 to 4. This explanation, though perhaps perfectly correct, is not necessary to clear the character of Deity; for, as every thing is under his direction and controul, every thing may be said to be done by him, yet we know, without any immediate interference of Deity, that it is a very natural consequence that wicked parents should entail upon their children, and even their children's children, great evils both moral and physical-the necessary results of their own criminal pursuits. But if it would appear unjust for Deity to punish the children to the fourth generation for the sins of their parents, how much more unjust would it be that he should, agreeably to the doctrine of original sin, visit the sin of our father Adam who, it does not appear, did hate him, on all generations! And, if the declaration of God in the second commandment, is to be taken as a criterion of his conduct to his creatures, we might conclude that, when all the descendants of Adam were destroyed, except Noah and his family, Noah having loved God, and being declared to be a righteous man, the, sin of Adam would have been obliterated, and the descendants of Noah be blessed, instead of cursed, to a thousand generations. The same, also, we should expect would have been the case with Abraham and his posterity: and, therefore, we might conclude that, instead of suffering for the original sin of Adam, we should all be blessed for the more recent righteousness of Noah and Abraham.

Having made these prefatory remarks we shall now proceed to attempt an explanation of those passages which have been considered as supporting the doctrine we have been exposing and first, Rom. v. 12 to end. In explaining this chapter it may be necessary to use some degree of prolixity; not, indeed, from the difficulty of the subject itself, but from the very imperfect manner in which it is translated; the truth of this assertion requires no other proof than the many supplements introduced into the text by the translators, more, perhaps, than in any other part of the New Testament, and the very great difficulty all persons experience in giving an improved translation of it; beside which it is to be recollected that those who translated our common version all believed in the fall of man in Adam; and that even

those who have attempted an improved translation have believed that man became mortal in consequence of Adam's transgression. We have, therefore, good reason to believe that they would each feel a strong bias to translate it accordingly. Mr. Belsham, it appears, is of opinion, that the account in Genesis is a fiction, that the apostle reasoned upon it without vouching for its truth; but though it be a fiction in Mr. B.'s opinion, yet he supposes the apostle's conclusions are correct, and that in consequence of Adam's sin all his posterity became mortal, which they would not otherwise have been.

Differing as we do from this learned and frequently enlightened authority we proceed to the chapter under consideration. It will, we believe, be allowed by all parties that all the previous part of the epistle down to this twelfth verse contains a regular series of argument—a connected chain of reasoning-to prove that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, had sinned, and came short of the glory of God; that none of them had any claim to his favour by their previous obedience, and that, therefore, there was only one way, and that equally necessary and open to all, whereby they could obtain pardon for past sins, or be admitted into the divine favour. He first shews the gentile world that they not only had perverted the original knowledge of God, which they had derived from their forefathers to whom God had communicated it, but also acted contrary to those principles on which they were in the habit of reasoning, or judging between themselves, either in approving or condemning the actions of others; and that, therefore, they, though without a written law, were a law unto themselves, and that even by that law they must stand condemned. To the Jew he urges their violation of the written law, and shews, notwithstanding all their advantages and boast, that they were equally in a state of condemnation with the heathen, and must obtain salvation on the same terms and conditions as was offered to them. For after establishing, in the first chapter, that the gentiles, who had no written law, had been guilty of every crime, and that they were all in a state of condemnation, he addresses himself in the thirtysecond verse to the Jew whom he shews to be equally in a state of condemnation, because he knew (that which the heathen did not know, having no written law)" that they who "commit such things are worthy of death; not only do the same, "but have pleasure in those who do them." He then goes on to shew the iniquity of the Jewish people, and proves it to have been always the same, by quotations from their sacred writers;