PART IV
CONTAINING ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS
CHAPTER IV
WHEREIN
SEVERAL OTHER OBJECTIONS ARE CONSIDERED
DR. T. objects
against Adam’s posterity being supposed to come into the world under a forfeiture
of God’s blessing, and subject to his curse through his sin, —
That at the RESTORATION of the world after the flood, God pronounced
equivalent or greater BLESSINGS on Noah and his sons, than he did on Adam at
his creation, when he said, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the
earth, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, etc. (See page 82, etc.
S) — To this I answer, in the following remarks.
1. As has been
already shown, that in the threatening denounced for Adam’s sin, there
was nothing which appears inconsistent with the continuance of
this present life for a season, or with propagating his kind; so
for the like reason, there appears nothing in that threatening, upon the
supposition that it reached Adam’s posterity, inconsistent with
enjoying the temporal blessings of the present life, as long as this is
continued; even those temporal blessings which God pronounced on Adam at his
first creation. For it must be observed, that the blessings which God pronounced
on Adam when he created him, and before the trial of his obedience, were
not the same with the blessings which were suspended on his obedience.
The blessings thus suspended, were the blessings of eternal life; which,
if he had maintained his integrity through his trial, would have been pronounced
upon him afterwards; when God, as his judge, should have given him his
reward. God might indeed, if he had pleased, immediately have deprived
him of life, and of all temporal blessings, given him before. But
those blessings pronounced on him beforehand, were not the things for the
obtaining of which his trial was appointed. These were reserved till
the issue of his trial should be seen, and then to be pronounced
in the blessed sentence, which would have been passed upon him by his judge,
when God came to decree to him his reward for his approved fidelity. The
pronouncing of these latter blessings on a degenerate race, that had fallen
under the threatening denounced, would indeed (without a redemption) have
been inconsistent with the constitution which had been established. But
giving them the former kind of blessings, which were not the things
suspended on the trial, or dependent on his fidelity (and these to be continued
for a season), was not at all inconsistent therewith.
2. It is no more an
evidence of Adam’s posterity being not included in the threatening denounced
for his eating the forbidden fruit, That they still have the temporal blessings
of fruitfulness, and a dominion over the creatures, continued to them;
than it is an evidence of Adam being not included in that threatening himself,
That he had these blessings continued to him, was fruitful, and
had dominion over the creatures, after his fall, equally with his
posterity.
3. There is good
evidence, that the benedictions God pronounced on Noah and his posterity, were
granted on a new foundation; a dispensation diverse from any
grant, promise, or revelation, which God gave to Adam, antecedently to his fall;
even on the foundation of the covenant of grace, established in Christ
Jesus; a dispensation, the design of which is to deliver men from the curse that
came upon them by Adam’s sin, and to bring them to greater blessings
than ever he had. These blessings were pronounced on Noah and his seed,
on the same foundation whereon afterwards the blessing was pronounced on Abraham
and his seed, which included both spiritual and temporal benefits. — Noah had
his name prophetically given him by his father Lamech, because by him and his
seed deliverance should be obtained from the curse, which came by Adam’s fall.
Gen. 5:29, “And he called his name Noah (i.e. rest), saying, This same
shall comfort us concerning our work, and toil of our hands, because of the
ground which the Lord hath cursed.” Pursuant to the scope and intent of this prophecy
(which indeed seems to respect the same thing with the prophecy in Gen.
3:15) are the blessings pronounced on Noah after the flood. There is this
evidence of these blessings being conveyed through the channel of the covenant
of grace, and by the redemption through Jesus Christ, that they were obtained by
sacrifice; or were bestowed as the effect of God’s favor to
mankind, which was in consequence of smelling a sweet savor in the
sacrifice which Noah offered. And it is very evident by the epistle to the
Hebrews, that the ancient sacrifices never obtained the favor of God, but only
by virtue of the relation they had to the sacrifice of Christ. — Now
that Noah and his family had been so wonderfully saved from the wrath of
God, which had destroyed the rest of the world, and the world was as it were
restored from a ruined state, there was a proper occasion to point to the great
salvation to come by Christ: as it was a common thing for God, on occasion
of some great temporal salvation of his people, or restoration from a low
and miserable state, to renew the intimations of the great spiritual restoration
of the world by Christ’s redemption. *32* God deals
with the generality of mankind, in their present state, far differently, on
occasion of the redemption by Jesus Christ, from what he otherwise would do;
for, being capable subjects of saving mercy, they have a day of patience and
grace, and innumerable temporal blessings bestowed on them; which, as the
apostle signifies (Acts 14:17) are testimonies of God’s reconcilableness to
sinful men, to put them upon seeking after God.
But beside the
sense in which the posterity of Noah in general partake of these
blessings of dominion over the creatures, etc. Noah himself, and
all such of his posterity as have obtained like precious faith with that
exercised by him in offering his sacrifice, which made it a sweet
savor, and by which it procured these blessings, have dominion over
the creatures, through Christ, in a more excellent sense than Adam in innocence;
as they are made kings and priests unto God, and reign with Christ, and all
things are theirs, by a covenant of grace. They partake with Christ
in that dominion over the beasts of the earth, the fowls of the air, and
fishes of the sea, spoken of in the 8th Psalm; which is by the apostle
interpreted of Christ’s dominion over the world (1 Cor. 15:27 and Heb.
2:7). And the time is coming, when the greater part of the posterity of Noah,
and each of his sons, shall partake of this more honorable and excellent
dominion over the creatures, through him in whom all the families of the
earth shall be blessed. Neither is there any need of supposing that these
blessings have their most complete accomplishment, till many ages after they
were granted, any more than the blessing on Japhet, expressed in those words, God
shall enlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.
But that Noah’s
posterity have such blessings given them through the great Redeemer,
who suspends and removes the curse which came through Adam’s sin,
surely is no argument, that they originally, as in their natural state, are not
under the curse. That men have blessings through grace, is no
evidence of their being not justly exposed to the curse by nature; but it
rather argues the contrary. For if they did not deserve the curse, they
would not depend on grace and redemption for the removal of it, and for
bringing them into a state of favor with God.
Another objection,
which our author strenuously urges against the doctrine of original sin, is,
that it disparages the divine goodness in giving us our being; which
we ought to receive with thankfulness, as a great gift of God’s
beneficence, and look upon as the first, original, and fundamental fruit of the
divine liberality (Page 256, 357, 260. 71-74. S).
To this I answer,
in the following observations:
1. This argument is
built on the supposed truth of a thing in dispute; and so is a begging
of the question. It is built on this supposition, that we are not properly
looked upon as one with our first father, in the state wherein God
at first created him, and in his fall from that state. If we are so, it
becomes the whole race to acknowledge God’s great goodness to them, in
the state wherein mankind was made at first; in the happy state
they were then in, and the fair opportunity they then had of obtaining confirmed
and eternal happiness; and to acknowledge it as an aggravation of their
apostasy; and to humble themselves, that they were so ungrateful as to rebel
against their good Creator. Certainly, we may all do this with as much reason,
as the people of Israel in Daniel’s and Nehemiah’s times who did with
thankfulness acknowledge God’s great goodness to their fathers, many
ages before; and in their confessions they bewailed, and took shame to
themselves, for the sins committed by their fathers, notwithstanding such
great goodness. (See the 9th chapter of Daniel, and the 9th of Nehemiah.)
2. If Dr. T. would
imply in his objection, that it doth not consist with the goodness of
God, to give mankind being in a state of misery, what ever was done
before by Adam, whether he sinned or did not sin. I reply, if it be justly so
ordered, that there should be a posterity of Adam, which must be looked upon as one
with him; then it is no more contrary to God’s attribute of goodness to
give being to his posterity in a state of punishment, than to continue the
being of the same wicked and guilty person, who has made himself guilty,
in a state of punishment. The giving of being, and the continuing of
being, are both alike the work of God’s power and will, and both are
alike fundamental to all blessings of man’s present and future existence. And
if it be said, it cannot be justly so ordered, that there should be a posterity
of Adam, which should be looked upon as one with him, this is begging
the question.
3. If our author
would have us to suppose, that it is contrary to the attribute of goodness for
God, in any case, by an immediate act of his power, to cause existence,
and to cause new existence, which shall be an exceeding miserable existence,
by reason of exposedness to eternal ruin; then his own scheme must be
supposed contrary to the attribute of God’s goodness: for he supposes
that God will raise multitudes from the dead at the last day (which will be
giving new existence to their bodies, and to bodily life and sense) in order
only to their suffering eternal destruction.
4. Notwithstanding
we are so sinful and miserable, as we are by nature, yet we may have great
reason to bless God, that he has given us our being under so glorious a
dispensation of grace through Jesus Christ: by which we have a happy
opportunity to be delivered from this sin and misery, and to obtain
unspeakable eternal happiness. And because, through our own wicked
inclinations, we are disposed so to neglect and abuse this mercy, as to fail of
final benefit by it, this is no reason why we ought not to be thankful for
it, even according to our author’s own sentiments. What (says he, page 72, 73.
S) if the whole world lies in wickedness, and few therefore shall be
saved? Have men no reason to be thankful, because they are wicked
and ungrateful, and abuse their being and God’s bounty? Suppose our own evil
inclinations do withhold us, viz. from seeking after happiness, of
which under the light of the gospel we are placed within the nearer and easier
reach, “suppose, the whole Christian world should lie in wickedness, and but
few Christians should be saved, is it therefore certainly true, that we cannot
reasonably thank God for the gospel?” Well, and though the evil
inclinations, which hinder our seeking and obtaining happiness by so
glorious an advantage, are what we are born with, yet if those
inclinations are our fault or sin, that alters not the case; and to say,
they are not our sin, is still begging the question. Yea, it will follow
from several things asserted by our author, that notwithstanding men are born
in such circumstances, as that they are under a very great improbability of
ever becoming righteous, yet they may have reason to be thankful for
their being. Thus particularly, Dr. T. asserts, that all men have reason of
thankfulness for their being; and yet he supposes, that the heathen world,
taken as a collective body, were dead in sin, and could not deliver or
help themselves, and therefore stood in necessity of the Christian dispensation.
And not only so, but he supposes, that the Christian world is now at length
brought to the like deplorable and helpless circumstances, and needs a new
dispensation for its relief. Accordingly to these things, the world in
general, not only formerly but even at this day, are dead in sin, and
helpless as to their salvation; and therefore the generality of them that are
born into it, are much more likely to perish, than otherwise, till the new
dispensation comes: and yet he supposes, we all have reason to be thankful
for our being. Yea, further still, I think, according to our author’s
doctrine, men may have great reason to be thankful to God for bringing
them into a state, which yet, as the case is, is attended with misery, as
its certain consequence. As, with respect to God’s raising the
wicked to life, at the last day; which, he supposes, is in itself a great benefit,
procured by Christ, and the wonderful grace of God through him: and if it
be the fruit of God’s wonderful grace, surely men ought to be thankful for
that grace, and praise God for it. Our doctrine of original sin, therefore, no
more disparages God’s goodness in man’s formation in the womb, than his
doctrine disparages God’s goodness in their resurrection from the
grave.
Another argument,
which Dr. T. makes use of, against the doctrine of original sin, is what the
Scripture reveals of the process of the day of judgment; which represents
the judge as dealing with men singly and separately, rendering to every
man according to his deeds, and according to the improvement he has
made of the particular powers and talents God has given him personally
(Page 65, 66, 111. S).
But this objection
will vanish, if we consider what is the end or design of that
public judgment. Now this will not be, that God may find out what men
are, or what punishment or reward is proper for them, or in order to the passing
of a right judgment of these things within himself which is the end of human
trials; but it is to manifest what men are to their own consciences, and
to the world. As the day of judgment is called the day of the revelation of
the righteous judgment of God; in order to this, God will make use of evidences,
or proofs. But the proper evidences of the wickedness of men’s hearts
(the true seal of all wickedness) both as to corruption of nature, and
additional pollution and guilt, are men’s works.
The special end of
God’s public judgment will be, to make a proper, perfect, open distinction
among men, rightly to state and manifest their difference one from
another, in order to that separation and difference in the eternal retribution
that is to follow: and this difference will be made to appear, by their personal
works.
There are two
things, with regard to which men will be tried, and openly distinguished,
by the perfect judgment of God at the last day; according to the twofold real
distinction subsisting among mankind: viz. (1.) The difference of
STATE; that primary and grand distinction, whereby all mankind are
divided into two sorts, the righteous and the wicked. (2.) That secondary
distinction, whereby both sorts differ from others in the same general
state, in DEGREES of additional fruits of righteousness and wickedness. Now the
Judge, in order to manifest both these, will judge men according to
their personal works. But to inquire at the day of judgment, whether Adam
sinned or no, or whether men are to be looked upon as one with him, and so
partakers in his sin, is what in no respect tends to manifest either of these
distinctions.
1. The first thing
to be manifest, will be the state, that each man is in, with respect to
the grand distinction of the whole world of mankind into righteous and
wicked; or, in metaphorical language, wheat and tares; or,
the children of the kingdom of Christ, and the children of the wicked
one; the latter, the head of the apostasy; but the former, the head of the
restoration and recovery. The Judge, in manifesting this, will prove men’s
hearts by their works, in such as have had opportunity to perform any
works in the body. The evil works of the children of the wicked one will
be the proper manifestation and evidence or proof of whatever belongs to
the general state of such; and particularly they will prove, that they belong to
the kingdom of the great deceiver, and head of the apostasy, as they will
demonstrate the exceeding corruption of their nature, and full consent of their
hearts to the common apostasy; and also that their hearts never relinquished the
apostasy, by a cordial adherence to Christ, the great restorer. The Judge will
also make use of the good works of the righteous to show their
interest in the redemption of Christ; as thereby will be manifested the
sincerity of their hearts in their acceptance of, and adherence to, the Redeemer
and his righteousness. And in thus proving the state of men’s hearts by their
actions, the circumstances of those actions must necessarily come into
consideration, to manifest the true quality of their actions; as, each
one’s talents, opportunities, advantages, light, motives, etc.
2. The other thing
to be manifested, will be that secondary distinction, wherein particular
persons, both righteous and wicked, differ from one another, in the degree of
secondary good or evil; the degree of evil fruit, which is additional to
the guilt and corruption of the whole body of apostates and enemies; and the degree
of personal goodness and good fruit, which is a secondary goodness, with
respect to the righteousness and merits of Christ, which belong to all by that
sincere faith manifested in all. Of this also each one’s works, with
their circumstances, opportunities, talents, etc. will be the proper evidence.
As to the nature
and aggravations of the general apostasy by Adam’s sin, and also the nature
and sufficiency of the redemption by Jesus Christ, the great restorer, though
both these will have vast influence on the eternal state, which men shall
be adjudged to, yet neither of them will properly belong to the trial men
will be the subjects of at that day, in order to the manifestation of
their state, wherein they are distinguished one from another. They
will belong to the business of that day no otherwise, than the manifestation of
the great truths of religion in general; as the nature and perfections of
God, the dependence of mankind on God, as their creator and preserver, etc. Such
truths as these will also have great influence on the eternal state, to which
men will then be adjudged, as they aggravate the guilt of man’s wickedness,
and must be considered in order to a due estimate of Christ’s righteousness,
and men’s personal virtue; yet being of general and equal concernment, will
not properly belong to the trial of particular persons.
Another thing urged
by our author particularly against the imputation of Adam’s sin, is
this: “Though, in Scripture, action is frequently said to be imputed,
reckoned, accounted to a person, it is no other than his own act and
deed” (Page 3, etc. 105). In the same place he cites a number of places of
Scripture, where these words are used, which he says are all that he can find in
the Bible.
But we are no way
concerned with this argument at present, any further than it relates to imputation
of sin, or sinful action. Therefore all that is in the argument,
which relates to the present purpose, is this: that the word is so often applied
in Scripture to signify God’s imputing of personal sin, but never once to his
imputing of Adam’s sin. — So often! — How often? — But twice.
There are but two of all those places which he reckons up, that have any
reference to God imputing sin to any person, where there is any evidence
that only personal sin is meant; (Lev. 17:3, 4 and 2 Tim. 4:16). All
therefore that the argument comes to, is this: that the word impute, is
applied twice in Scripture to the case of God imputing sin, and neither
of those times to signify the imputing of Adam’s sin, but both times it has
reference to personal sin; therefore Adam’s sin is not imputed to his
posterity. And this is to be noted, that one of these two places, even that in
Lev. 17:3, 4 does not speak of imputing the act committed, but another not
committed. The words are, “what man soever there be of the house of
Israel, that killeth an ox or lamb or goat in the camp, or that killeth it out
of the camp, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord, before the tabernacle of the
Lord, blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; that man
shall be cut off from among his people,” i.e. plainly, murder shall
be imputed to him: he shall be put to death for it, and therein punished with
the same severity as if he had slain a man. It is plain by Isa. 66:3
that, in some cases, shedding the blood of beasts, in an unlawful manner,
was imputed to them, as if they slew a man.
But whether it be
so or not, although in both these places the word impute, be applied to
personal sin, and to the very act, or although this could be said of all the
places which our author reckons up; yet that the word impute, is never
expressly applied to Adam’s sin, does no more argue, that it is not imputed to
his posterity, than it argues, that pride, unbelief, lying, theft, oppression,
persecution, fornication, adultery, sodomy, perjury, idolatry, and innumerable
other particular moral evils, are never imputed to the persons that
committed them, or in whom they are; because the word impute, though so
often used in Scripture, is never applied to any of these kinds of wickedness.
I know not what can
be said here, except one of these two things: that though these sins are not
expressly said to be imputed, yet other words are used that do as
plainly and certainly imply that they are imputed, as if it were said so
expressly. Very well, and so I say with respect to the imputation of Adam’s
sin. The thing meant by the word impute, may be as plainly and certainly
expressed by using other words, as if that word were expressly used; and more
certainly, because the words used instead of it, may amount to an explanation
of this word. And this, I think, is the very case here. Though the word,
impute, is not used with respect to Adam’s sin, yet it is said, all
have sinned; which, respecting infants, can be true only of their sinning by
his sin. And, it is said, by his disobedience many were made sinners; and,
judgment and condemnation came upon all by that sin; and that by this
means death, the wages of sin, passed on all men, etc. Which
phrases amount to full and precise explanations of the word, impute; and
therefore do more certainly determine the point really insisted on.
Or, perhaps it will
be said, with respect to those personal sins before-mentioned, pride,
unbelief, etc. it is no argument they are not imputed to those who
are guilty of them, that the very word impute, is not applied to them;
for the word itself is rarely used; not one time in a hundred, and
perhaps five hundred, of those wherein the thing meant is plainly
implied, or may be certainly inferred. Well, and the same also may be applied
likewise, with respect to Adam’s sin.
It is probable, Dr.
T. intends an argument against original sin, by that which he says in opposition
to what R. R. suggests of children discovering the principles of iniquity,
and seeds of sin, before they are capable of moral action (Page 77, 78. S),
viz. That little children are made PATTERNS of humility, meekness, and
innocence (Mat. 18:3; 1 Cor. 14:20; and Psa. 131:2).
But when the utmost
is made of this, there can be no shadow of reason, to understand more by these
texts, than that little children are recommended as patterns in regard of a negative
virtue, innocence with respect to the exercises and fruits of
sin, harmlessness as to the hurtful effects of it; and that image of
meekness and humility arising from this, in conjunction with a natural
tenderness of mind, fear, self-diffidence, yieldableness, and confidence in
parents and others older than themselves. And so, they are recommended as
patterns of virtue no more than doves, which are an harmless sort of
creatures, and have an image of the virtues of meekness and love. Even
according to Dr. T.’s own doctrine, no more can be made of it than this: for his
scheme will not admit of any such thing as positive virtue, or
virtuous disposition, in infants; he insisting (as was observed before) that
virtue must be the fruit of thought and reflection. But there can
be no thought and reflection, that produces positive virtue, in children not yet
capable of moral action; and it is such children he speaks of. And
that little children have a negative virtue or innocence, in relation to
the positive acts and hurtful effects of vice, is no argument that they
have not a corrupt nature within them: for let their nature be ever so
corrupt, yet surely it is no wonder that they be not guilty of positive wicked
action, before they are capable of any moral action at all. A young viper
has a malignant nature, though incapable of doing a malignant action, and
at present appearing a harmless creature.
Another objection,
which Dr. T. and some others offer against this doctrine, is, That it pours
contempt upon the human nature (Page 74, 75. S).
But their
declaiming on this topic is like addressing the affections and conceits of children,
rather than rational arguing with men. It seems this doctrine is not complaisant
enough. I am sensible, it is not suited to the taste of some, who are so
very delicate (to say no worse) that they can bear nothing but compliment
and flattery. No contempt is by this doctrine cast upon the noble
faculties and capacities of man’s nature, or the exalted business, and
divine and immortal happiness, of which he is made capable. And as to speaking
ill of man’s present moral state, I presume, it will not be denied,
that shame belongs to them who are truly sinful; and to suppose,
that this is not the native character of mankind, is still but meanly
begging the question. If we, as we come into the world, are truly sinful, and
consequently miserable, he acts but a friendly part to us, who endeavors
fully to discover and manifest our disease. Whereas, on the contrary, he acts an
unfriendly part, who to his utmost hides it from us: and so, in effect,
does what in him lies to prevent our seeking a remedy from that, which if not
remedied in time, must bring us finally to shame and everlasting contempt,
and end in perfect and remediless destruction hereafter.
Another objection,
which some have made against this doctrine, much like the former, is, that it
tends to beget in us an ill opinion of our fellow creatures, and so to
promote ill-nature and mutual hatred.
To which I would
say, if it be truly so, that we all come sinful into the world, then our
heartily acknowledging it, tends to promote humility: but our disowning
that sin and guilt which truly belongs to us, and endeavoring to persuade
ourselves that we are vastly better than in truth we are, tends to a
foolish self-exaltation and pride. And it is manifest, by reason,
experience, and the Word of God, that pride is the chief source of all
the contention, mutual hatred, and ill-will which are so
prevalent in the world; and that nothing so effectually promotes the contrary
tempers and deportments, as humility. This doctrine teaches us to
think no worse of others, than of ourselves: it teaches us, that we are all,
as we are by nature, companions in a miserable helpless condition; which
under a revelation of the divine mercy, tends to promote mutual compassion.
And nothing has a greater tendency to promote those amiable dispositions of
mercy, forbearance, long-suffering, gentleness, and forgiveness, than a sense of
our own extreme unworthiness and misery, and the infinite need we have of the
divine pity, forbearance, and forgiveness, together with a hope of obtaining
mercy. If the doctrine which teaches that mankind are corrupt by nature, tends
to promote ill-will, why should not Dr. T.’s doctrine tend to it as
much? For he teaches us, that the generality of mankind are very wicked, having
made themselves so by their own free choice, without any necessity: which
is a way of becoming wicked, that renders men truly worthy of resentment; but
the other, not at all, even according to his own doctrine.
Another exclamation
against this doctrine is, that it tends to hinder comfort and joy, and
to promote melancholy and gloominess of mind (Page 231, and some
other places).
To which I shall
briefly say, doubtless, supposing men are really become sinful, and so exposed
to the displeasure of God, by whatever means, if they once come to have
their eyes opened, and are not very stupid, the reflection on their case will
tend to make them sorrowful; and it is fit it should. Men, with
whom this is the case, may well be filled with sorrow, till they are sincerely
willing to forsake their sins, and turn to God. But there is nothing in this
doctrine, that in the least stands in the way of comfort and exceeding joy. To
such as find in their hearts a sincere willingness wholly to forsake all sin,
and give their hearts and whole selves to Christ, and comply with the
gospel-method of salvation by him.
Another thing objected,
is, that to make men believe that wickedness belongs to their very nature,
tends to encourage them in sin, and plainly to lead them to
all manner of iniquity; because they are taught, that sin is natural, and
therefore necessary and unavoidable (Page 139 and 259).
But if this
doctrine, which teaches that sin is natural to us, does also at the same
time teach us, that it is never the better, or less to be condemned, for
its being natural, then it does not at all encourage sin, any more than Dr.
T.’s doctrine encourages wickedness when it is become inveterate; who
teaches that such as by custom have contracted strong habits of sin, are unable
to help themselves. *33* And is it reasonable, to
represent it as encouraging a man in boldly neglecting and willfully continuing
in his disease, without seeking a cure, to tell him of his
disease, to show him that it is real and very fatal, and what he can
never cure himself of; yet withal directing him to a great Physician, who
is sufficient for his restoration? But for a more particular answer to what is
objected against the doctrine of our natural impotence and inability, as
being an encouragement to go on in sin, and a discouragement to the use of all
means for our help, I must for brevity refer the reader to what has been largely
written on this head in my discourse on the Freedom of the Will.
Our author is
pleased to advance another notion, among others, by way of objection against
the doctrine of original sin: that if this doctrine be true, it would be
unlawful to beget children. He says (Page 145), “If natural generation be
the means of unavoidably conveying all sin and wickedness into the world,
it must itself be a sinful and unlawful thing.” Now, if there be
any force of argument here, it lies in this proposition, whatsoever is a
means or occasion of the certain infallible existence of sin and wickedness,
must itself be sinful. But I imagine Dr. T. had not thoroughly weighed this
proposition, nor considered where it would carry him. For, God continuing in
being the devil, and others that are finally given up to wickedness, will be
attended, most certainly and infallibly, with an eternal series of the most
hateful and horrid wickedness. But will any be guilty of such vile blasphemy, as
to say, therefore God’s upholding of them in being is itself a sinful thing?
In the same place our author says, “so far as we are generated in sin,
it must be a sin to generate.” But there is no appearance of evidence
in that position, any more than in this: “So far as any is upheld in
existence in sin, it is a sin to uphold them in existence.” Yea, if
there were any reason in the case, it would be strongest in the latter position:
for parents, as Dr. T. himself observes, are not the authors of the beginning
of existence: whereas, God is truly the author of the continuance of
existence. As it is the known will of God, to continue Satan and millions
of others in being, though the most sure consequence is the
continuance of a vast infernal world, full of everlasting hellish wickedness:
so it is part of the revealed will of God, that this world of mankind should be continued,
and the species propagated, for his own wise and holy purposes; which will
is complied with by the parents joined in lawful marriage. Their
children, though they come into the world in sin, yet are capable subjects of
eternal holiness and happiness: which infinite benefits for their children,
parents have great reason to expect, in the way of giving up their children to
God in faith, through a Redeemer, and bringing them up in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord. I think, this may be answer enough to such a cavil.
Another objection
is that the doctrine of original sin is no oftener, and no more plainly,
spoken of in Scripture; it being, if true, a very important doctrine.
Dr. T. in many parts of his book suggests to his readers, that there are very few
texts, in the whole Bible, wherein there is the least appearance of their
teaching any such doctrine.
Of this I took
notice before, but would here say further: That the reader who has perused the
preceding defense of this doctrine, must now be left to judge for himself,
whether there be any ground for such an allegation; whether there be not
texts in sufficient number, both in the Old Testament and New, that
exhibit undeniable evidence of this great article of Christian divinity;
and whether it be not a doctrine taught in the Scripture with great plainness.
I think, there are few, if any, doctrines of revelation, taught more plainly
and expressly. Indeed it is taught in an explicit manner more in the New
Testament than in the Old. Which is not to be wondered at; it being
thus with respect to all the most important doctrines of revealed religion.
But if it had been
so, that this doctrine were but rarely taught in Scripture; yet if we
find that it is indeed declared to us by God, if held forth to us by any
word of his; then what belongs to us, is, to believe his Word, and receive
the doctrine which he teaches us; and not to prescribe to him how often he
shall speak of it, and to insist upon knowing what reasons he has for
speaking of it no oftener, before we will receive what he teaches us; or
to pretend that he should give us an account, why he did not speak of it so plainly
as we think he ought to have done, sooner than he did. In this way of
proceeding, if it be reasonable, the Sadducees of old, who denied any
resurrection or future state, might have maintained their cause against Christ,
when he blamed them for not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God; and
for not understanding by the Scripture, that there would be a resurrection to
spiritual enjoyment, and not to animal life, and sensual gratifications; and
they might have insisted, that these doctrines, if true, were very important,
and therefore ought to have been spoken of in the Scriptures oftener and
more explicitly, and not that the church of God should be left, till that
time with only a few obscure intimations of that which so infinitely
concerned them. And they might with disdain have rejected Christ’s argument,
by way of inference from God calling himself in the books of Moses, the
GOD of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For answer, they might have said, that Moses
was sent on purpose to teach the people the mind and will of God; and therefore,
if these doctrines were true, he ought in reason and in truth to have
taught them plainly and frequently, and not have left the people to spell out so
important a doctrine, only from God’s saying, that he was the God of Abraham,
etc.
One great end of
the Scripture is; to teach the world what manner of being GOD is;
about which the world, without revelation, has been so woefully in the dark: and
that God is an infinite being, is a doctrine of great importance,
and a doctrine sufficiently taught in the Scripture. But yet, it appears to me,
this doctrine is not taught there, in any measure, with such explicitness and
precision, as the doctrine of original sin: and the Socinians, who denied
God’s omnipresence and omniscience, had as much room left them for cavil, as
the Pelagians who deny original sin.
Dr. T. particularly
urges, that Christ says not one word of this doctrine throughout
the four Gospels; which doctrine, if true, being so important, and what
so nearly concerned the great work of redemption, which he came to work out (as
is supposed), one would think, it should have been emphatically spoken of in
every page of the Gospels (Page 242, 243).
In reply to this,
it may be observed, that by the account given in the four Gospels, Christ was
continually saying, those things which plainly implied, that all
men in their original state are sinful and miserable. As, when he declared, that
they which are whole, need not a physician, but they which are sick (Mat.
9:12); That he came to seek and to save that which was lost (Mat. 18:11;
Luke 19:10). That it was necessary for all to be born again, and to be converted,
and that otherwise they could not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Mat.
18:3); — and, that all were sinners, as well as those whose blood Pilate
mingled with their sacrifices, etc. and that everyone who did not repent,
should perish (Luke 13:1-5); — Withal directing everyone to pray to
God for forgiveness of sin (Mat. 6:12; Luke 11:4); — Using our
necessity of forgiveness from God, as an argument with all to forgive the
injuries of their neighbors (Mat. 6:14, 15 and 18:35); — Teaching, that
earthly parents, though kind to their children, are in themselves evil
(Mat. 7:11); — And signifying, that things carnal and corrupt are
properly the things of men (Mat. 16:23); — Warning his disciples rather
to beware of men, than of wild beasts (Mat. 10:16, 17); — Often
representing the WORLD as evil, as wicked in its works, at enmity
with truth and holiness, and hating him (John 7:7,
8:23, 14:17 and 15:18, 19); — Yea, and teaching plainly, that all men are
extremely and inexpressibly sinful, owing ten thousand talents to their
divine creditor (Mat. 18:21, to the end).
And whether Christ
did not plainly teach Nicodemus the doctrine of original total depravity, when
he came to him to know what his doctrine was, must be left to the reader to
judge, from what has been already observed on John 3:1-11. And besides, Christ
in the course of his preaching took the most proper method to convince men of
the corruption of their nature, and to give them an effectual and practical
knowledge of it, in application to themselves in particular, by teaching and
urging the holy and strict law of God, in its extent, and spirituality,
and dreadful threatenings: which, above all things, tends to search the hearts
of men, and to teach them their inbred exceeding depravity; not merely as a
matter of speculation, but by proper conviction of conscience; which is the only
knowledge of original sin, that can avail to prepare the mind for receiving
Christ’s redemption; as a man’s sense of his own sickness prepares him to
apply in good earnest to the physician.
And as to Christ
being no more frequent and particular in mentioning and inculcating this point
in a doctrinal manner, it is probably, one reason to be given for it, is
the same that is to be given for his speaking no oftener of God’s creating
of the world: which, though so important a doctrine, is scarce ever spoken
of in any of Christ’s discourses; and no wonder, seeing this was a matter
which the Jews, to whom he confined his personal ministry, had all been
instructed in from their forefathers, and never was called in question among
them. And there is a great deal of reason, from the ancient Jewish writers,
to suppose, that the doctrine of original sin had ever been allowed in the open
profession of that people: *34* though they were generally, in
that corrupt time, very far from a practical conviction of it; and many notions
were then prevalent, especially among the Pharisees, which were indeed
inconsistent with it. And though on account of these prejudices they might need
to have this doctrine explained and applied to them, yet it is well known, by
all acquainted with their Bibles, that Christ for wise reasons, spake more
sparingly and obscurely of several of the most important doctrines of revealed
religion, relating to the necessity, grounds, nature, and way of his redemption,
and the method of the justification of sinners, while he lived here in the
flesh; and left these doctrines to be more plainly and fully opened and
inculcated by the Holy Spirit after his ascension.
But if, after all,
Christ did not speak of this doctrine often enough to suit Dr. T. he might be
asked, Why he supposes Christ did no oftener and no more plainly teach
some of his, Dr. T.’s, doctrines, which he so much insists on? As, that
temporal death comes on all mankind by Adam; and that it comes on them by
him, not as a punishment or calamity, but as a great favor, being made a
rich benefit, and a fruit of God’s abundant grace, by Christ’s redemption,
who came into the world as a second Adam for this end. Surely, if this were so,
it was of vast importance, that it should be known to the church
of God in all ages, who saw death reigning over infants, as well
as others. If infants were indeed perfectly innocent, was it not needful,
that the design of that which was such a melancholy and awful
dispensation towards so many millions of innocent creatures, should be known,
in order to prevent the worst thoughts of God from arising in the minds of the
constant spectators of so mysterious and gloomy a dispensation? But why then
such a total silence about it, for four thousand years together, and not
one word of it in all the Old Testament; nor one word of it in all the four
Gospels: and indeed not one word of it in the whole Bible, but only
as forced and wrung out by Dr. T.’s arts of criticism and deduction, against
the plainest and strongest evidence?
As to the
arguments, made use of by many late writers, from the universal moral sense,
and the reasons they offer from experience, and observation of the nature of
mankind, to show that we are born into the world with principles of virtue;
with a natural prevailing relish, approbation, and love of righteousness,
truth, and goodness, and of whatever tends to the public welfare; with a
prevailing natural disposition to dislike, to resent, and condemn what is
selfish, unjust, and immoral; and a native bent in mankind to mutual
benevolence, tender compassion, etc. those who have had such objections against
the doctrine of original sin thrown in their way, and desire to see them
particularly considered, I ask leave to refer them to a treasure on the nature
of true VIRTUE, lying by me prepared for the press, which may ere long be
exhibited to public view (See Dissertation concerning the Nature of True Virtue,
p. 122.).
Next > Conclusion
Index < Content