PART IV
CONTAINING ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS
CHAPTER II
CONCERNING
THE OBJECTION, AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF NATIVE CORRUPTION, THAT TO SUPPOSE MEN
RECEIVE THEIR FIRST EXISTENCE IN SIN, IS TO MAKE HIM WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THEIR
BEING, THE AUTHOR OF THEIR DEPRAVITY
ONE
argument against a supposed native, sinful depravity, which Dr. T. greatly
insists upon, is, “that this does in effect charge him, who is the author
of our nature, who formed us in the womb, with being the author of a sinful
corruption of nature; and that it is highly injurious to the God of
our nature, whose hands have formed and fashioned us, to believe our
nature to be originally corrupted, and that in the worst sense of
corruption [p. 137, 187-189, 256, 258, 260. 143. S. and other places.].
With respect to
this, I would observe, in the first place, that this writer, in handling this
grand objection, supposes something to belong to the doctrine objected
against, as maintained by the divines whom he is opposing, which does not belong
to it, nor follow from it. As particularly, he supposes the doctrine of original
sin to imply, that nature must be corrupted by some positive influence; “something
, by some means or other, infused into the human minds, but like a taint,
tincture, or infection, altering the natural constitution, faculties,
and dispositions of our souls (Page 187). That sin and evil dispositions are
IMPLANTED in the fetus in the womb” [Page 146, 148, 149. S. and the like in
many other places.]. Whereas truly our doctrine neither implies nor infers any
such thing. In order to account for a sinful corruption of nature, yea, a total
native depravity of the heart of man, there is not the least need of supposing
any evil quality, infused, implanted, or wrought into the nature
of man, by any positive cause, or influence whatsoever, either from God,
or the creature; or of supposing, that man is conceived and born with a fountain
of evil in his heart, such as is anything properly positive. I think,
a little attention to the nature of things will be sufficient to satisfy any
impartial considerate inquirer, that the absence of positive good principles,
and so the withholding of a special divine influence to impart and maintain
those good principles — leaving the common natural principles of self-love,
natural appetite, etc. to themselves, without the government of superior divine
principles — will certainly be followed with the corruption; yea, the total
corruption of the heart, without occasion for any positive influence at
all: and that it was thus in fact that corruption of nature came on Adam,
immediately on his fall, and comes on all his posterity, as sinning in him, and
falling with him.
The case with man
was plainly this: when God made man at first, he implanted in him two kinds of
principles. There was an inferior kind, which may be called NATURAL,
being the principles of mere human nature; such as self-love, with those natural
appetites and passions, which belong to the nature of man, in which his
love to his own liberty, honor, and pleasure, were exercised: these, when alone,
and left to themselves, are what the Scriptures sometimes call FLESH. Besides
these, there were superior principles, that were spiritual, holy, and
divine, summarily comprehended in divine love; wherein consisted the spiritual
image of God, and man’s righteousness and true holiness; which are called in
Scripture the divine nature. These principles may, in some sense, be
called SUPERNATURAL, *27* being (however concreated or
connate, yet) such as are above those principles that are essentially
implied in, or necessarily resulting from and inseparably connected with, mere
human nature; and being such as immediately depend on man’s union and
communion with God, or divine communications and influences of God’s Spirit:
which though withdrawn, and man’s nature forsaken of these principles, human
nature would be human nature still; man’s nature, as such, being entire
without these divine principles, which the Scripture sometimes calls
SPIRIT, in contradistinction to flesh. These superior principles were
given to possess the throne, and maintain an absolute dominion in the heart; the
other to be wholly subordinate and subservient. And while things continued thus,
all was in excellent order, peace, and beautiful harmony, and in a proper and
perfect state. These divine principles thus reigning, were the dignity, life,
happiness, and glory of man’s nature. When man sinned and broke God’s
covenant, and fell under his curse, these superior principles left his heart:
for indeed God then left him; that communion with God on which these principles
depended, entirely ceased; the Holy Spirit, that divine inhabitant, forsook the
house. Because it would have been utterly improper in itself, and inconsistent
with the constitution God had established, that he should still maintain
communion with man, and continue by his friendly, gracious, vital influences, to
dwell with him and in him, after he was become a rebel, and had incurred God’s
wrath and curse. Therefore immediately the superior divine principles wholly
ceased; so light ceases in a room when the candle is withdrawn; and thus man was
left in a state of darkness, woeful corruption, and ruin; nothing but flesh without
spirit. The inferior principles of self-love, and natural appetite, which
were given only to serve, being alone, and left to themselves, of course
became reigning principles; having no superior principles to regulate or control
them, they became absolute masters of the heart. The immediate consequence of
which was a fatal catastrophe, a turning of all things upside down, and
the succession of a state of the most odious and dreadful confusion. Man
immediately set up himself, and the objects of his private affections and
appetites, as supreme; and so they took the place of God. These inferior
principles are like fire in a house; which, we say, is a good servant,
but a bad master; very useful while kept in its place, but if left to take
possession of the whole house, soon brings all to destruction. Man’s love to
his own honor, separate interest, and private pleasure, which before was wholly
subordinate unto love to God, and regard to his authority and glory, now
disposes and impels him to pursue those objects, without regard to God’s
honor, or law; because there is no true regard to these divine things left in
him. In consequence of which, he seeks those objects as much when against God’s
honor and law, as when agreeable to them. God still continuing strictly
to require supreme regard to himself, and forbidding all undue
gratifications of these inferior passions — but only in perfect subordination
to the ends, and agreeableness to the rules and limits, which his holiness,
honor, and law prescribe — hence immediately arises enmity in the
heart, now wholly under the power of self-love; and nothing but war ensues,
in a constant course, against God, As, when a subject has once renounced his
lawful sovereign, and set up a pretender in his stead, a state of enmity and war
against his rightful king necessarily ensues. It were easy to show, how every
lust, and depraved disposition of man’s heart, would naturally arise from this
private original, if here were room for it. Thus it is easy to give an
account, how total corruption of heart should follow on man’s eating the
forbidden fruit, though that was but one act of sin, without God putting any
evil into his heart, or implanting any bad principle, or infusing any
corrupt taint, and so becoming the author of depravity. Only God’s withdrawing,
as it was highly proper and necessary that he should, from rebel-man, and his natural
principles being left to themselves, is sufficient to account for his
becoming entirely corrupt, and bent on sinning against God.
And as Adam’s
nature became corrupt, without God’s implanting or infusing of any evil thing
into it; so does the nature of his posterity. God dealing with Adam as
the head of his posterity (as has been shown), and treating them as one, he
deals with his posterity as having all sinned in him. And therefore, as
God withdrew spiritual communion, and his vital gracious influence, from the
common head, so he withholds the same from all the members, as they come into
existence; whereby they come into the world mere flesh, and entirely
under the government of natural and inferior principles; and so become wholly
corrupt, as Adam did.
Now, for God so far
to have the disposal of this affair, as to withhold those influences,
without which, nature will be corrupt, is not to be the author
of sin. But, concerning this, I must refer the reader to what I have said of
it in my discourse on the Freedom of the Will [Part IV § 9.]. Though,
besides what I have there said, I may here observe, that if for God so far to
order and dispose the being of sin, as to permit it, by withholding the
gracious influences necessary to prevent it, is for him to be the author of sin,
then some things which Dr. T. himself lays down, will equally be attended with
this very consequence. For, from time to time he speaks of God giving men up to
the vilest lusts and affections, by permitting, or leaving them
[Key, § 388, note: and Par. on Rom. 1:24.]. Now, if the continuance of sin,
and its increase and prevalence, may be in consequence of God’s disposal, in
withholding needful grace, without God being the author of that continuance and
prevalence of sin; then, by parity of reason, may the being of sin, in
the race of Adam, be in consequence of God’s disposal, by his withholding that
grace which is needful to prevent it, without his being the author of sin.
If here it should
be said, that God is not the author of sin, in giving up to sin those who have
already made themselves sinful, because when men have once made themselves
sinful, their continuing so, and sin prevailing in them, and becoming more and
more habitual, will follow in a course of nature: I answer, let that be
remembered which this writer so greatly urges, in opposition to them who suppose
original corruption comes in a course of nature, viz. That the course of
nature is nothing without God. He utterly rejects the notion of the “course
of nature’s being a proper active cause, which will work, and go on by
itself, without God, if he lets or permits it.” [Page 134. S. See also
with what vehemence this is urged in p. 137. S.] But affirms, “That the course
of nature, separate from the agency of God, is no cause or nothing; and
that the course of nature should continue itself, or go on to operate by itself,
any more than at first produce itself, is absolutely impossible.” These
strong expressions are his. Therefore, to explain the continuance of the habits
of sin in the same person, when once introduced, yea, to explain the very being
of any such habits, in consequence of repeated acts, our author must have
recourse to those same principles, which he rejects as absurd to the utmost
degree, when alleged to explain the corruption of nature in the posterity of
Adam. For, that habits, either good or bad, should continue, after
being once established, or that habits should be settled and have existence in
consequence of repeated acts, can be owing only to a course of nature,
and those laws of nature which God has established.
That the posterity
of Adam should be born without holiness, and so with a depraved nature, comes to
pass as much by the established course of nature, as the continuance of a
corrupt disposition in a particular person, after he once has it; or as much as
Adam’s continuing unholy and corrupt, after he had once lost his holiness. For
Adam’s posterity are from him, and as it were in him, and belonging to him,
according to an established course of nature, as much as the branches of
a tree are, according to a course of nature, from the tree, in the tree,
and belonging to the tree; or (to make use of the comparison which Dr. T.
himself chooses from time to time, as proper to illustrate the matter, page 146,
187) just as the acorn is derived from the oak. And I think, the acorn is
as much derived from the oak, according to the course of nature, as the
buds and branches. It is true, that God, by his own almighty power, creates the soul
of the infant; and it is also true, as Dr. T. often insists, that God, by
his immediate power, forms and fashions the body of the infant in the
womb; yet he does both according to that course of nature, which he has
been pleased to establish. The course of nature is demonstrated, by late
improvements in philosophy, to be indeed what our author himself says it is, viz.
Nothing but the established order of the agency and operation of the author
of nature. And though there be the immediate agency of God in bringing the soul
into existence in generation, yet it is done according to the method and order
established by the author of nature, as much as his producing the bud, or the
acorn of the oak; and as much as his continuing a particular person in being,
after he once has existence. God’s immediate agency in bringing the soul of a
child into being, is as much according to an established order, as his
immediate agency in any of the works of nature whatsoever. It is agreeable to
the established order of nature, that the good qualities wanting in the tree,
should also be wanting in the branches and fruit. It is agreeable
to the order of nature, that when a particular person is without good moral
qualities in his heart, he should continue without them, till some new cause or
efficiency produces them. And it is as much agreeable to an established course
and order of nature, that since Adam, the head of mankind, the root of that
great tree with many branches springing from it, was deprived of original
righteousness, the branches should come forth without it. Or, if any dislike the
word nature, as used in this last case, and instead of it choose to call
it a constitution, or established order of successive events, the
alteration of the name will not in the least alter the state of the present
argument. Where the name, nature, is allowed without dispute, no more is
meant than an established method and order of events, settled and limited by
divine wisdom.
If any should
object to this, that if the want of original righteousness be thus according to
an established course of nature, then why are not principles of holiness,
when restored by divine grace, also communicated to posterity; I
answer, The divine law and establishments of the author of nature, are
precisely settled by him as he pleaseth, and limited by his wisdom. Grace is
introduced among the race of man by a new establishment; not on the
ground of God’s original establishment, as the head of the natural world, and
author of the first creation; but by a constitution of a vastly higher kind;
wherein Christ is made the root of the tree, whose branches are
his spiritual seed, and he is the head of the new creation; of
which I need not stand now to speak particularly.
But here I desire
it may be noted, that I do not suppose the natural depravity of the posterity of
Adam is owing to the course of nature only; it is also owing to the just judgment
of God. But yet I think, it is as truly and in the same manner owing to the
course of nature, that Adam’s posterity come into the world without
original righteousness, as that Adam himself continued without it, after he had
once lost it. That Adam continued destitute after he had once lost it. That Adam
continued destitute of holiness, when he had lost it, and would always have so
continued, had it not been restored by a Redeemer, was not only a natural consequence,
according to the course of things established by God, as the author of nature;
but it was also a penal consequence, or a punishment of his sin. God, in
righteous judgment, continued to absent himself from Adam after he became
a rebel; and withheld from him now those influences of the Holy Spirit, which he
before had. And just thus I suppose it to be with every natural branch of
mankind: all are looked upon as sinning in and with their common root;
and God righteously withholds special influences and spiritual communications
from all, for this sin. But of the manner and order of these things, more may be
said in the next chapter.
On the whole, this
grand objection against the doctrine of men being born corrupt, that it makes
him who gave us our being, to be the cause of the being of corruption,
can have no more force in it, than a like argument has to prove, that if men by
a course of nature continue wicked, or remain without goodness, after
they have by vicious acts contracted vicious habits, and so made themselves
wicked, it makes him, who is the cause of their CONTINUANCE in being, and
the cause of the CONTINUANCE of the course of nature, to be the cause
of their CONTINUED wickedness. Dr. T. says (Page 136. S), “God would not make
any thing that is hateful to him; because, by the very terms, he
would hate to make such a thing.” But if this be good arguing in the
case to which it is applied, may I not as well say, God would not CONTINUE a
thing in being that is HATEFUL to him; because, by the very terms, he would HATE
TO CONTINUE such a thing in being? I think, the very terms do as much (and
no more) infer one of these propositions, as the other. In like manner, the rest
that he says on that head may be shown to be unreasonable, by only substituting
the word continue, in the place of make and propagate. I
may fairly imitate his way of reasoning thus: to say, God continues us
according to his own original decree, or law of continuation, which
obliges him to continue us in a manner he abhors, is really to make bad
worse: for it is supposing him to be defective in wisdom, or by his own decree
or law to lay such a constraint upon his own actions, that he cannot do what he
would, but is continually doing what he would not, what he hates to do, and what
he condemns in us; viz. continuing us sinful when he condemns us
from continuing ourselves sinful.” If the reasoning be weak in
the one case, it is no less so in the other.
Next > Part IV: Chapter III
Index < Content