fall he was indeed deprived of that divine instruction, both oral and internal, which he constantly enjoyed in paradise; and that the loss of this, with the extinction of consciousness at the separation of the soul from the body, was all that was implied in the death denounced against eating the forbidden fruit.

At the head of this party may be placed the illustrious Bishop Bull, Archbishop King, Bishop Taylor, Bishop Warburton, and Bishop Law; but it must be confessed, that all these prelates, with the exception of the two last mentioned, have expressed, in different parts of their works, sentiments on this subject very inconsistent with each other. Misled by the scholastic notion, that, if the soul be immaterial, it must be immortal, and continue for ever a conscious being, they seem to have perplexed themselves with the question, What would have become of the souls of mankind, if Christ had not come into the world to redeem their bodies from the power of the grave? They appear to have admitted that, for the sin of their first parents, they would not have been condemned to the eternal torments of Hell, though they could not have been admitted to the happiness of Heaven; but the intermediate state between these two extremes of happiness and misery, to which they consigned them, has never been so described, that I could distinctly understand what was meant by it. Bishop Law has, indeed, steered clear of this difficulty, by understanding the death denounced against eating the forbidden fruit to

mean the death of the whole man, or the complete extinction of consciousness; but to support this opinion, he seems to have thought it necessary to deny the separate existence and immateriality of the soul, and to have considered the powers of perception, thought, and volition, either as resulting from the particular organization of the brain, or as mere qualities superadded to the brain.* That there is no necessity for this supposition, which is contrary to the testimony of every man's memory and consciousness, I trust that I have already convinced you; but I will at present enter no farther into the discussion of the consequences of the fall of our first parents, as with my notions of these consequences you are already acquainted.† Let me only conjure you not to adopt any notions merely because they are your father's; for many theologians, much more

* Such certainly appears to be the doctrine taught in his Critical Dissertation concerning the use of the words Soul or Spirit, in HOLY SCRIPTURE; and the STATE OF the Dead there described. Yet, as he appears to teach the immateriality of the soul in his notes on Archbishop King's Essay on the. Origin of Evil; and as the soul, though immaterial, may certainly be in a state of insensibility, between the dissolution of the body and the resurrection, for want of the instrumentality of corporeal organs by which to exert its faculties, he may have continued to believe, as his son, the present excellent Bishop of Bath and Wells, insinuates that he did believe, in the immateriality of the soul as distinct from the organization of the brain or any other part of the body; and if so, it will be easier to censure than to refute his doctrine concerning the state of death.

+ See Appendix, No. III. to these Letters.

profound than I, and equally desirous to follow truth whithersoever she might lead them, have thought very differently; and the questions at issue are of the highest importance. Without having correct notions of the fall of our first parents, and its consequences on their posterity, it is impossible that we can have correct notions of the doctrine of redemption, or indeed of any other doctrine peculiarly Christian; for the Gospel began to be revealed when the promise was made that the seed of the woman should" bruise the head of the serpent, though the serpent should be permitted to bruise his heel." The best way to ascertain the truth on this most important subject, is certainly that which ought to be followed in studying every Scripture doctrine. ought to collate all the texts in both Testaments in which any allusion is made, or appears to be made, to the fall of the first pair; to consider, by means of the context, on what occasion, and for what immediate purpose each of those texts was written; to compare the imports of them together, that you may ascertain what, consistently with each other, and with the moral attributes of God, they really teach concerning the consequences of Adam's fall; and when you have formed an opinion of your own, you should then consult the ablest commentators and divines who have written on the subject,* ear

You

* Of our own commentators it will perhaps be sufficient to consult Patrick and Whitby, the Family Bible by Mant and D'Oyly, and Pool's Synopsis; and of foreigners, Grotius and Calvin. Bishop Burnet, in his exposition of the ninth article

nestly praying to God to enlighten your understanding, that you may understand the truth as it is in Jesus.

of our church, has given a very candid view of the different opinions maintained in his time respecting the doctrine of Original Sin, as well as of the arguments by which these opinions have been commonly supported; but as correct notions on this subject furnish the only means of coming to the truth in those various questions which at present agitate our church, you will do well to read Calvin's Institutes, and Gill's Body of Divinity, on the one side; and on the other, Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity, the Latin and English Works of Bishop Bull, Taylor's Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin, and Bishop Law's Considerations on the Theory of Religion. I trust it is needless to warn you against implicitly adopting every thing that is to be found in any one of these works. Taylor certainly carries his opposition to Calvinism too far, and verges towards Socinianism; and I have already mentioned what I consider as an error in Bishop Law's Metaphysics rather than in his Theology.

LETTER IX.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE RELIGION OF MANKIND FROM THE FALL OF ADAM TO THE CALLING OF ABRAHAM.

IN my last Letter I observed, that the Gospel began to be revealed, when it was said, that "the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent, and that the serpent should bruise his heel." Taken by themselves, these words must be acknowledged to be extremely obscure; but we have good reason to believe that they were so far explained to the guilty pair, as to give them full assurance, that, by the suffering of some one of their descendants, they should have restored to them that life, which, by their transgression, they had now forfeited. This, I think, appears in the highest degree probable, from what is said of the Lord God making coats to them of skins, compared with the very early and universal practice of worshipping God by the sacrifice of animals. The skins with which Adam and Eve were clothed were certainly the