PART
WHEREIN ARE
CONSIDERED SOME EVIDENCES OF ORIGINAL SIN FROM FACTS AND EVENTS, AS FOUNDED BY
OBSERVATION AND EXPERIENCE, TOGETHER WITH REPRESENTATIONS AND TESTIMONIES OF
HOLY SCRIPTURE, AND THE CONFESSION AND ASSERTION OF OPPOSERS
CHAPTER
I
(Sections 1-9)
THE EVIDENCE OF
ORIGINAL SIN FROM WHAT APPEARS IN FACT OF THE SINFULNESS OF MANKIND
SECTION I
All mankind constantly, in all ages,
without fail in any one instance, run into that moral evil, which is in effect
their own utter and eternal perdition in a total privation of GOD’s favor, and
suffering of his vengeance and wrath.
BY Original
Sin as the phrase has been most commonly used by divines, is meant the innate
sinful depravity of the heart. But yet when the doctrine of original sin is
spoken of, it is vulgarly understood in that latitude, which includes not only
the depravity of nature, but the imputation of Adam’s first sin;
or, in other words, the liableness or exposedness of Adam’s posterity, in the
divine judgment, to partake of the punishment of that sin. So far as I know,
most of those who have held one of these, have maintained the other; and most of
those who have opposed one, have opposed the other: both are opposed by the
Author chiefly attended to in the following discourse, in his book against
original sin: And it may perhaps appear in our future consideration of the
subject, that they are closely connected; that the arguments which prove the one
establish the other, and that there are no more difficulties attending the
allowing of one, than the other.
I shall in the first place,
consider this doctrine more specially with regard to the corruption of nature;
and as we treat of this the other will naturally come into consideration, in the
prosecution of the discourse, as connected with it. As all moral qualities, all
principles either of virtue or vice, lie in the disposition of the heart, I
shall consider whether we have any evidence that the heart of man is naturally
of a corrupt and evil disposition. This is strenuously denied by many late
writers who are enemies to the doctrine of original sin; and particularly by Dr.
Taylor.
The way we come by the idea
of any such thing as disposition or tendency is by observing what is
constant or general in event; especially under a great variety of
circumstances; and above all, when the effect or event continues the same
through great and various opposition, much and manifold force and means used to
the contrary not prevailing to hinder the effect. I do not know that such a
prevalence of effects is denied to be an evidence of prevailing tendency in
causes and agents; or that it is expressly denied by the opposers of the
doctrine of original sin, that if, in the course of events, it universally or
generally proves that mankind are actually corrupt, this would be an evidence of
a prior corrupt propensity in the world of mankind; whatever may be said by
some, which, if taken with its plain consequences, may seem to imply a denial of
this, which may be considered afterwards. But by many the fact is denied; that
is, it is denied, that corruption and moral evil are commonly prevalent in the
world: on the contrary, it is insisted on, that good preponderates, and that
virtue has the ascendant.
To this purpose, Dr.
Turnbull says, [Moral Philos. p. 289, 290] “With regard to the prevalence of
vice in the world, men are apt to let their imagination run out upon all the
robberies, piracies, murders, perjuries, frauds, massacres, assassinations they
have either heard of, or read in history; thence concluding all mankind to be
very wicked. As if a court of justice were a proper place to make an estimate of
the morals of mankind, or an hospital of the healthfulness of a climate. But
ought they not to consider that the number of honest citizens and farmers far
surpasses that of all sorts of criminals in any state, and that the innocent and
kind actions of even criminals themselves surpass their crimes in numbers; that
it is the rarity of crimes in comparison of innocent or good actions, which
engages our attention to them and makes them to be recorded in history, while
honest, generous domestic actions are overlooked only because they are so
common? as one great danger, or one month’s sickness shall become a frequently
repeated story during a long life of health and safety. — Let not the vices of
mankind be multiplied or magnified. Let us make a fair estimate of human life,
and set over against the shocking, the astonishing instances of barbarity and
wickedness that have been perpetrated in any age, not only the exceeding
generous and brave actions with which history shines, but the prevailing
innocence, good-nature, industry, felicity, and cheerfulness of the greater part
of mankind at all times; and we shall not find reason to cry out, as objectors
against providence do on this occasion, that all men are vastly corrupt and that
there is hardly any such thing as virtue in the world. Upon a fair computation
the fact does indeed come out, that very great villanies have been very uncommon
in all ages and looked upon as monstrous; so general is the sense and esteem of
virtue.” — It seems to be with a like view that Dr. Taylor says, “We must
not take the measure of our health and enjoyments from a lazar-house, nor of our
understanding from Bedlam, nor of our morals from a jail.” (p. 77. S)
With respect to the
propriety and pertinence of such a representation of things, and its force as to
the consequence designed, I hope we shall be better able to judge, and in some
measure to determine whether the natural disposition of the hearts of mankind be
corrupt or not, when the things which follow have been considered. But for the
greater clearness, it may be proper here to premise one consideration that is of
great importance in this controversy, and is very much overlooked by the
opposers of the doctrine of original sin in their disputing against it.
That it is to be looked upon
as the true tendency of the innate disposition of man’s heart, which
appears to be its tendency, when we consider things as they are in themselves,
or in their own nature, without the interposition of divine grace. —
Thus, that state of man’s nature, that disposition of the mind, is to be
looked upon as evil and pernicious, which, as it is in itself, tends to
extremely pernicious consequences, and would certainly end therein, were it not
that the free mercy and kindness of God interposes to prevent that issue. It
would be very strange if any should argue that there is no evil tendency in the
case, because the mere favor and compassion of the Most High may step in and
oppose the tendency and prevent the sad effect. Particularly, if there be
anything in the nature of man whereby he has an universal unfailing tendency to
that moral evil which, according to the real nature and true demerit of things
as they are in themselves, implies his utter ruin, that must be looked upon as
an evil tendency or propensity; however divine grace may interpose to save him
from deserved ruin, and to overrule things to an issue contrary to that which
they tend to of themselves. Grace is sovereign, exercised according to the good
pleasure of God, bringing good out of evil. The effect of it belongs not to the
nature of things themselves, that otherwise have an ill tendency, any more than
the remedy belongs to the disease; but is something altogether independent on
it, introduced to oppose the natural tendency, and reverse the course of things.
But the event to which things tend, according to their own demerit, and
according to divine justice, is the event to which they tend in their own
nature; as Dr. T.’s own words fully imply (Pref to. Par. on Rom. p.
131), “God alone (says he) can declare whether he will pardon or punish the
ungodliness and unrighteousness of mankind, which is in its own nature
punishable.” Nothing is more precisely according to the truth of things than
divine justice: it weighs things in an even balance; it views and estimates
things no otherwise than they are truly in their own nature. Therefore
undoubtedly that which implies a tendency to ruin, according to the estimate of
divine justice, does indeed imply such a tendency in its own nature.
And then it must be
remembered, that it is a moral depravity we are speaking of; and
therefore when we are considering whether such depravity do not appear by a
tendency to a bad effect or issue, it is a moral tendency to such an
issue that is the thing to be taken into the account. A moral tendency or
influence is by desert. Then may it be said man’s nature or state is
attended with a pernicious or destructive tendency in a moral sense, when
it tends to that which deserves misery and destruction. And therefore it equally
shows the moral depravity of the nature of mankind in their present state,
whether that nature be universally attended with an effectual tendency to
destructive vengeance actually executed, or to their deserving misery
and ruin, or their just exposedness to destruction, however that fatal
consequence may be prevented by grace, or whatever the actual event be.
One thing more is to be
observed here, that the topic mainly insisted on by the opposers of the doctrine
of original sin, is the justice of God; both in their objections against
the imputation of Adam’s sin, and also against its being so
ordered, that men should come into the world with a corrupt and ruined
nature, without having merited the displeasure of their Creator by any personal
fault. But the latter is not repugnant to God’s justice, if men actually
are born into the world with a tendency to sin, and to misery and ruin for
their sin, which actually will be the consequence unless mere grace steps
in and prevents it. If this be allowed, the argument from justice is
given up: for it is to suppose, that their liableness to misery and ruin comes
in a way of justice; otherwise there would be no need of the interposition of
divine grace to save them. Justice alone would be sufficient security, if
exercised, without grace. It is all one in this dispute about what is just and
righteous, whether men are born in a miserable state by a tendency to ruin which
actually follows, and that justly; or whether they are born in
such a state as tends to a desert of ruin, which might justly
follow, and would actually follow did not grace prevent. For the
controversy is not what grace will do, but what justice might do.
I have been the more
particular on this head, because it enervates many of the reasonings and
conclusions by which Dr. T. makes out his scheme; in which he argues from that
state which mankind are in by divine grace, yea, which he himself
supposes to be by divine grace; and yet not making any allowance for this, he
from hence draws conclusions against what others suppose of the deplorable and
ruined state mankind are in by the fall. Some of his arguments and conclusions
to this effect, in order to be made good, must depend on such a supposition as
this; — that God’s dispensations of grace, are rectifications or amendments
of his foregoing constitutions and proceedings, which were merely legal; as
though the dispensations of grace, which succeed those of mere law, implied an
acknowledgment, that the preceding legal constitution would be unjust, if left
as it was, or at least very hard dealing with mankind; and that the other were
of the nature of a satisfaction to his creatures, for former injuries, or hard
treatment. So that, put together the injury with the satisfaction, the legal and
injurious dispensation, taken with the following good dispensation, which our
author calls grace, and the unfairness or improper severity of the former,
amended by the goodness of the latter, both together made up one righteous
dispensation.
The reader is desired to
bear in mind what I have said concerning the interposition of divine grace not
altering the nature of things, as they are in themselves. Accordingly, when I
speak of such and such an evil tendency of things, belonging to the
present nature and state of mankind, understand me to mean their tendency as
they are in themselves, abstracted from any consideration of that remedy the
sovereign and infinite grace of God has provided. — Having promised these
things, I now assert, that mankind are all naturally in such a state, as is
attended, without fail, with this consequence or issue; that THEY UNIVERSALLY
RUN THEMSELVES INTO THAT WHICH IS, IN EFFECT, THEIR OWN UTTER ETERNAL PERDITION,
as being finally accursed of God, and the subjects of his remediless wrath
through sin. — From which I infer, that the natural state of the mind of man
is attended with a propensity of nature, which is prevalent and
effectual, to such an issue; and that therefore their nature is corrupt and
depraved with a moral depravity, that amounts to and implies their utter
undoing.
Here I would first consider
the truth of the proposition; and then would show the certainty of the consequences
which I infer from it. If both can be clearly and certainly proved, then I
trust, none will deny but that the doctrine of original depravity is evident,
and so the falseness of Dr. T.’s scheme demonstrated; the greatest part of
whose book, called the Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin, etc. Is
against the doctrine of innate depravity. In p. 107.S. he speaks of the
conveyance of a corrupt and sinful nature to Adam’s posterity as the
grand point to be proved by the maintainers of the doctrine of original sin.
In order to demonstrate what
is asserted in the proposition laid down, there is need only that these two
things should be made manifest: one is this fact, that all mankind come
into the world in such a state, as without fail comes to this issue, namely, the
universal commission of sin; or that everyone who comes to act in the world as a
moral agent, is, in a greater or less degree, guilty of sin. The other
is, that all sin deserves and exposes to utter and eternal destruction, unto
God’s wrath and curse; and would end in it, were it not for the interposition
of divine grace to prevent the effect. Both which can be abundantly demonstrated
to be agreeable to the Word of God, and to Dr. T.’s own doctrine.
That everyone of mankind, at
least such as are capable of acting as moral agents, are guilty of sin (not now
taking it for granted that they come guilty into the world), is most clearly and
abundantly evident from the Holy Scriptures: 1 Kin. 8:46, “If any man sin
against thee; for there is no man that sinneth not.” Ecc. 7:20, “There is
not a just man upon earth that doeth good, and sinneth not.” Job 9:2, 3, “I
know it is so of a truth (i.e. as Bildad had just before said, that God
would not cast away a perfect man, etc. But how should man be just with God? If
he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.” To the like
purpose, Psa. 143:2, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy
sight shall no man living be justified.” So the words of the apostle (in which
he has apparent reference to those of the Psalmist), Rom. 3:19, 20, “That
every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God.
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his
sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” So, Gal. 2:16; 1 John 1:7-10,
“If we walk in the light, the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. If we
say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse
us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a
lair, and his word is not in us.” In this and innumerable other places,
confession and repentance of sin are spoken of as duties proper for ALL; as also
prayer to God for pardon of sin; also forgiveness of those that injure us, from
that motive, that we hope to be forgiven of God. Universal guilty of sin
might also be demonstrated from the appointment, and the declared use and end of
the ancient sacrifices; and also from the ransom, which everyone that was
numbered in Israel, was directed to pay, to make atonement for his soul.
Exo. 30:11-16. All are represented, not only as being sinful, but as having
great and manifold iniquity. Job 9:2, 3; Jam. 3:1, 2.
There are many scriptures
which both declare the universal sinfulness of mankind, and also that all
sin deserves and justly exposes to everlasting destruction, under
the wrath and curse of God; and so demonstrate both parts of the proposition I
have laid down. To which purpose that passage in Gal. 3:10 is exceeding full:
“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is
written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written
in the book of the law, to do them.” How manifestly is it implied in the
apostle’s meaning here, that there is no man but what fails in some instances
of doing all things that are written in the book of the law, and therefore as
many as have their dependence on their fulfilling the law, are under that curse
which is pronounced on them that fail of it! And hence the apostle infers in the
next verse: “that no man is justified by the law in the sight of
God:” as he had said before in preceding chapter, verse 16: “By the works of
the law shall no flesh be justified.” The apostle shows us he understands,
that by this place which he cites from Deuteronomy, “the Scripture hath
concluded, or shut up, all under sin.” Gal. 3:22. So that here we are plainly
taught, both that everyone of mankind is a sinner, and that every sinner
is under the curse of God.
To the like purpose is Rom.
4:14, also 2 Cor. 3:6, 7, 9; where the law is called “the letter that kills,
the ministration of death, and the ministration of condemnation.” The wrath,
condemnation, and death, which is threatened in the law to all its
transgressors, is final perdition, the second death, eternal ruin; as is very
plain, and indeed is confessed. And this punishment which the law threatens for
every sin, is a just punishment; being what every sin truly deserves;
God’s law being a righteous law, and the sentence of it a righteous sentence.
All these things are what
Dr. Taylor himself confesses and asserts. He says, that the law of God requires perfect
obedience (Note on Rom. 7:6, p.308), “God can never require imperfect
obedience, or by his holy law allow us to be guilty of any one sin, how small
soever. And if the law, as a rule of duty, were in any respect abolished, then
we might in some respects transgress the law, and yet not be guilty of sin. The
moral law, or law of nature, is the truth, everlasting, unchangeable; and
therefore, as such, can never be abrogated. On the contrary, our Lord Jesus
Christ has promulgated it anew under the gospel, fuller and clearer than it was
in the mosaical constitution, or anywhere else: — having added to its precepts
the sanction of his own divine authority.” And many things which he says
imply, that all mankind do in some degree transgress the Law. In p. 228,
speaking of what may be gathered from Rom. 7 and 8, he says, “We are very apt,
in a world full of temptation, to be deceived, and drawn into sin by bodily
appetites, etc. And the case of those who are under a law threatening death to
every sin, must be quite deplorable, if they have no relief from the mercy of
the lawgiver.”
But this is very fully
declared in what he says in his note on Rom. 5:20, p. 297. His words are as
follows: “Indeed, as a rule of action prescribing our duty, it (the Law)
always was and always must be a rule ordained for obtaining life; but not as a
rule of justification, not as it subjects to death for every transgression. For
if it COULD in its utmost rigor have given us life, then, as the apostle argues,
it would have been against the promises of God. For if there had been a law, in
the strict and rigorous sense of law, WHICH COULD HAVE MADE US LIFE, verily
justification should have been by the law. But he supposes, no such law was ever
given: and therefore there is need and room enough for the promises of grace; or
as he argues, Gal. 2:21; it would have frustrated, or rendered useless, the
grace of God. For if justification came by the law, then truly Christ is dead in
vain, then he died to accomplish what was, or MIGHT HAVE BEEN, EFFECTED by law
itself without his death. Certainly the law was not brought in among the Jews
to be a rule of justification, or to recover them out of a state of death,
and to procure life by their sinless obedience to it: for in this, as well as in
another respect, it was WEAK; not in itself, but through the WEAKNESS of our
flesh, Rom. 8:3. The law, I conceive, is not a dispensation suitable to the
infirmity of the human nature in our present state; or it doth not seem
congruous to the goodness of God to afford us no other way of salvation, but by
LAW; WHICH IF WE ONCE TRANSGRESS, WE ARE RUINED FOR EVER. FOR WHO THEN, FROM THE
BEGINNING OF THE WORLD, COULD BE SAVED?” How clear and express are these
things, that no one of mankind, from the beginning of the world, can ever be
justified by the law, because everyone transgresses it!
And here also we see, Dr. T.
declares, that by the law men are sentenced to everlasting ruin for one
transgression. To the like purpose he often expresses himself. So p. 207. “The
law requireth the most extensive obedience, discovering sin in all its branches.
— It gives sin a deadly force, subjecting every transgression to the penalty
of death; and yet supplieth neither help nor hope to the sinner, but leaving him
under the power of sin and sentence of death.” In p. 213, he speaks of the law
as extending to lust and irregular desires, and to every branch and principle
of sin; and even to its latent principles, and minutest branches; again (Note
on Rom. 7:6, p. 308). To every sin, how small soever. And when he speaks
of the law subjecting every transgression to the penalty of death, he means
eternal death, as he from time to time explains the matter. In p. 212, he speaks
of the law in the condemning power of it, as binding us in everlasting
chains. In p. 120 S. he says, that death which is the wages of sin, is the second
death; and this, p. 78, he explains of final perdition. In his Key,
p. 107. § 296, he says, “The curse of the law subjected men for every
transgression to eternal death.” So in Note on Rom. 5:20, p.
291: “The law of Moses subjected those who were under it to death,
meaning by death, eternal death.” These are his words.
He also supposes, that this
sentence of the law, thus subjecting men for every, even the least,
sin, and every minutest branch and latent principle of sin, to
so dreadful a punishment, is just and righteous, agreeable to truth and
the nature of things, or to the natural and proper demerits of
sin. In this he is very full. Thus in p. 186 P: “It was sin (says he)
which subjected us to death by the law, JUSTLY threatening sin with death. Which
law was given us, that sin might appear; might be set forth IN ITS PROPER
COLOURS; when we saw it subjected us to death by a law PERFECTLY HOLY, JUST and
GOOD; that sin by the commandment, by the law, might be represented WHAT IT
REALLY IS, an exceeding great and deadly evil.” So in note on Rom. 5:20, p.
299: “The law or ministration of death, as it subject to death for every
transgression, is still of use to show the NATURAL AND PROPER DEMERIT OF SIN.”
Ibid. p. 292: “The language of the law, dying thou shalt die, is to be
understood of the demerit of the transgression, that which it deserves.”
Ibid. p. 298: “The law was added, saith Mr. Locke on the place, because
the Israelites, the posterity of Abraham, were transgressors as well as other
men, to show them their sins, and the punishment and death, which in STRICT
JUSTICE they incurred by them. And this appears to be a true comment on Rom.
7:13. — Sin, by virtue of the law, subjected you to death for this end, that
sin, working death in us, by that which is holy, just, and good, PERFECTLY
CONSONANT TO EVERLASTING TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS. — Consequently every sin is in
strict justice deserving of wrath and punishment; and the law in its rigor
was given to the Jews, to set home this awful truth upon their
consciences, to show them the evil and pernicious NATURE of sin; and that being
conscious they had broke the law of God, this might convince them of the great
need they had of the FAVOUR of the lawgiver, and oblige them, by faith in his
GOODNESS, to fly to his MERCY, for pardon and salvation.”
If the law be holy, just,
and good, a constitution perfectly agreeable to God’s holiness, justice, and
goodness; then he might have put it exactly in execution, agreeably to all these
his perfections. Our author himself says, p. 133.S: “How that constitution,
which establishes a law, the making of which is inconsistent with the justice
and goodness of God, and the executing of it inconsistent with his holiness, can
be a righteous constitution, I confess, is quite beyond my comprehension.”
SECTION II
It follows from the
proposition proved in the foregoing section, that all mankind are under the
influence of a prevailing effectual tendency in their nature, to that sin and
wickedness, which implies their utter and eternal ruin.
THE
proposition laid down being proved, the consequence of it remains to be
made out, viz. That the mind of man has a natural tendency or propensity
to that even, which has been show universally and infallibly to take place; and
that this is a corrupt or depraved propensity. — I shall here
consider the former part of this consequence, namely, whether such an universal,
constant, infallible event is truly a proof of any tendency or
propensity to that event; leaving the evil and corrupt nature of
such a propensity to be considered afterwards.
If any should say,
they do not think that its being a thing universal and infallible in event,
that mankind commit some sin, is a proof of a prevailing tendency to sin;
because they do good, and perhaps more good than evil: Let them remember, that
the question at present is not, How much sin there is a tendency to; but
whether there be a prevailing propensity to that issue, which it is allowed all
men do actually come to — that all fail of keeping the law perfectly —
whether there be not a tendency to such imperfection of obedience, as always
without fail comes to pass; to that degree of sinfulness, at least, which all
fall into; and so to that utter ruin, which that sinfulness implies and infers.
Whether an effectual propensity to this be worth the name of depravity, because
the good that may be supposed to balance it, shall be considered by and by. If
all mankind in all nations and ages, were at least one day in their lives
deprived of the use of their reason, and raving mad; or that all, even every
individual person, once cut their own throats, or put out their own eyes; it
might be an evidence of some tendency in the nature or natural state of mankind
to such an event; though they might exercise reason many more days than they
were distracted, and were kind to and tender of themselves oftener than they
mortally and cruelly wounded themselves.
To determine
whether the unfailing constancy of the above-named event be an evidence of
tendency, let it be considered, What can be meant by tendency, but a
prevailing liableness or exposedness to such or such an event? Wherein consists
the notion of any such thing, but some stated prevalence or preponderation in
the nature or state of causes or occasions, that is followed by, and so
proves to be effectual to, a stated prevalence or commonness of any
particular kind of effect? Or something in the permanent state of things,
concerned in bringing a certain sort of event to pass, which is a foundation for
the constancy, or strongly prevailing probability, of such an event? If we mean
this by tendency (and I know not what else can be meant by it, but this, or
something like), then it is manifest, that where we see a stated prevalence of
any effect there is a tendency to that effect in the nature and state of its
causes. A common and steady effect shows, that there is somewhere a
preponderation, a prevailing exposedness or liableness in the state of things,
to what comes so steadily to pass. The natural dictate of reason shows, that
where there is an effect, there is a cause, and a cause sufficient for the
effect; because, if it were not sufficient, it would not be effectual; and that
therefore, where there is a stated prevalence of the effect, there is a stated
prevalence in the cause. A steady effect argues a steady cause. We obtain a
notion of tendency no other way than by observation: and we can observe nothing
but events: and it is the commonness or constancy of events, that gives us a
notion of tendency in all cases. Thus we judge of tendencies in the natural
world. Thus we judge of the tendencies or propensities of nature in minerals,
vegetables, animals, rational and irrational creatures. A notion of a stated
tendency, or fixed propensity, is not obtained by observing only a single event.
A stated preponderation in the cause or occasion, is argues only by a stated
prevalence of the effect. If a die be once thrown, and it falls on a particular
side, we do not argue from hence, that that side is the heaviest; but if
it be thrown without skill or care, many thousands or millions of times, and it
constantly falls on the same side, we have not the least doubt in our minds, but
that there is something of propensity in the case, by superior weight of that
side, or in some other respect. How ridiculous would he make himself, who should
earnestly dispute against any tendency in the state of things to cold in the
winter, or heat in the summer; or should stand to it, that although it often
happened that water quenched fire, yet there was no tendency in it to such an
effect!
In the case we are
upon, human nature, as existing in such an immense diversity of persons and
circumstances, and never failing in any one instance of coming to that issue —
that sinfulness, which implies extreme misery and eternal ruin — is as the die
often cast. For it alters not the case in the least, as to the evidence of
tendency, whether the subject of the constant event be an individual, or a
nature and kind. Thus, if there be a succession of trees of the same sort,
proceeding one from another, from the beginning of the world, growing in all
countries, soils, and climates, all bearing ill fruit; it as much proves the
nature and tendency of the kind, as if it were only one individual tree,
that had remained from the beginning of the world, often transplanted into
different soils, and had continued to bear only bad fruit. So, if there were a
particular family, which, from generation to generation, and through every
remove to innumerable different countries, and places of abode, all died of
consumption, or all run distracted, or all murdered themselves, it would be as
much an evidence of the tendency of something in the nature or
constitution of that race, as it would be of the tendency of something in
the nature or state of an individual, if some one person had lived all that
time, and some remarkable event had often appeared in him, which he had been the
agent or subject of from year to year, and from age to age, continually and
without fail.
Thus a propensity,
attending the present nature or natural state of mankind, eternally to ruin
themselves by sin, may certainly be inferred from apparent and acknowledged
fact. — And I would now observe further, that not only does this follow from
facts acknowledged by Dr. T. but the things he asserts, and the
expressions which he uses, plainly imply that all mankind have such a
propensity; yea, one of the highest kind, a propensity that is invincible,
or a tendency which really amounts to a fixed, constant, unfailing necessity.
There is a plain confession of a propensity or proneness to sin, p. 143: —
“Man, who drinketh in iniquity like water; who is attended with so many
sensual appetites, and so APT to indulge them.” — And again, p. 228: “WE
ARE VERY APT, in a world full of temptation, to be deceived, and drawn into sin
by bodily appetites.” If we are very apt or prone to be drawn into sin
by bodily appetites, and sinfully to indulge them, and very apt or prone to
yield to temptation to sin, then we are prone to sin; for to yield to
temptation to sin is sinful. — In the same page he shows, that on this
account, and its consequences, the case of those who are under a law,
threatening death for every sin, must be quite deplorable, if they have no
relief from the mercy of the lawgiver. Which implies, that their case is
hopeless, as to an escape from death, the punishment of sin, by any other means
than God’s mercy. And that implies such an aptness to yield to
temptation, as renders it hopeless that any of mankind should wholly avoid it.
But he speaks of it elsewhere, over and over, as truly impossible, or
what cannot be; as in the words before cited in the last section,
from his note on Rom. 5:20, where he repeatedly speaks of the law, which
subjects us to death for every transgression, as what CANNOT GIVE LIFE; and
states, that if God offered us no other way of salvation, no man from the
beginning of the world COULD be saved. In the same place he cites with
approbation Mr. Locke’s words, in which, speaking of the Israelites, he
says, “All endeavors after righteousness was LOST LABOUR, since any one
slip forfeited life, and it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to expect ought but
death.” Our author speaks of it as impossible for the law requiring sinless
obedience to give life, not that the law was weak in itself, but through the
weakness of our flesh. Therefore he says, he conceives the law not to be
a dispensation suitable to the infirmity of the human nature in its present
state. These things amount to a full confession, that the proneness in
men to sin, and to a demerit of and just exposedness to eternal ruin, is
universally invincible; or, which is the same thing, amounts to invincible
necessity; which surely is the highest kind of tendency, or propensity: and that
not the less, for his laying this propensity to our infirmity or
weakness, which may seem to intimate some defect, rather than anything positive:
and it is agreeable to the sentiments of the best divines, that all
sin originally comes from a DEFECTIVE or PRIVATIVE cause. But sin does not
cease to be sin, justly exposing to eternal ruin (as implied in Dr. T.’s own
words), for arising from infirmity or defect; nor does an invincible propensity
to sin cease to be a propensity to such demerit of eternal ruin, because the
proneness arises from such a cause.
It is manifest,
that this tendency, which has been proved, does not consist in any particular external
circumstances that persons are in, peculiarly influencing their minds; but
is inherent, and is seated in that nature which is common to all
mankind, which they carry with them wherever they go, and still remains the
same, however circumstances may differ. For it is implied in what has been
proved, and shown to be confessed, that the same event comes to pass in all
circumstances. In God’s sight no man living can be justified; but all
are sinners, and exposed to condemnation. This is true of persons of all
constitutions, capacities, conditions, manners, opinions, and educations; in all
countries, climates, nations, and ages; and through all the mighty changes and
revolutions, which have come to pass in the habitable world.
We have the same
evidence, that the propensity in this case lies in the nature of the
subject — and does not arise from any particular circumstances — as
we have in any case whatsoever; which is only by the effects appearing to
be the same in all changes of time and place, and under all varieties of
circumstances. It is in this way only we judge, that any propensities, which we
observe in mankind, are seated in their nature, in all other cases. It is thus
we judge of the mutual propensity betwixt the sexes, or of the dispositions
which are exercised in any of the natural passions or appetites, that they truly
belong to the nature of man; because they are observed in mankind in general,
through all countries, nations, and ages, and in all conditions.
If any should say,
Though it be evident that there is a tendency in the states of things to this
general event — that all mankind should fail of perfect obedience, and should
sin, and incur a demerit of eternal ruin; and also that this tendency does not
lie in any distinguishing circumstances of any particular people, person, or age
— yet it may not lie in man’s nature, but in the general
constitution and frame of this world. Though the nature of man
may be good, without any evil propensity inherent in it; yet the nature and
universal state of this world may be full of so many and strong temptations, and
of such powerful influence on such a creature as man, dwelling in so infirm a
body, etc. That the result of the whole may be a strong and infallible tendency in
such a state of things, to the sin and eternal ruin of everyone of mankind.
To this I would
reply, that such an evasion will not at all avail to the purpose of those whom I
oppose in this controversy. It alters not the case as to this question, Whether
man, in his present state is depraved and ruined by propensities to sin. If any
creature be of such a nature that it proves evil in its proper place, or in the
situation which God has assigned it in the universe, it is of any evil nature.
That part of the system is not good, which is not good in its place in the
system; and those inherent qualities of that part of the system, which are not
good, but corrupt, in that place, are justly looked upon as evil
inherent qualities. That propensity is truly esteemed to belong to the nature
of any being, or to be inherent in it, that is the necessary consequence of its
nature, considered together with its proper situation in the universal system of
existence, whether that propensity be good or bad. It is the nature of a
stone to be heavy; but yet, if it were placed, as it might be, at a distance
from this world, it would have no such quality. But being a stone, is of such a
nature, that it will have this quality or tendency, in its proper place, in this
world, where God has made it, it is properly looked upon as a propensity
belonging to its nature. And if it be a good propensity here, in its proper
place, then it is a good quality of its nature; but if it be contrariwise, it is
an evil natural quality. So, if mankind are of such a nature, that they have an
universal effectual tendency to sin and ruin in this world, where God has made
and placed them, this is to be looked upon as a pernicious tendency
belonging to their nature. There is, perhaps, scarce any such thing, in beings
not independent and self-existent, as any power or tendency, but what has some
dependence on other beings, with which they stand connected in the universal
system of existence. Propensities are no propensities, any otherwise, than as
taken with their objects. Thus it is with the tendencies observed in natural
bodies, such as gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc. And thus it is with the
propensities observed in the various kinds of animals; and thus it is with most
of the propensities in created spirits.
It may further be
observed, that it is exactly the same thing, as to the controversy concerning an
agreeableness with God’s moral perfections of such a disposal of things —
that man should come into the world in a depraved and ruined state, by a
propensity to sin and ruin — whether God has so ordered it, that this
propensity should lie in his nature considered alone, or with relation to
its situation in the universe, and its connection with other parts of the
system to which the Creator has united it; which is as much of God’s ordering,
as man’s nature itself, most simply considered.
Dr. T. (p. 188,
189) speaking of the attempt of some to solve the difficulty of God being the
author of our nature, and yet that our nature is polluted, by supposing that God
makes the soul pure, but unites it to a polluted body (or a body so made, as
tends to pollute the soul), he cries out of it as weak and insufficient, and too
gross to be admitted: For, says he, who infused the soul into the body?
And if it is polluted by being infused into the body, who is the author and
cause of its pollution? And who created the body? etc. — But is not the
case just the same, as to those who suppose that God made the soul pure, and
places it in a polluted world, or a world tending, by its natural state in which
it is made, to pollute the soul, or to have such an influence upon it, that it
shall without fail be polluted with sin, and eternally ruined? Here may
not I also cry out, on as good
grounds as Dr. T. — Who placed the soul here in this world? And if the world
be polluted, or so constituted as naturally and infallibly to pollute the soul
with sin, who is the cause of this pollution? And, who created the world?
Though in the place
now cited, Dr. T. so insists upon it, that God must be answerable for the
pollution of the soul, if he has infused or put the soul into a body that tends
to pollute it; yet this is the very thing which he himself supposes to be fact,
with respect to the soul being created by God, in such a body, and in such a
world; where he says, “We are apt, in a world full of temptation, to be
drawn into sin by bodily appetites.” And if so, according to his way of
reasoning, God must be the author and cause of this aptness to be drawn into
sin. Again, p. 143, we have these words, “Who drinketh in iniquity like
water? Who is attended with so many sensual appetites, and so apt to indulge
them?” In these words our author in effect says the individual things that
he exclaims against as so gross, viz. The tendency of the body, as God
has made it, to pollute the soul, which he has infused into it. These sensual
appetites, which incline the soul, or make it apt, to a sinful indulgence,
are either from the body which God hath made, or otherwise a proneness to
sinful indulgence is immediately and originally seated in the soul itself, which
will not mend the matter.
SECTION III
That propensity, which has
been proved to be in the nature of all mankind, must be a very evil, depraved,
and pernicious propensity; making it manifest, that the soul of man, as it is by
nature, is in a corrupt, fallen, and ruined state; which is the other part of
the consequence, drawn from the proposition laid down in the first section.
THE
question to be considered, in order to determine whether man’s nature be depraved
and ruined, is not, Whether he is inclined to perform as many good deeds
as bad ones? But, to which of these two he preponderates, in the frame of
his heart, and the state of his nature, a state of innocence and
righteousness, and favor with God; or a state of sin, guiltiness, and abhorrence
in the sight of God? — Persevering sinless righteousness, or else the
guilt of sin, is the alternative, on the decision of which depends — according
to the nature and truth of things, as they are in themselves, and according to
the rule of right, and of perfect justice — man being approved and accepted of
his Maker and eternally blessed as good; or his being rejected, and cursed as
bad. And therefore the determination of the tendency of man’s heart and
nature, with respect to these terms, is that which is to be looked at, in order
to determine whether his nature is good or evil, pure or corrupt, sound or
ruined. If such be man’s nature, and the state of his heart, that he has an
infallibly effectual propensity to the latter of those terms; then it is wholly
impertinent to talk of the innocent and kind actions, even of criminals
themselves, surpassing their crimes in numbers, and of the prevailing innocence,
good nature, industry, felicity, and cheerfulness of the greater part of
mankind. Let never so many thousands or millions of acts of honesty, good
nature, etc. Be supposed; yet, by the supposition, there is an unfailing
propensity to such moral evil, as in its dreadful consequences infinitely
outweighs all effects or consequences of any supposed good. Surely that
tendency, which, in effect, is an infallible tendency to eternal destruction, is
an infinitely dreadful and pernicious tendency: and that nature and frame of
mind, which implies such a tendency, must be an infinitely dreadful and
pernicious frame of mind. It would be much more absurd to suppose, that such a
state of nature is not bad, under a notion of men doing more honest and kind
things than evil ones; than to say, the state of that ship is good, for
crossing the Atlantic ocean, though such as cannot hold together through
the voyage, but will infallibly founder and sink, under a notion that it may
probably go great part of the way before it sinks, or that
it will proceed and sail above water more hours than it will be in sinking: or,
to pronounce that road a good road to go to such a place, the greater part of
which is plain and safe, though some parts of it are dangerous, and certainly
fatal, to them that travel in it; or to call that a good propensity; which is an
inflexible inclination to travel in such a way.
A propensity to
that sin which brings God’s eternal wrath and curse (which has been proved to
belong to the nature of man) is evil, not only as it is calamitous and sorrowful,
ending in great natural evil; but as it is odious and detestable;
for by the supposition, it tends to that moral evil, by which the subject
becomes odious in the sight of God, and liable, as such, to be condemned, and
utterly rejected, and cursed by him. This also makes it evident, that the state
which it has been proved mankind are in, is a corrupt state in a moral
sense, that it is inconsistent with the fulfillment of the law of God, which
is the rule of moral rectitude and goodness. That tendency, which is opposite to
what the moral law requires, and prone to that which the moral law utterly
forbids, and eternally condemns, is doubtless a corrupt tendency, in a moral
sense.
So that this
depravity is both odious, and also pernicious, fatal and
destructive, in the highest sense; as inevitably tending to that which implies
man’s eternal ruin. It shows, that man, as he is by nature, is in a deplorable
state, in the highest sense. And this proves that men do not come into the world
perfectly innocent in the sight of God, and without any just exposedness
to his displeasure. For the being by nature in a lost and ruined
state, in the highest sense, is not consistent with being by nature in a state
of favor with God.
But if any should
still insist on a notion of men’s good deeds exceeding their bad ones, and
that, seeing the good more than countervails the evil, they cannot be properly
denominated evil; all persons and things being most properly denominated from
that which prevails, and has the ascendant in them; I would say further, That if
there is in man’s nature a tendency to guilt and ill desert, in a vast
overbalance to virtue and merit; or a propensity to sin, the demerit of which is
so great, that the value and merit of all the virtuous acts that ever he
performs, are as nothing to it; then truly the nature of man may be said to be
corrupt and evil.
That this is the
true case, may be demonstrated by what is evident of the infinite heinousness of
sin against God, from the nature of things. The heinousness of this must rise in
some proportion to the obligation we are under to regard the Divine Being; and
that must be in some proportion to his worthiness of regard; which doubtless is
infinitely beyond the worthiness of any of our fellow creatures. But the merit
of our respect or obedience to God is not infinite. The merit of respect to any
being does not increase, but is rather diminished, in proportion to the
obligations we are under in strict justice to pay him that respect. There is no
great merit in paying a debt we owe, and by the highest possible obligations in
strict justice and obliged to pay; but there is great demerit in refusing to pay
it. That on such accounts as these, there is an infinite demerit in all sin
against God, which must therefore immensely outweigh all the merit which can be
supposed to be in our virtue, I think, is capable of full demonstration; and
that the futility of the objections which some have made against the argument,
might most plainly be demonstrated. But I shall omit a particular consideration
of the evidence of this matter from the nature of things, as I study brevity,
and lest any should cry out, metaphysics! As the manner of some is, when
any argument is handled against a tenet they are fond of, with a close and exact
consideration of the nature of things. And this is not so necessary in the
present case, inasmuch as the point asserted — that he who commits any one
sin, has guilt and ill desert so great, that the value and merit of all the good
which it is possible he should do in his whole life, is as nothing to it — is
not only evident by metaphysics, but is plainly demonstrated by what has
been shown to be fact, with respect to God’s own constitutions and
dispensations towards mankind. Thus, whatever acts of virtue and obedience a man
performs, yet if he trespasses in one point, is guilty of any the least sin, he
— according to the law of God, and so according to the exact truth of things,
and the proper demerit of sin — is exposed to be wholly cast out of favor with
God, and subjected to his curse, to be utterly and eternally destroyed. This has
been proved; and shown to be the doctrine which Dr. T. abundantly teaches.
But how can it be
agreeable to the nature of things, and exactly consonant to everlasting truth
and righteousness, thus to deal with a creature for the least sinful act, though
he should perform ever so many thousands of honest and virtuous acts, to
countervail the evil of that sin? Or how can it be agreeable to the exact truth
and real demerit of things, thus wholly to cast off the deficient creature,
without any regard to the merit of all his good deeds, unless that be in truth
the case, that the value and merit of all those good actions, bear no proportion
to the heinousness of the least sin? If it were not so, one would think, that
however the offending person might have some proper punishment, yet seeing there
is so much virtue of lay in the balance against the guilt, it would be agreeable
to the nature of things, that he should find some favor, and not be altogether
rejected, and made the subject of perfect and eternal destruction; and thus no
account at all be made of his virtue, so much as to procure him the least relief
or hope. How can such a constitution represent sin in its proper colors, and
according to its true nature and desert (as Dr. T. says it does), unless
this be its true nature, that it is so bad, that even in the least instance it
perfectly swallows up all the value of the sinner’s supposed good deeds, let
them be ever so many. So that this matter is not left to our metaphysics, or
philosophy; the great lawgiver, and infallible judge of the universe, has
clearly decided it, in the revelation he has made of what is agreeable to exact
truth, justice, and the nature of things, in his revealed law, or rule of
righteousness.
He that in any
respect or degree is a transgressor of God’s law, is a wicked man, yea, wholly
wicked in the eye of the law; all his goodness being esteemed nothing, having no
account made of it, when taken together with his wickedness. And therefore,
without any regard to his righteousness, he is, by the sentence of the law, and
so by the voice of truth and justice, to be treated as worthy to be rejected,
abhorred, and cursed forever; and must be so, unless grace interpose, to
cover his transgression. But men are really, in themselves, what they are in the
eye of the law, and by the voice of strict equity and justice; however they may
be looked upon, and treated by infinite and unmerited mercy.
So that, on the
whole, it appears, all mankind have an infallibly
effectual propensity to that moral evil, which infinitely outweighs the value of
all the good that can be in them; and have such a disposition of heart, that the
certain consequence of it is, their being, in the eye of perfect truth and
righteousness, wicked men. And I leave all to judge, whether such a disposition
be not in the eye of truth a depraved disposition?
Agreeable to these
things, the Scripture represents all mankind, not only as having guilt, but
immense guilt, which they can have no merit or worthiness to countervail. Such
is the representation we have in Mat. 18:21, to the end. There, on Peter’s
inquiring, How often his brother should trespass against him, and he forgive
him, whether until seven times? Christ replies, I say not unto thee,
until seven times, but until seventy times seven; apparently meaning, that
he should esteem no number of offenses too many, and no degree of injury it is
possible our neighbor should be guilty of towards us too great, to be forgiven.
For which this reason is given in the parable following, that if ever we obtain
forgiveness and favor with God, he must pardon that guilt and injury towards his
majesty, which is immensely greater than the greatest injuries that ever men are
guilty of one towards another, yea, than the sum of all their injuries put
together, let them be ever so many, and ever so great; so that the latter would
be but as an hundred pence to ten thousand talents, which immense
debt we owe to God, and have nothing to pay; which implies, that we have no
merit to countervail any part of our guilt. And this must be, because if all
that may be called virtue in us, be compared with our ill desert, it is in the
sight of God as nothing to it. The parable is not to represent Peter’s case in
particular, but that of all who then were, or ever should be, Christ’s
disciples; as appears by the conclusion of the discourse, verse 35, “So
likewise shall my heavenly Father do, if ye, from your hearts, forgive not every
one his brother their trespasses.”
Therefore how
absurd must it be for Christians to object, against the depravity of man’s
nature, a greater number of innocent and kind actions, than of crimes; and to
talk of a prevailing innocence, good nature, industry, and cheerfulness of the
greater part of mankind! Infinitely more absurd, than it would be to insist,
that the domestic of a prince was not a bad servant, because though sometimes he
contemned and affronted his master to a great degree, yet he did not spit in his
master’s face so often as he performed acts of service. More absurd, than it
would be to affirm, that his spouse was a good wife to him, because, although
she committed adultery, and that with the slaves and scoundrels sometimes, yet
she did not do this so often as she did the duties of a wife. These notions
would be absurd, because the crimes are too heinous to be atoned for, by many
honest actions of the servant or spouse of the prince; there being a vast
disproportion between the merit of the one, and the ill desert of the other: but
infinitely less, than that between the demerit of our offenses against God, and
the value of our acts of obedience.
Thus I have gone
through with my first argument; having shown the evidence of the truth of the
proposition laid down at first, and proved its consequence. But there are many
other things, that manifest a very corrupt tendency or disposition in man’s
nature, in his present state, which I shall take notice of in the following sections.
SECTION IV
The depravity of nature appears by a propensity in all to sin
immediately, as soon as they are capable of it, and to sin continually and
progressively; and also by the remains of sin in the best of men.
THE
great depravity of man’s nature appears, not only in that they universally
commit sin, who spend any long time in the world; but in that men are naturally
so prone to sin, that none ever fail of immediately transgressing God’s
law, and so of bringing infinite guilt on themselves, and exposing themselves to
eternal perdition, as soon as they are capable of it.
The Scriptures are
so very express upon it, that all mankind, all flesh, all the world, every
man living, are guilty of sin; that it must at least be understood,
everyone capable of active duty to God, or of sin against him. There are
multitudes in the world, who have but very lately begun to exert their
faculties, as moral agents; and so have but just entered on their state trial,
as acting for themselves: many thousands constantly, who have not lived
one month, or week, or day, since they have arrived at any period that can be
assigned (for the commencement of their agency) from their birth to twenty years
of age. Now — if there be not a strong propensity in men’s nature to
sin, that should, as it were, hurry them on to speedy transgression, and if they
have no guilt previous to their personal sinning — what should hinder, but
that there might always be a great number, who have hitherto kept
themselves free from sin, and have perfectly obeyed God’s law, and so are
righteous in his sight, with the righteousness of the law? And who, if they
should be called out of the world without any longer trial, as great numbers die
at all periods of life, would be justified by the deeds of the law? And how then
can it be true, that in God’s sight no man living can be justified, that
no man can be just with God, and that by the deeds of the law no flesh
can be justified, because by the law is the knowledge of sin? And what
should hinder but there may always be many in the world — who are
capable subjects of instruction and counsel, and of prayer to God — for whom
the calls of God’s Word to repentance, to seek pardon through
the blood of Christ, and to forgive others their injuries because they
need that God should forgive them, would not be proper; and for whom the
Lord’s prayer is not suitable, wherein Christ directs all his followers
to pray, that God would forgive their sins, as they forgive those that
trespass against them?
If there are any
in the world — though but lately become capable of acting for themselves, as
subjects of God’s law — who are perfectly free from sin; such are most
likely to be found among the children of Christian parents, who give them the
most pious education, and set them the best examples. And therefore, such would
never be so likely to be found in any part or age of the world, as in the
primitive Christian church, in the first age of Christianity (the age of the
church’s greatest purity), so long after Christianity had been established,
that there had been time for great numbers of children to be born, and educated
by those primitive Christians. It was in that age, and in such a part of that
age, that the apostle John wrote his first epistle to the Christians. But
if there was then a number of them come to understanding, who were perfectly
free from sin, why should he write as he does? 1 John 1:8, 9, 10: “If we say
that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse
us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a
liar, and the truth is not in us.”
Again, the reality
and greatness of the depravity of man’s nature appears in this, That he has a
prevailing propensity to be continually sinning against God. What has
been observed above, will clearly prove this. That same disposition of nature,
which is an effectual propensity to immediate sin, amounts to a
propensity to continual sin. For a being prone to continual sinning,
is nothing but a proneness to immediate sin continued. Such appears to be
the tendency of nature to sin, that as soon as ever man is capable, it causes
him immediately to sin, without suffering any considerable time to pass without
sin. And therefore, if the same propensity be continued undiminished, there will
be an equal tendency to immediate sinning again, without any considerable time
passing. And so the same will always be a disposition still immediately to sin,
with as little time passing without sin afterwards, as at first. The only reason
that can be given why sinning must be immediate at first, is that the
disposition is so great, that it will not suffer any considerable time to pass
without sin: and therefore the same disposition being continued in equal degree,
without some new restraint, or contrary tendency, it will still equally tend to
the same effect. And though it is true, the propensity may be diminished, or
have restraints laid upon it, by the gracious disposals of providence, or the
merciful influences of God’s Spirit; yet this is not owing to nature. That
strong propensity of nature, by which men are so prone to immediate sinning at
first, has no tendency in itself to a diminution; but rather to an increase;
as the continued exercise of an evil disposition, in repeated actual sins, tends
to strengthen it more and more: agreeable to that observation of Dr. T.’s p.
228: “We are apt to be drawn into sin by bodily appetites, and when once we
are under the government of these appetites, it is at least exceeding difficult,
if not impracticable, to recover ourselves, by the mere force of reason.” The
increase of strength of disposition in such a case, is as in a falling body, the
strength of its tendency to descend is continually increased, so long as its
motion is continued. Not only a constant commission of sin, but a constant
increase in the habits and practice of wickedness, is the true tendency of
man’s depraved nature, if unrestrained by divine grace; as the true tendency
of the nature of a heavy body, if obstacles are removed, is not only to fall
with a continual motion, but with a constantly increasing motion. And we see,
that increasing iniquity is actually to consequence of natural depravity, in
most men, notwithstanding all the restraints they have. Dispositions to evil are
commonly much stronger in adult persons, than in children, when they first begin
to act in the world as rational creatures.
If sin be such a
thing as Dr. T. himself represents it, p. 69: “a thing of an odious and
destructive nature, the corruption and ruin of our nature, and infinitely
hateful to God;” then such a propensity to continual and increasing sin, must
be a very evil disposition. And if we may judge of the perniciousness of an
inclination of nature, by the evil of the effect it naturally tends to, the
propensity of man’s nature must be evil indeed: for the soul being immortal,
as Dr. T. acknowledges, p. 94 S. it will follow from what has been observed
above, that man has a natural disposition to one of these two things; either to
an increase of wickedness without end, or till wickedness comes to be so great,
that the capacity of his nature will not allow it to be greater. This being what
his wickedness will come to by its natural tendency, if divine grace does not
prevent, it may as truly be said to be the effect which man’s natural
corruption tends to, as that an acorn in a proper soil, truly tends by its
nature to become a great tree.
Again, that sin
which is remaining in the hearts of the best men on earth, makes it
evident, that man’s nature is corrupt, as he comes into the world. A remaining
depravity of heart in the greatest saints, may be argued from the sins of most
of those who are set forth in Scripture as the most eminent instances and
examples of virtue and piety: and is also manifest from this, that the Scripture
represents all God’s children as standing in need of chastisement. Heb. 12:6,
7, 8, “For whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth; and scourgeth every son whom
he receiveth. — What son is he, whom the father chasteneth not? — If ye are
without chastisement, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” But this is
directly and fully asserted in some places; as in Ecc. 7:20, “There is not a
just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” Which is as much as to
say, there is no man on earth, that is so just, as to have attained to such a
degree of righteousness, as not to commit any sin. Yea, the apostle James speaks
of all Christians as often sinning, or committing many sins; even in that
primitive age of the Christian church, an age distinguished from all others by
eminent attainments in holiness: Jam. 3:2, “In many things we all offend.”
And that there is pollution in the hearts of all antecedent to all means for
purification, is very plainly declared in Pro. 20:9, “Who can say, I have made
my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?”
According to Dr. T.
men come into the world wholly free from sinful propensities. And if so, it
appears from what has been already said, there would be nothing to hinder, but
that many, without being better than they are by nature, might perfectly avoid
the commission of sin. But much more might this be the case with men after they
had, by care, diligence, and good practice, attained those positive habits of
virtue, whereby they are at a much greater distance from sin, than they were
naturally: — which this writer supposes to be the case with many good men. But
since the Scriptures teaches us, that the best men in the world do often commit
sin, and have remaining pollution of heart, this makes it abundantly evident,
that men, when they are no otherwise than they were by nature, without any of
those virtuous attainments, have a sinful depravity; yea, must have great
corruption of nature.
SECTION V
The depravity of nature
appears, in that the general consequence of the state and tendency of man’s
nature is a much greater degree of sin, than righteousness; not only with
respect to value and demerit, but matter and quantity.
I
HAVE before shown, that there is a propensity in man’s nature to that
sin, which in heinousness and ill desert immensely outweighs all the value and
merit of any supposed good, that may be in him, or that he can do. I now proceed
to say further, that such is man’s nature, in his present state, that it tends
to this lamentable effect, that there should at all times, through the course of
his life, be at least much more sin, than righteousness; not only as to weight
and value, but as to matter and measure; more disagreement
of heart and practice from the law of God, and from the law of nature and
reason, than agreement and conformity. The law of God is the rule of right, as
Dr. T. often calls it: It is the measure of virtue and sin: so much agreement as
there is with this rule, so much is there of rectitude, righteousness, or true
virtue, and no more; and so much disagreement as there is with this rule, so
much sin is there. Having premised this, the following things may be here
observed.
I. The degree of
disagreement from this rule of right is to be determined, not only by the degree
of distance from it in excess, but also in defect; or in other
words, not only in positive transgression, or doing what is forbidden,
but also in withholding what is required. The divine Lawgiver does as
much prohibit the one as the other, and does as much charge the latter as a
sinful breach of his law, exposing to his eternal wrath and curse, as the
former. Thus at the day of judgment, as described in Mat. 25. The wicked are
condemned as cursed, to everlasting fire, for their sin in defect
and omission: I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat, etc. And the
case is thus, not only when the defect is in word or behavior, but in the inward
temper and exercise of the mind. 1 Cor. 16:22, “If any man love not the Lord
Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” Dr. T. speaking of the sentence
and punishment of the wicked (Mat. 25:41, 46), says, p. 159: “It was
manifestly for WANT to benevolence, love and compassion to their
fellow-creatures, that they were condemned.” And elsewhere, as was observed
before, he says, that the law of God extends to the latent principles of
sin to forbid them, and to condemn to external destruction for them. And
if so, it doubtless also extends to the inward principles of holiness, to require
them, and in like manner to condemn for the want of them.
II. The sum of our
duty to God, required in his law, is LOVE; taking love in a large sense, for the
true regard of our hearts to GOD, implying esteem, honor, benevolence,
gratitude, complacence, etc. This is not only very plain by the Scripture, but
it is evident in itself. The sum of what the law of God requires, is doubtless
obedience to that law: no law can require more than that it be obeyed. But it is
manifest, that obedience is nothing, any otherwise than as a testimony of the
respect of our hearts to God: without the heart, man’s external acts are no
more than the motions of the limbs of a wooden image; have no more of the nature
of either sin or righteousness. It must therefore needs be, that love to God,
the respect of the heart, must be the sum of the duty required in his law.
III. It therefore
appears from the premises, that whosoever withholds more of that love or respect
of heart from God, which his law requires, than he affords, has more sin than
righteousness. Not only he that has less divine love, than passions and
affections which are opposite; but also he that does not love God half so much
as he ought, or has reason to do, has justly more wrong than right imputed to
him, according to the law of God, and the law of reason; he has more irregularly
than rectitude, with regard to the law of love. The sinful disrespect of his
heart towards God, is greater than his respect to him.
But what
considerate person is there, even among the more virtuous part of mankind, but
would be ashamed to say, and profess before God or men, that he loves God half
so much as he ought to do; or that he exercises one half of that esteem, honor,
and gratitude towards God, which would be altogether becoming him; considering
what God is, and what great manifestations he has made of his transcendent
excellency and goodness, and what benefits he receives from him? And if few or
none of the best of men can with reason and truth make even such a profession,
how far from it must the generality of mankind be?
The chief and most
fundamental of all the commands of the moral law, requires us to love the
Lord our God with all our hearts, and with all our souls, with all our strength,
and all our mind: that is, plainly, with all that is within us, or to the
utmost capacity of our nature. God is in himself worthy of infinitely
greater love, than any creature can exercise towards him; love equal to his
perfections, which are infinite. God loves himself with no greater love than he
is worthy of, when he loves himself infinitely; but we can give God no
more love than we have. Therefore, if we give him so much, if we
love him to the utmost extent of the faculties of our nature, we are
excused. But when what is proposed, is only that we should love him as much
as our capacity will allow, all excuse of want of capacity ceases,
and obligation takes hold of us; and we are doubtless obliged to love God
to the utmost of what is possible for us, with such faculties, and
such opportunities and advantages to know God, as we have. And it is evidently
implied in this great commandment of the law, that our love to God should be so
great, as to have the most absolute possession of all the soul, and the perfect
government of all the principals and springs of action that are in our nature.
Though it is not
easy, precisely to fix the limits of man’s capacity, as to love to God; yet in
general we may determine, that his capacity of love is coextended with his
capacity of knowledge: the exercise of the understanding opens the way for the
exercise of the other faculty. Now, though we cannot have any proper positive
understanding of God’s infinite excellency; yet the capacity of the human
understanding is very great, and may be extended far. It is needless to dispute,
how far man’s knowledge may be said to be strictly comprehensive of things
that are very great, as of the extent of the expanse of the heavens, etc. The
word comprehensive, seems to be ambiguous. But doubtless we are capable
of some proper positive understanding of the greatness of these things,
in comparison of other things that we know. We are capable of some clear
understanding of the greatness or considerableness of a whole nation; or of the
whole world of mankind, as vastly exceeding that of a particular person or
family. We can positively understand, that the whole globe of the earth, that
the latter is as it were nothing to it. So the human faculties are capable of a
real and clear understanding of the greatness, glory, and goodness of God, and
of our dependence upon him, from the manifestations which God has made of
himself to mankind, as being beyond all expression above that of the most
excellent human friend, or earthly object. And so we are capable of esteem and love
to God, which shall be proportionable, much exceeding that which we have to any
creature.
These things may
help us to form some judgment, how vastly the generality of mankind fall below
their duty, with respect to love to God; yea, how far they are from coming half
way to that height of love, which is agreeable to the rule of right. Surely if
our esteem of God, desires after him, and delight in him, were such as become
us, considering the things forementioned, they would exceed our regard to other
things, as the heavens are high above the earth, and would swallow up all other
affections like a deluge. But how far, how exceeding far, are the generality of
the world from any appearance of being influenced and governed by such a degree
of divine love as this!
If we consider the
love of God, with respect to one exercise of it, gratitude, how far
indeed do the generality of mankind come short of the rule of right and reason
in this! If we consider how various, innumerable, and vast the benefits we
receive from God, how infinitely great and wonderful that grace, which is
revealed and offered to them who live under the gospel — in that eternal
salvation which is procured by God giving his only-begotten Son to die for
sinners — and also how unworthy we are all, deserving (as Dr. T. confesses)
eternal perdition under God’s wrath and curse — how great is the gratitude
that would become us, who are the subjects of so many and great benefits! What
grace is this towards poor sinful lost mankind, set before us in so affecting a
manner, as in the extreme sufferings of the Son of God; who was carried through
those pains by a love stronger than death, a love that conquered those mighty
agonies, a love whose length and breadth, and depth and height, passes
knowledge? But oh! What poor returns! — How little gratitude! How low, how
cold and inconstant, the affection in the best, compared with the obligation!
And what then shall be said of the gratitude of the generality? Or rather, who
can express the ingratitude?
If the greater part
of them who are called Christians, were no enemies to Christ in heart and
practice, were not governed by principles opposite to him and his gospel, but
had some real love and gratitude; yet if their love falls vastly short of the
obligation, or occasion given, they are guilty of shameful and odious
ingratitude. As, when a man has been the subject of some instance of
transcendent generosity, whereby he has been relieved from the most extreme
calamity, and brought into very opulent, honorable, and happy circumstances, by
a benefactor of excellent character; and yet expresses no more gratitude on such
an occasion, than would be requisite for some kindness comparatively infinitely
small, he may justly fall under the imputation of vile unthankfulness, and of
much more ingratitude than gratitude; though he may have no ill will to his
benefactor, or no positive affection of mind contrary to thankfulness and
benevolence. What is odious in him is his defect, whereby he falls so
vastly below his duty.
Dr. Turnbull
abundantly insists, that the forces of the affections naturally in man are well
proportioned; and often puts a question to this purpose, — How man’s nature
could have been better constituted in this respect? How the affections of his
heart could have been better proportioned? — I will now mention one instance,
out of many that might be mentioned. Man, if his heart were not depraved, might
have had a disposition to gratitude to God for his goodness, in
proportion to his disposition to anger towards men for their injuries.
When I say, in proportion, I mean considering the greatness and number of favors
and injuries, and the degree in which the one and the other are unmerited, and
the benefit received by the former, and the damage sustained by the latter. Is
there not an apparent and vast difference and inequality in the dispositions to
these two kinds of affection, in the generality of both old and young adult
persons and little children? How ready is resentment for injuries received from
men! And how easily is it raised in most, at least to an equality with the
desert! And is it so with respect to gratitude for benefits received from God,
in any degree of comparison? Dr. Turnbull pleads for the natural disposition to
anger for injuries, as being good and useful: but surely gratitude to God, if we
were inclined to it, would be at least as good and useful as the other.
How far the
generality of mankind are from their duty, with respect to love to God, will
appear further, if we consider that we are obliged not only to love him with a
love of gratitude for benefits received; but true love to God primarily consists
in a supreme regard to him for what he is in himself. The tendency of
true virtue is to treat everything as it is, and according to its nature. And if
we regard the Most High according to the infinite dignity and glory of his
nature, we shall esteem and love him with all our heart and soul, and to the
utmost of the capacity of our nature, on this account; and not primarily because
he has promoted our interest. If God be infinitely excellent in himself, then he
is infinitely lovely on that account; or in other words, infinitely worthy to be
loved. And doubtless, if he be worthy to be loved for this, then he ought
to be loved for it. And it is manifest, there can be no true love to
him, if he be not loved for what he is in himself. For if we love him not
for his own sake, but for something else, then our love is not terminated on him,
but one something else, as its ultimate object. That is no true value for
infinite worth, which implies no value for that worthiness in itself considered,
but only on the account of something foreign. Our esteem of God is fundamentally
defective, if it be not primarily for the excellency of his nature, which is the
foundation of all this is valuable in him in any respect. If we love not God
because he is what he is, but only because he is profitable to us, in
truth we love him not at all: if we seem to love him, our love is not to him,
but to something else.
And now I must
leave it to everyone to judge for himself, from his own opportunities of
observation and information concerning mankind, how little there is of this
disinterested love to God, this pure divine affection, in the world. How very
little indeed in comparison of other affections altogether diverse, which
perpetually urge, actuate, and govern mankind, and keep the world, through all
nations and ages, in a continual agitation and commotion! This is an evidence of
a horrid contempt of God. It would justly be esteemed a great instance of
disrespect and contempt of a prince, if one of his subjects, when he came into
his house, should set him below his meanest slave. But in setting the infinite
JEHOVAH below earthly objects and enjoyments, men degrade him below those
things, between which and him there is an infinitely greater distance, than
between the highest earthly potentate and the most abject of mortals. Such a
conduct as the generality of men are guilty of towards God, continually and
through all ages, in innumerable respects, would be accounted the most vile
contemptuous treatment of a fellow creature, of distinguished dignity.
Particularly men’s treatment of the offers God makes of himself to them as
their friend, their father, their God, and everlasting portion; their treatment
of the exhibitions he has made of his unmeasurable love, and the boundless
riches of his grace in Christ, attended with earnest repeated calls, counsels,
expostulations, and entreaties; as also of the most dreadful threatenings of his
eternal displeasure and vengeance.
Before I finish
this section, it may be proper to say something in reply to an objection,
some may be ready to make, against the force of this argument — that
men do not come half-way to that degree of love to God, which becomes them, and
is their duty. The objection is this: That the argument seems to prove
too much, in that it will prove, that even good men themselves have more sin
than holiness; which also has been supposed. But if this were true, it would
follow, that sin is the prevalent principle even in good men, and that it is the
principle which has the predominancy in the heart and practice of the truly
pious; which is plainly contrary to the Word of God.
I answer, If it be
indeed so, that there is more sin, consisting in defect of required holiness,
than there is of holiness, in good men in this world, yet it will not follow,
that sin has the chief government of their heart and practice, for two reasons.
1. They may love
God more than other things, and yet there may not be so much love, as there is
want of due love; or in other words, they may love God more than the world, and
therefore the love of God may be predominant, and yet may not love God near half
so much as they ought to do. This need not be esteemed a paradox: A person may
love a father, or some great friend and benefactor, of a very excellent
character, more than some other object, a thousand times less worthy of his
esteem and affection, and yet love him ten times less than he ought; and so be
chargeable, all things considered, with a deficiency in respect and gratitude,
that is very unbecoming and hateful. If love to God prevails above the love of
other things, then virtue will prevail above evil affections, or positive
principles of sin; by which principles it is, that sin has a positive power and
influence. For evil affections radically consist in inordinate love to other
things besides God: and therefore, virtue prevailing beyond these, will have the
governing influence. The predominance of the love of God in the hearts of
good men, is more from the nature of the object loved, and the nature of
the principle of true love, than the degree of the principle. The object
is one of supreme loveliness; immensely above all other objects in worthiness of
regard; and it is by such a transcendent excellency, that he is God, and worthy
to be regarded and adored as God: and he that truly loves God, loves him as
God. True love acknowledges him to be divinely and supremely excellent; and must
arise from some knowledge, sense, and conviction of his worthiness of supreme
respect: and though the sense and view of it may be very imperfect, and the love
that arises from it in like manner imperfect; yet if there be any realizing view
of such divine excellency, it must cause the heart to respect God above all.
2. Another reason,
why a principle of holiness maintains the dominion in the hearts of good men, is
the nature of the covenant of grace, and the promises of that covenant, on which
true Christian virtue relies, and which engage God’s strength and assistance
to be on its side, and to help it against its enemy, that it may not be
overcome. The just live by faith. Holiness in the Christian, or his spiritual
life, is maintained, as it has respect by faith to its author and finisher, and
derives strength and efficacy from the divine fountain, and by this means
overcomes. For, as the apostle says, This is the victory that overcomes the
world, even our faith. It is our faith in him who has promised never to
leave nor forsake his people; not to forsake the works of his own hands, nor
suffer his people to be tempted above their ability; that his grace shall be
sufficient for them, his strength be made perfect in weakness; and that where he
has begun a good work he will carry it on to the day of Christ.
SECTION VI
The corruption of man’s
nature appears by its tendency, in its present state, to an extreme degree of
folly and stupidity in matters of religion.
IT
appears, that man’s nature is greatly depraved, by an apparent proneness to an
exceeding stupidity and sottishness in those things wherein his duty and
main interest are chiefly concerned. I shall instance in two things, viz.
Men’s proneness to idolatry; and a general, great disregard of
eternal things, in them who live under the light of the gospel.
It is manifest, in
the first instance, that man’s nature in its present state is attended
with a great propensity to forsake the acknowledgment and worship of the true
God, and to fall into the most stupid idolatry. This has been
sufficiently proved by known fact, on abundant trial: insomuch as the world of
mankind in general (excepting one small people, miraculously delivered and
preserved) through all nations, in all parts of the world, ages after ages,
continued without the knowledge and worship of the true God, and overwhelmed in
gross idolatry, without the least appearance or prospect of its recovering
itself from so great blindness, or returning from its brutish principles and
customs, till delivered by divine grace.
In order to the
most just arguing from face, concerning the tendency of man’s nature, as that
is in itself, it should be inquired what the event has been, where nature has
been left to itself, to operate according to its own tendency, with least
opposition made to it by anything supernatural; rather than in exempt places,
where the infinite power and grace of God have interposed, and extraordinary
means have been used to stem the current, and bring men to true religion and
virtue. As to the means by which God’s people of old, in the line of Abraham,
were delivered and preserved from idolatry, they were miraculous, and of mere
grace. Notwithstanding which, they were often relapsing into the notions and
ways of the heathen; and when they had backslidden, never were recovered, but by
divine gracious interposition. And as to the means by which many gentile nations
have been delivered since the days of the gospel, they are such as have been
wholly owing to the most wonderful, miraculous, and infinite grace. God was
under no obligation to bestow on the heathen world greater advantages than they
had in the ages of their gross darkness; as appears by the fact, that God
actually did not, for so long a time, bestow greater advantages.
Dr. T. himself
observes (Key, p. 1), That in about four hundred years after the
flood, the generality of mankind were fallen into idolatry. And thus it was
everywhere through the world, excepting among that people that was saved and
preserved by a constant series of miracles, through a variety of countries,
nations, and climates, great enough — and through successive changes,
revolutions, and ages, numerous enough — to be a sufficient trial of
what mankind are prone to, if there be any such thing as a sufficient trial.
That men should
forsake the true God for idols, is an evidence of the most astonishing folly and
stupidity, by God’s own testimony, Jer. 2:12, 13, “Be astonished, O ye
heavens, at this, and be ye horribly afraid, be ye very desolate, saith the
Lord: for my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the
fountain of living waters, and have hewed out to themselves cisterns, broken
cisterns, that can hold no water.” And that mankind in general did thus, so
soon after the flood, was from the evil propensity of their hearts, and because
they did not like to retain God in their knowledge; as is evident by Rom.
1:28. And the universality of the effect shows that the cause was universal, and
not anything belonging to the particular circumstances of one, or only some
nations or ages, but something belonging to that nature, which is common to all
nations, and which remains the same through all ages. And what other cause could
this great effect possibly arise from, but a depraved disposition, natural to
all mankind? It could not arise from want of a sufficient capacity or means of
knowledge. This is in effect confessed on all hands. Dr. Turnbull (Chris.
Phil. p. 21) says: “The existence of one infinitely powerful, wise, and
good mind, the Author, Creator, Upholder, and Governor of all things, is a truth
that lies plain and obvious to all that will but think.” And (ibid. p. 245),
“Moral knowledge, which is the most important of all knowledge, may easily be
acquired by all men.” And again (ibid. p. 292), “Every man by himself, if he
would duly employ his mind in the contemplation of the works of God about him,
or in the examination of his own frame, — might make very great progress in
the knowledge of the wisdom and goodness of God. This all men, generally
speaking, might do, with very little assistance; for they have all sufficient
abilities for thus employing their minds, and have all sufficient time for
it.” Mr. Locke say (Human Understanding p. 4, chap. 4, p. 242. edit
11), “Our own existence, and the sensible parts of the universe, offer the
proofs of a Deity so clearly and cogently to our thoughts, that I deem it
impossible for a considerate man to withstand them. For I judge it as certain
and clear a truth, as can anywhere be delivered, that the invisible things of
God are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead.” And Dr. T. himself
(in p. 78) says, “The light given to all ages and nations of the world, is
sufficient for the knowledge and practice of their duty.” And (p. 111, 112)
Citing those words of the apostle, Rom. 2:14, 15; he says, “This clearly
supposes that the Gentiles, who were then in the world, might have done the
things contained in the law by nature, or their natural power.” And in one of
the next sentences he says, “The apostle, in Rom. 1:19, 20, 21 affirms that
the Gentiles had light sufficient to have seen God’s eternal power and
godhead, in the works of creation; and that the reason why they did not glorify
him as God, was because they became vain in their imaginations, and had darkened
their foolish heart; so that they were without excuse. And in his paraphrase on
those verses in the 1st of Rom. He speaks of the very heathens, that were
without a written revelation, as having that clear and evident discovery of
God’s being and perfections, that they are inexcusable in not glorifying him
suitably to his excellent nature, and as the author of their being and
enjoyments.” And (p. 146. S), he says, “God affords every man sufficient
light to know his duty.” If all ages and nations of the world have sufficient
light for the knowledge of God, and their duty to him, then even such nations
and ages, in which the most brutish ignorance and barbarity prevailed, had
sufficient light, if they had but a disposition to improve it; and then much
more those of the heathen, which were more knowing and polished, and in ages
wherein arts and learning had made greatest advances. But even in such nations
and ages, there was no advance made towards true religion; and Dr. Winder
observes (History Of Knowledge, vol. 2, p. 336) in the following words;
“The pagan religion degenerated into greater absurdity, the further it
proceeded; and it prevailed in all its height of absurdity, when the pagan
nations were polished to the height. Though they set out with the talents of
reason, and had solid foundations of information to build upon, it in fact
proved, that with all their strengthened faculties, and growing powers of
reason, the edifice of religion rose in the most absurd deformities and
disproportioned, incongruous systems, of which the most easy dictates of reason
would have demonstrated the absurdity. They were contrary to all just
calculations in moral mathematics.” He observes, “that their grossest
abominations first began in Egypt, where was an ostentation of the greatest
progress in learning and science: and they never renounced clearly any of their
abominations, or openly returned to the worship of the one true God, the Creator
of all things, and to the original, genuine sentiments of the highest and most
venerable antiquity. The pagan religion continued in this deep corruption to the
last. The pagan philosophers, and inquisitive men, made great improvements in
many sciences, and even in morality itself; yet the inveterate absurdities of
pagan idolatry remained without remedy. Every temple smoked with incense to the
sun and moon, and other inanimate material luminaries, and earthly elements, to
Jupiter, Juno, Mars and Venus, etc. the patrons and examples of almost every
vice. Hecatombs bled on the altars of a thousand gods; as mad superstition
inspired. And this was not the disgrace of our ignorant untaught northern
countries only; but even at Athens itself, the infamy reigned, and circulated
through all Greece; and finally prevailed, amidst all their learning and
politeness, under the Ptolemies in Egypt, and the Caesars at Rome. Now if the
knowledge of the pagan world, in religion, proceeded no further than this; if
they retained all their deities, even the most absurd of them all, their deified
beasts, and deified men, even to the last breath of pagan power: we may justly
ascribe the great improvements in the world, on the subject of religion, to
divine revelation, either vouchsafed in the beginning, when this knowledge was
competently clear and copious; or at the death of paganism, when this light
shone forth in its consummate luster at the coming of Christ.”
Dr. T. often speaks
of the idolatry of the heathen world, as great wickedness, in which they
were wholly inexcusable; and yet often speaks of their case as remediless, and
of them as being dead in sin, and unable to recover themselves. If so, and yet,
according to his own doctrine, every age, every nation, and every man, had
sufficient light afforded, to know God, and their whole duty to him; then their
inability to deliver themselves must be a moral inability, consisting in a
desperate depravity, and most evil disposition of heart.
And if there had
not been sufficient trial of the propensity of the hearts of mankind, through
all those ages that passed from Abraham to Christ, the trial has been continued
down to this day, in all those vast regions of the face of the earth, that have
remained without any effects of the light of the gospel; and the dismal effect
continues everywhere unvaried. How was it with that multitude of nations
inhabiting South and North America? What appearance was there, when the
Europeans first came hither, of their being recovered, or recovering, in any
degree, from the grossest ignorance, delusions, and most stupid paganism? And
how is it at this day, in those parts of Africa and Asia, into which the light
of the gospel has not penetrated?
This strong and
universally prevalent disposition of mankind to idolatry, of which there has
been such great trial, and so notorious and vast proof, in fact, is a most
glaring evidence of the exceeding depravity of the human nature; as it is a
propensity, in the utmost degree, contrary to the highest end, the main
business, and chief happiness of mankind — consisting in the knowledge,
service, and enjoyment of the living God, the Creator and Governor of the world
— in the highest degree contrary to that for which mainly God gave mankind
more understanding than the beasts of the earth, and made them wiser than the
fowls of heaven; which was, that they might be capable of the knowledge of God.
It is also in the highest degree contrary to the first and greatest commandment
of the moral law, That we should have no other gods before JEHOVAH, and
that we should love and adore him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.
The Scriptures are abundant in representing the idolatry of the heathen world,
as their exceeding wickedness, and their most brutish stupidity. They who
worship and trust in idols, are said themselves to be like the lifeless statues
they worship, like mere senseless stocks and stones (Psa. 115:4-8 and
135:15-18).
A second
instance of the natural stupidity of mankind, is the great disregard
of their own eternal interest, which appears so remarkably, so generally
among them who live under the gospel.
Mr. Locke observes
(Hum. Und. Vol. 1, p. 207) “Were the will determined by the views of
good, as it appears in contemplation, greater or less to the understanding, it
could never get loose from the infinite eternal joys of heaven, once proposed,
and considered as possible; the eternal condition of a future state infinitely
outweighing the expectation of riches or honour, or any other worldly pleasure,
which we can propose to ourselves; though we should grant these the more
probable to be obtained.” Again (p. 228, 229) “He that will not be so far a
rational creature, as to reflect seriously upon infinite happiness and misery,
must needs condemn himself, as not making that use of his understanding he
should. The rewards and punishments of another life, which the Almighty has
established, as the enforcements of his laws, are of weight enough to determine
the choice, against whatsoever pleasure or pain this life can show. When the
eternal state is considered but in its bare possibility, which nobody can make
any doubt of, he that will allow exquisite and endless happiness to be but the
possible consequence of a good life here, and the contrary state the possible
reward of a bad one, must own himself to judge very much amiss, if he does not
conclude that a virtuous life, with the certain expectation of everlasting
bliss, which may come, is to be preferred to a vicious one, with the fear of
that dreadful state of misery, which it is very possible may overtake the
guilty, or at least the terrible uncertain hope of annihilation. This is
evidently so; though the virtuous life here had nothing but pain, and the
vicious continual pleasure; which yet is for the most part quite otherwise, and
wicked men have not much the odds to brag of, even in their present possession:
nay, all things rightly considered, have I think even the worst part here. But
when infinite happiness is put in one scale, against infinite misery in the
other; if the worst that comes to the pious man, if he be in the right; who can,
without madness, run the venture? Who in his wits would choose to come within a
possibility of infinite misery? Which if he miss, there is yet nothing to be got
by that hazard: whereas, on the other side, the sober man ventures nothing,
against infinite happiness to be got, if his expectation comes to pass.”
That disposition of
mind which is a propensity to act contrary to reason, is a depraved disposition.
It is not because the faculty of reason, which God has given to mankind, is not
sufficient fully to discover to them, that forty, sixty, or an hundred years, is
as nothing in comparison of eternity — infinitely less than a second of time
to an hundred years — that the greatest worldly prosperity is not treated with
the most perfect disregard, in all cases where there is any degree of
competition of earthly things, with salvation from exquisite, eternal misery,
and the enjoyment of everlasting glory and felicity. But is it a matter of
controversy, whether men in general show a strong disposition to act far
otherwise, from their infancy, till death sensibly approaches? In things that
concern their temporal interest, they easily discern the difference between
things of a long and short continuance. It is no hard matter to convince men of
the difference between things of a long and short continuance. It is no hard
matter to convince men of the difference between being admitted to the
accommodations and entertainments of a convenient, beautiful, well-furnished
habitation, and to partake of the provisions and produce of a plentiful estate
for a day, or a night; and having all given them, and settled upon them, as
their own, to possess as long as they live, and to be theirs and their heirs’
forever. There would be no need of preaching sermons, and spending strength and
life, to convince them of the difference. Men know how to adjust things in their
dealings and contracts one with another, according to the length of time in
which anything agreed for is to be used or enjoyed. In temporal affairs, they
are sensible, that it concerns them to provide for future time, as well
as for the present. Thus common prudence teaches them to take care in
summer to lay up for winter; yea, to provide a fund, or an estate, whence they
may be supplied for a long time to come. And not only so, but they are forward
to spend and be spent, in order to provide for their children after they are
dead; though it be quite uncertain, who shall enjoy what they lay up, after they
have left the world. And if their children should have the comfort of it,
as they desire, they will not partake with them in that comfort, or have any
portion in anything under the sun. In things which relate to men’s temporal
interest, they seem very sensible of the uncertainty of life, especially in the
lives of others; and to make answerable provision for the security of their
worldly interest, that no considerable part of it may rest only on so uncertain
a foundation, as the life of a neighbor or friend. Common discretion leads them
to take good care, that their outward possessions be well secured, by a good and
firm title. In worldly concerns, men discern their opportunities, and are
careful to improve them before they are past. The husbandman is careful to plow
his ground, and sow his seed, in the proper season; otherwise he knows he cannot
expect a crop: and when the harvest is come, he will not sleep away the time;
for he knows, if he does so, the crop will soon be lost. How careful and
eagle-eyes is the merchant to improve opportunities to enrich himself! How apt
are men to be alarmed at the appearance of danger to their world estate, or
anything that remarkably threatens great damage to their outward interest! And
how will they bestir themselves in such a case, if possible, to avoid the
threatened calamity! In things purely secular, and not of a moral or spiritual
nature, they easily receive conviction by past experience, when anything, on
repeated trial, proves unprofitable or prejudicial; and are ready to take
warning by what they have found themselves, and also by the experience of their
neighbors and forefathers.
But if we consider
how men generally conduct themselves in things on which their well-being
infinitely more depends, how vast is the diversity! In these things how cold,
lifeless, and dilatory! With what difficulty are a few, out of multitudes,
excited to any tolerable degree of care and diligence, by the innumerable means
used, in order to make them wise for themselves! And when some vigilance and
activity is excited, how apt is it to die away, like a mere force against a
natural tendency! What need of a constant repetition of admonitions and
counsels, to keep the heart from falling asleep! How many objections are made!
How are difficulties magnified! And how soon is the mind discouraged! How many
arguments, often renewed, variously and elaborately enforced, do men stand in
need of, to convince them of things that are almost self-evident! As that things
which are external, are infinitely more important than things temporal, and the
like. And after all, how very few are convinced effectually, or in such a manner
as to induce them to a practical preference of eternal things! How senseless are
men of the necessity of improving their time, as to their spiritual interest,
and their welfare in another world! Though it be an endless futurity, and
though it be their own personal, infinitely important good, that is to be
cared for. Though men are so sensible of he uncertainty of their neighbors’
lives, when any considerable part of their own estates depends on the
continuance of them; how stupidly senseless do they seem to be of the
uncertainty of their own lives, when their preservation from immensely great,
remediless, and endless misery, is risked by a present delay, through a
dependence on future opportunity! What a dreadful venture will men carelessly
and boldly run, repeat, and multiply, with regard to their eternal salvation;
who yet are very careful to have everything in a deed or bond, firm, and without
a flaw! How negligent are they of their special advantages and opportunities for
their soul’s good! How hardly awakened by the most evident and imminent
dangers, threatening eternal destruction, yea, though put in mind of them, and
much pains taken to point them forth, show them plainly, and fully to represent
them, if possible to engage their attention! How are they like the horse, that
boldly rushes into the battle! How hardly are men convinced by their own
frequent and abundant experience, of the unsatisfactory nature of earthly
things, and the instability of their own hearts in their good frames and
intentions! And how hardly convinced by their own observation, and the
experience of all past generations, of the uncertainty of life and its
enjoyments! Psa. 49:11, etc.: “Their inward thought is, that their houses
shall continue for ever. — Nevertheless, man being in honour, abideth not; he
is like the beasts that perish. This their way is their folly; yet their
posterity approve their sayings. Like sheep are they laid in the grave.”
In these things,
men who are prudent for their temporal interest, act as if they were bereft of
reason: “The have eyes, and see not; ears, and hear not; neither do they
understand: they are like the horse and mule, that have no understanding.” —
Jer. 8:7, “The stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the
turtle, and the crane, and the swallow, observe the time of their coming: but my
people know not the judgment of the Lord.”
These things are
often mentioned in Scripture, as evidences of extreme folly and stupidity,
wherein men act as great enemies to themselves, as though they loved their own
ruin, Pro. 8:36. Laying wait for their own blood, Pro. 1:18. And how can these
things be accounted for, but by supposing a most wretched depravity of nature?
Why otherwise should not men be as wise for themselves in spiritual and eternal
things, as in temporal? All Christians will confess, that man’s faculty of
reason was given him chiefly to enable him to understand the former, wherein his
main interest and true happiness consist. This faculty would therefore
undoubtedly be every way as fit for understanding them, as the latter, if not
depraved. The reason why these are understood, and not the other, is not that
such things as have been mentioned, belonging to men’s spiritual and eternal
interest, are more obscure and abstruse in their own nature. For instance, the
difference between long and short, the need of providing for futurity, the
importance of improving proper opportunities, and of having good security, and a
sure foundation, in affairs wherein our interest is greatly concerned, etc.
These things are as plain in themselves in religious, as in other matters. And
we have far greater means to assist us to be wise for ourselves in eternal than
in temporal things. We have the abundant instruction of perfect and infinite
wisdom itself, to lead and conduct us in the paths of righteousness, so that we
may not err. And the reasons of things are most clearly, variously, and
abundantly set before us in the Word of God; which is adapted to the faculties
of mankind, tending greatly to enlighten and convince the mind: whereas, we have
no such excellent and perfect rules to instruct and direct us in things
pertaining to our temporal interest, nor anything to be compared to it.
If any should say
it is true, if men gave full credit to what they are told concerning eternal
things, and these appeared to them as real and certain things, it would be an
evidence of a sort of madness in them, that they show no greater regard to them
in practice: but there is reason to think, this is not the case; the things of
another world being unseen, appear to men as things of a very doubtful nature,
and attended with great uncertainty. — In answer, I would observe, agreeable
to what has been cited from Mr. Locke, though eternal things were considered in
their bare possibility, if men acted rationally, they would infinitely
outweigh all temporal things in their influence on their hearts. And I would
also observe, that to suppose eternal things not to be fully believed, at least
by them who enjoy the light of the gospel, does not weaken, but rather
strengthen, the argument for the depravity of nature. For the eternal world
being what God had chiefly in view in the creation of men, this world was made
wholly subordinate to the other, man’s state here being only a state of
probation, preparation, and progression, with respect to the future state.
Eternal things are in effect their all, their whole concern; to understand and
know which, it chiefly was, that they had understanding given them; therefore we
may undoubtedly conclude, that if men have not respect to them as real and
certain things, it cannot be for want of sufficient evidence of their truth: but
it must be from a dreadful stupidity of mind, occasioning a sottish
insensibility of their truth and importance, when manifested by the clearest
evidence.
SECTION VII
That man’s nature is
corrupt, appears in that by far the greater part of mankind, in all ages, have
been wicked men.
THE
depravity of man’s nature appears, not only in its propensity to sin in some
degree, which renders a man an evil or wicked man in the eye of the law,
and strict justice, as was before shown; but it is so corrupt, that its
depravity either shows that men are, or tends to make them to be,
of such an evil character, as shall denominate them wicked men, according to the
tenor of the covenant of grace.
This may be argued
from several things which have been already observed: as from a tendency to
continual sin; a tendency to much greater degrees of sin than righteousness, and
from the general extreme stupidity of mankind. But yet the present state of
man’s nature, as implying, or tending to, a wicked character, may
deserve to be more particularly considered, and directly proved. And in general,
this appears, in that there have been so very few in the world, from age to age,
ever since the world has stood, that have been of any other character.
It is abundantly
evident in Scripture, and is what I suppose none that call themselves Christians
will deny, that the whole world is divided into good and bad, and that all
mankind at the day of judgment will either be approved as righteous, or
condemned as wicked: either glorified, as children of the kingdom, or
cast into a furnace of fire, as children of the wicked one.
I need not stand to
show what things belong to the character of such as shall hereafter be accepted
as righteous, according to the Word of God. It may be sufficient for my present
purpose, to observe what Dr. T. himself speaks of, as belonging essentially to
the character of such. In p. 203, he says, “This is infallibly the character
of true Christians, and what is essential to such, that they have really
mortified the flesh with its lusts; — they are dead to sin, and live no longer
therein; the old man is crucified, and the body of sin destroyed; they yield
themselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and their members as
instruments of righteousness to God, and as servants of righteousness to
holiness.” — There is more to the like purpose in the two next pages. In p.
228, he says, “Whatsoever is evil and corrupt in us, we ought to condemn; not
so, as it shall still remain in us, that we may always be condemning it, but
that we may speedily reform, and be effectually delivered from it; otherwise
certainly we do not come up to the character of the true disciples of Christ.”
In p. 248, he says,
“Unless God’s favour be preferred before all other enjoyments whatsoever,
unless there be a delight in the worship of God, and in converse with him,
unless every appetite be brought into subjection to reason and truth, and unless
there be a kind and benevolent disposition towards our fellow-creatures, how can
the mind be fit to dwell with God, in his house and family, to do him service in
his kingdom, and to promote the happiness of any part of his creation.” —
And in his Key, § 286, p. 101, 102, etc. showing there, what it is to be a
true Christian, he says, among other things, “That he is one who has such
a sense and persuasion of the love of God in Christ, that he devotes his life to
the honour and service of God, in hope of eternal glory. And that to the
character of a true Christian, it is absolutely necessary, that he diligently
study the things that are freely given him of God, viz. His election,
regeneration, etc. That he may gain a just knowledge of those inestimable
privileges, may taste that the Lord is gracious, and rejoice in the
gospel-salvation, as his greatest happiness and glory. — It is necessary, that
he work these blessings on his heart, till they become a vital principles,
producing in him the love of God, engaging him to all cheerful obedience to his
will, giving him a proper dignity and elevation of soul, raising him above the
best and worst of this world, carrying his heart into heaven, and fixing his
affections and regards upon his everlasting inheritance, and the crown of glory
laid up for him there. — Thus he is armed against all the temptations and
trials resulting from any pleasure or pain, hopes or fears, gain or loss, in the
present world. None of these things move him from a faithful discharge of any
part of his duty, or from a firm attachment to truth and righteousness; neither
counts he his very life dear to him, that he may do the will of God, and finish
his course with joy. In a sense of the love of God in Christ, he maintains daily
communion with God, by reading and meditating on his Word. In a sense of his own
infirmity, and the readiness of the divine favour to succor him, he daily
addresses the throne of grace, for the renewal of spiritual strength, in
assurance of obtaining it, through the one Mediator Christ Jesus. Enlightened
and directed by the heavenly doctrine of the gospel,” etc.
Now I leave
everyone that has any degree of impartiality, to judge, whether there be not
sufficient grounds to think, that it is but a very small part indeed, of the
many myriad's and millions which overspread this globe, who are of a character
that in any wise answers these descriptions. However Dr. T. insists, that all
nations, and every man on the face of the earth, have light and means sufficient
to do the whole will of God, even they that live in the grossest darkness of
paganism.
Dr. T. in answer to
arguments of this kind, very impertinently from time to time objects, that we
are no judges of the viciousness of men’s characters, nor are able to decide
in what degree they are virtuous or vicious. As though we could have no good
grounds to judge, that anything appertaining to the qualities or properties of
the mind, which is invisible, is general or prevailing among a multitude or
collective body, unless we can determine how it is with each individual. I think
I have sufficient reason, from what I know and have heard of the American
Indians, to judge, that there are not many good philosophers among them; though
the thoughts of their hearts, and the ideas and knowledge they have in their
minds, are things invisible; and though I have never seen so much as a
thousandth part of the Indians; and with respect to most of them, should not be
able to pronounce peremptorily concerning anyone, that he was not very knowing
in the nature of things, if all should singly pass before me. And Dr. T. himself
seems to be sensible of the falseness of his own conclusions, that he so often
urges against others; if we may judge by his practice, and the liberties he
takes, in judging of a multitude himself. He, it seems, is sensible that a man
may have good grounds to judge, that wickedness of character is general in a
collective body; because he openly does it himself. (Key, p. 102) After
declaring the things which belong to the character of a true Christian, he
judges of the generality of Christians, that they have cast off these things,
that they are a people that do err in their hearts, and have not known
God’s way, p. 259, he judges, that the generality of Christians are the
most wicked of all mankind, when he thinks it will throw some disgrace on
the opinion of such as he opposes. The like we have from time to time in other
places (as p. 168, p. 258, Key, p. 127, 128).
But if men are not
sufficient judges, whether there are few of the world of mankind but what are
wicked, yet doubtless God is sufficient, and his judgment, often declared in his
Word, determines the matter. Mat. 7:13, 14, “Enter ye in at the strait gate:
for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many
there be that go in thereat: because strait is the gate and narrow is the way
that leadeth to life, and few there be that find it.” It is manifest, that
here Christ is not only describing the state of things, as it was at that day,
and does not mention the comparative smallness of the number of them that are
saved, as a consequence of the peculiar perverseness of that people, and of that
generation; but as a consequence of the general circumstances of the way to
life, and the way to destruction, the broadness of the one, and the narrowness
of the other. In the straitness of the gate, etc. I suppose none will deny, that
Christ has respect to the strictness of those rules, which he had insisted on in
the preceding sermon, and which render the way to life very difficult. But
certainly those amiable rules would not be difficult, were they not contrary to
the natural inclinations of men’s hearts; and they would not be contrary to
those inclinations, were these not depraved. Consequently the wideness of the
gate, and broadness of the way, that leads to destruction, in consequence of
which many go in thereat, must imply the agreeableness of this way to men’s
natural inclinations. The like reason is given by Christ, why few are saved.
Luke 13:23, 24, “Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few saved? And he
said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many I say unto you,
shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” That there are generally but
few good men in the world, even among them who have the most distinguishing and
glorious advantages for it, is evident by that saying of our Lord, “Many are
called, but few are chosen.” And if there are but few among these, how few,
how very few indeed, must persons of this character be, compared with the whole
world, appears by the representations often made of them as distinguished from
the world; in which they are spoken of as called and chosen out of the world,
redeemed from the earth, redeemed from among men; as being
those that are of God, while the whole world lieth in wickedness
and the like.
And if we look into
the Old Testament, we shall find the same testimony given. Pro. 20:6, “Most
men will proclaim every man his own goodness: but a faithful man who can
find?” By the faithful man, as the phrase is used in Scripture, is intended
much the same as a sincere, upright, or truly good man; as in Psa. 12:1, and
31:23, and 51:6, and other places. Again, Ecc. 7:25-29, “I applied mine heart
to know, and to search, and to find out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to
know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness: and I find more
bitter than death, the woman whose hearts is snares, etc. Behold, this have I
found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account, which
yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found: but
a woman among all these have I not found. Lo, this only have I found, that God
made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” Solomon here
signifies, that when he set himself diligently to find out the account or
proportion of true wisdom, or thorough uprightness among men, the result was,
that he found it to be but as one to a thousand, etc. Dr. T. on this place, p.
184, says, “The wise man in the context, is inquiring into the corruption and
depravity of mankind, of the men and women, THAT LIVED IN HIS TIME.” As though
what he said represented nothing of the state of things in the world in general,
but only in his time. But does Dr. T. or anybody else, suppose this only
to be the design of that book, to represent the vanity and evil of the world in
that time, and to show that all way vanity and vexation of spirit in Solomon’s
day? That day truly, we have reason to think, was a day of the greatest smiles
of heaven on that nation, that ever had been on any nation from the foundation
of the world. Not only does the subject and argument of the whole book show it
to be otherwise; but also the declared design of the book in the first chapter;
where the world is represented as very much the same, as to its vanity; and
evil, from age to age. It makes little or no progress, after all its revolutions
and restless motions, labors, and pursuits; like the sea, that has all the
rivers constantly emptying themselves into it, from age to age, and yet is never
the fuller. As to that place, Pro. 20:6, “A faithful man who can find?”
there is no more reason to suppose that the wise man has respect only to his
time, in these words, than in those immediately preceding, “Counsel in the
heart of a man is like deep waters; but a man of understanding will draw it
out.” Or in the words next following, “The just man walketh in his
integrity: his children are blessed after him.” Or in any other proverb in the
whole book. And if it were so, that Solomon in these things meant only to
describe his own times, it would not at all weaken the argument. For, if we
observe the history of the Old Testament, there is reason to think there never
was any time from Joshua to the captivity, wherein wickedness was more
restrained, and virtue and religion more encouraged and promoted, than in
David’s and Solomon’s times. And if there was so little true piety in that
nation, the only people of God under heaven, even in their best times, what may
we suppose, concerning the world in general, take one time with another?
Notwithstanding
what some authors advance concerning the prevalence of virtue, honesty, good
neighborhood, cheerfulness, etc. In the world; Solomon, whom we may justly
esteem as wise and just an observer of human nature, and the state of the world
of mankind, as most in these days (besides, Christians ought to remember, that
he wrote by divine inspiration) — judged the world to be so full of
wickedness, that it was better never to be born, than to be born to live only in
such a world. Ecc. 4:1-3, “So I returned and considered all the oppressions
that are done under the sun; and behold, the tears of such as were oppressed,
and they had no comforter: and on the side of their oppressors there was power;
but they had no comforter. Wherefore, I praised the dead, which were already
dead, more than the living, which are yet alive. Yea, better is he than both
they, which hath not yet been; who hath not seen the evil work that is done
under the sun.” Surely it will not be said that Solomon has only respect
to his time here too, when he speaks of the oppressions of them that were
in power; since he himself, and others appointed by him, and wholly under his
control, were the men that were in power in that land, and in almost all the
neighboring countries.
The same inspired
writer says, Ecc. 9:3, “The heart of the sons of men is full of evil; and
madness is in their heart while they live; and after that they go to the
dead.” If these general expressions are to be understood only of some, and
those the smaller part, when in general, truth, honesty, good-nature, etc.
Govern the world, why are such general expressions from time to time used? Why
does not this wise and noble prince express himself in a more generous and
benevolent strain, and say, wisdom is in the hearts of the sons of men while
they live, etc. — instead of leaving in his writings so many sly,
ill-natured suggestions, which pour such contempt on human nature, and tend so
much to excite mutual jealousy and malevolence, to taint the minds of mankind
through all generations after him?
If we consider the
various successive parts and periods of the duration of the world, it will, if
possible, be yet more evident, that by far the greater part of mankind have, in
all ages, been of a wicked character. The short accounts we have of Adam and his
family are such as lead us to suppose, that the greater part of his posterity in
his lifetime, yea, in the former part of his life, were wicked. It appears, that
his eldest son Cain, was a very wicked man, who slew his righteous brother Abel.
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years before Seth was born: and by that
time, we may suppose, his posterity began to be considerably numerous: when he
was born, his mother called his name Seth; for God, said she, hath
appointed me another seed instead of Abel. Which naturally suggests this to
our thoughts; that of all her seed then existing, none were of any such note for
religion and virtue, as that their parents could have any great comfort in them,
or expectation from them, on that account. And by the brief history we have, it
looks as if — however there might be some intervals of a revival of religion,
yet — in the general, mankind grew more and more corrupt till the flood. It is
signified, that when men began to multiply on the face of the earth,
wickedness prevailed exceedingly, Gen. 6:1, etc. And that before God appeared to
Noah, to command him to build the ark, one hundred and twenty years before
the flood, the world had long continued obstinate in great and general
wickedness, and the disease was become inveterate. The expressions (Gen. 6:3, 5,
6) suggest as much: “And the Lord said, my spirit shall not always strive
with man. — And God saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and
that every imagination of the thought of his heart was evil, only evil continually;
and it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him
at his heart.” And by that time, “all flesh had corrupted his way upon the
earth,” (Gen. 6:12). And as Dr. T. himself observes (p. 122) “Mankind were
universally debauched into lust, sensuality, rapine, and injustice.”
And with respect to
the period after the flood, to the calling of Abraham; Dr. T. says, as
already observed, that in about four hundred years after the flood, the
generality of mankind were fallen into idolatry; which was before all they were
dead who came out of the ark. And it cannot be thought, the world went suddenly
into that general and extreme degree of corruption, but that they had been
gradually growing more and more corrupt; though it is true, it must be by very
swift degrees — however soon we may suppose they began — to get to that pass
in one age.
And as to the
period from the calling of Abraham to the coming of Christ, Dr. T. justly
observes as follows: (Key, p. 133): “If we reckon from the call of
Abraham to the coming of Christ, the Jewish dispensation continued one thousand
nine hundred and twenty-one years; during which period, the other families and
nations of the earth, not only lay out of God’s peculiar kingdom, but also
lived in idolatry, great ignorance, and wickedness.” And with regard to the
Israelites, it is evident that wickedness was the generally prevailing character
among them, from age to age. If we consider how it was with Jacob’s family,
the behavior of Reuben with his father’s concubine, the behavior of Judah with
Tamar, the conduct of Joseph’s ten brethren in their cruel treatment of him;
we cannot think, that the character of true piety belonged to many of them,
according to Dr. T.’s own notion of such a character; though it be true, they
might afterwards repent. And with respect to the time the children of Israel
were in Egypt; the Scripture, speaking of them in general, or as a collective
body, often represents them as complying with the abominable idolatries of the
country. [Lev. 17:7; Jos. 5:9, and 24:14, Eze. 20:7, 8 and 22:3, VOL. I.] And as
to that generation which went out of Egypt, and wandered in the wilderness, they
are abundantly represented as extremely and almost universally wicked, perverse,
and children of divine wrath. And after Joshua’s death, the Scripture is very
express, that wickedness was the prevailing character in the nation, from age to
age. So, it was till Samuel’s time. 1 Sam. 8:7, 8, “The have rejected me,
that I should not reign over them; according to all their works which they have
done, since the day that I brought them out of Egypt, unto this day.” Yea, so
it was till Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s time. Jer. 32:30, 31, “For the
children of Israel, and the children of Judah, have only done evil before
me from their youth; for the children of Israel have only provoked
me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the Lord: for this city hath
been to me a provocation of mine anger, and of my fury, from the day they
built it, even unto this day.” Compare Jer. 5:21, 23; and chap. 7:25, 26,
27. So Eze. 2:3, 4, “I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious
nation, that hath rebelled against me, they and their fathers have transgressed
against me, they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto
this very day: for they are impudent children, and stiff-hearted.” And it
appears by the discourse of Stephen; Acts 7, that this was generally the case
with that nation, from their first rise, even to the days of the apostles. After
this summary rehearsal of the instances of their perverseness from the very time
of their selling Joseph into Egypt, he concludes, verse 51-53, “Ye
stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist
the Holy Ghost. As your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not
your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which showed before of the
coming of that just One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.”
Thus it appears,
that wickedness was the generally prevailing character in all nations, till
Christ came. And so also it appears to have been since his coming to this day.
So in the age of apostles. There was a great number of persons of a truly pious
character in the latter part of the apostolic age, when multitudes of converts
had been made, and Christianity was as yet in its primitive purity; but what
says the apostle John of the church of God at that time, as compared with
the rest of the world? 1 John 5:19, “We know that we are of God, and the whole
world lieth in wickedness.” And after that Christianity came to prevail to
that degree, that Christians had the upper hand in nations and civil
communities, still the greater part of mankind remained in their old heathen
state; which Dr. T. speaks of as a state of great ignorance and wickedness. And
besides, this is noted in all ecclesiastical history, that as the Christians
gained in power and secular advantages, true piety declined, and corruption and
wickedness prevailed among them. — And as to the state of the Christian world,
since Christianity began to be established by human laws, wickedness for the
most part has greatly prevailed; as is very notorious, and is implied in what
Dr. T. himself says: In giving an account how the doctrine of original sin came
to prevail among Christians, he observes (p. 167 S) “That the Christian
religion was very early and grievously corrupted, by dreaming, ignorant,
superstitious monks.” In p. 259, he says, “The generality of Christians have
embraced this persuasion concerning original sin; and the consequence has been,
that the generality of Christians have been the most wicked, lewd, bloody, and
treacherous of all mankind.
Thus, a view of the
several successive periods of the past duration of the world, from the beginning
to this day, shows, that wickedness has ever been exceeding prevalent, and has
had vastly the superiority in the world. And Dr. T. himself in effect owns, that
it has been so ever since Adam first turned into the way of transgression. “It
is certain (says he, p. 168) the moral circumstances of mankind, since the time
Adam first turned into the way of transgression, have been very different from a
state of innocence. So far as we can judge from history, or what we know at
present, the greatest part of mankind have been, and still are, very corrupt;
though not equally so in every age and place.” And lower in the same page, he
speaks of Adam’s posterity, as having sunk themselves into the most
lamentable degrees of ignorance, superstition, idolatry, injustice, debauchery,
etc.
These things
clearly determine the point, concerning the tendency of man’s nature to
wickedness, if we may be allowed to proceed according to such rules and methods
of reasoning, as are never denied or doubted to be good and sure, in
experimental philosophy; or may reason from experience and facts, in that manner
which common sense leads all mankind to in other cases. If experience and trial
will evince anything at all concerning the natural disposition of the human
heart, one would think the experience of so many ages, as have elapsed since the
beginning of the world, and the trial made by hundreds of different nations
together, for so long a time, should be sufficient to convince all, that
wickedness is agreeable to the nature of mankind in its present state.
Here, to strengthen
the argument, if there were any need of it, I might observe, not only the extent
and generality of the prevalence of wickedness in the world, but the height
to which it has risen, and the degree in which it has reigned. Among
innumerable things which confirm this, I shall now only observe, The degree
in which mankind have from age to age been hurtful one to another. Many
kinds of brute animals are esteemed very noxious and destructive, many of them
are fierce, voracious, and many very poisonous, and the destroying of them has
always been looked upon as a public benefit: but have not mankind been a
thousand times as hurtful and destructive as any one of them, yea, as all the
noxious beasts, birds, fishes, and reptiles in the earth, air, and water, put
together, at least of all kinds of animals that are visible? And no creature can
be found anywhere so destructive of its own kind as man is. All others, for the
most part, are harmless and peaceable, with regard to their own species. Where
one wolf is destroyed by another wolf, one viper by another, probably a thousand
men are destroyed by those of their own species. Well therefore might our
blessed Lord say, when sending forth his disciples into the world; Mat. 10:16,
17, “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; — but,
beware of men.” Why do I say wolves? I send you forth into the wide world
of men, that are far more hurtful and pernicious, and of whom you had
much more need to beware, than of wolves.
It would be strange
indeed, that this should be the state of mankind, distinguished by reason, for
that very end, that they might be capable of religion, which summarily
consists in love, if men, as they come into the world, are in their
nature innocent and harmless, undepraved, and perfectly free from all evil
propensities.
SECTION VIII
The native depravity of
mankind appears, in that there has been so little good effect of so manifold and
great means, used to promote virtue in the world.
THE
evidence of the native corruption of mankind, appears much more glaring, when it
is considered that the world has been so generally, so constantly, and so
exceedingly corrupt, notwithstanding the various, great, and continual
means that have been used to restrain men from sin, and promote virtue and
true religion among them.
Dr. T. supposes,
that sorrow and death, which come on mankind in consequence of Adam’s
sin was brought on them in great favor; as a benevolent father, exercising
an unwholesome discipline towards his children; to restrain them from
sin, by increasing the vanity of all earthly things, to abate their force to
tempt and delude; to induce them to be moderate in gratifying the
appetites of the body; to mortify pride and ambition; and that men
might always have before their eyes a striking demonstration that sin is
infinitely hateful to God, by a sight of that, than which nothing is more
proper to give them the utmost abhorrence of iniquity, and to fix in their minds
a sense of the dreadful consequences of sin, etc. etc. And in general, that
they do not come as punishments, but purely as means to keep men from
vice, and to make them better. — If it be so, surely they are great
means. Here is a mighty alteration: mankind, once so easy and happy, healthful
vigorous, and beautiful, rich in all the pleasant and abundant blessings of
paradise, now turned out, destitute, weak, and decaying, into a wide barren
world, yielding briers and thorns, instead of the delightful growth and sweet
fruit of the garden of Eden, to wear out life in sorrow and toil, on the ground
cursed for his sake; and at last, either through long and lingering decay, or
severe pain and acute disease, to expire and turn into putrefaction and dust. If
these are only used as medicines, to prevent and to cure the disease of
the mind, they are sharp medicines indeed; especially death; which, to use
Hezekiah’s representation, is as it were breaking all his bones. And,
one would think, should be very effectual, if the subject had no depravity —
no evil and contrary bias, to resist, and hinder a proper effect — especially
in the old world, when the first occasion of this terrible alteration, this
severity of means, was fresh in memory. Adam continued alive near two-thirds of
the time before the flood; so that a very great part of those who were alive
till the flood, might have opportunity of seeing and conversing with him, and
hearing from his mouth, not only an account of his fall, and the introduction of
the awful consequences of it, but also of his first finding himself in existence
in the new-created world, of the creation of Eve, and what passed between him
and his Creator in paradise.
But what was the
success of these great means, to restrain men from sin, and to induce them to
virtue? Did they prove sufficient? — instead of this, the world soon grew
exceeding corrupt; till, to use our author’s own words, mankind were
universally debauched into lust, sensuality, rapine, and injustice.
Then God used
further means: he sent Noah, a preacher of righteousness, to warn the world of
the universal destruction which would come upon them by a flood of waters, if
they went on in sin. This warning he delivered with circumstances tending to
strike their minds, and command their attention. He immediately went about
building that vast structure, the ark, in which he must employ a great number of
hands, and probably spent all he had in the world to save himself and his
family. And under these uncommon means God waited upon them one hundred and
twenty years — But all to no effect. The whole world, for ought appears,
continued obstinate, and absolutely incorrigible; so that nothing remained to be
done with them, but utterly to destroy the inhabitants of the earth; and to
begin a new world, from that single family who had distinguished themselves by
their virtue, that from them might be propagated a new and purer race.
Accordingly, this was done: and the inhabitants of this new world, Noah’s
posterity, had these new and extraordinary means to restrain sin, and excite to
virtue, in addition to the toil, sorrow, and common mortality, which the world
has been subjected to before, in consequence of Adam’s sin; viz., that God had
newly testified his dreadful displeasure for sin, in destroying the many
millions of mankind, all at one blow, old and young, men, women, and children,
without pity on any for all the dismal shrieks and cries with which the world
was filled. They themselves, the remaining family, were wonderfully
distinguished by God’s preserving goodness, that they might be a holy seed,
being delivered from the corrupting examples of the old world; and being all the
offspring of a living parent, whose pious instructions and counsels they had, to
enforce these things upon them, to prevent sin, and engage them to their duty.
These inhabitants of the new earth, must, for a long time, have before their
eyes many evident and striking effects of that universal destruction, to be a
continual affecting admonition to them. And besides all this, God now shortened
the life of man to about one half of what it used to be. The shortening man’s
life, Dr. T. says (p. 68): “Was that the wild range of ambition and lust might
be brought into narrower bounds, and have less opportunity of doing mischief;
and that death, being still nearer to our view, might be a more powerful motive
to regard less the things of a transitory world, and to attend more to the rules
of truth and wisdom.”
And now let us
observe the consequence. — These new and extraordinary means, in addition to
the former, were so far from proving sufficient, that the new world degenerated,
and became corrupt, by such swift degrees, that as Dr. T. observes, mankind in
general were sunk into idolatry, in about four hundred years after the flood,
and so in about fifty years after Noah’s death, they became so wicked
and brutish, as to forsake the true God, and turn to the worship of inanimate
creatures.
When things were
come to this dreadful pass, God was pleased, for a remedy, to introduce a new
and wonderful dispensation — separating a particular family, and people, from
all the rest of the world, by a series of most astonishing miracles, done in the
open view of the world; and fixing their dwelling, as it were, in the midst of
the earth, between Asia, Europe, and Africa, and in the midst of those nations
which were most considerable for power, knowledge, and arts — that might, in
an extraordinary manner, dwell among that people, in visible tokens of his
presence. There he manifested himself, and thence to the world, by a course of
miraculous operations and effects, for many ages; that the people might be holy
to God, as a kingdom of priests, and might stand as a city on a hill, to be a
light to the world. He also gradually shortened man’s life, till it was
brought to about one-twelfth part of what it used to be before the flood; and
so, according to Dr. T. greatly diminishing his temptations to sin, and
increasing his excitements to holiness. — And now let us consider what the
success of these means was, both as to the Gentile world, and the nation of
Israel.
Dr. T. justly
observes (Key, p. 24. § 75): “The Jewish dispensation had respect to
the nations of the world, to spread the knowledge and obedience of God in the
earth; and was established for the benefit of all mankind.” — But how
unsuccessful were these means, and all other means used with the heathen nations,
so long as this dispensation lasted! Abraham was a person noted in all the
principal nations then in the world; as in Egypt, and the eastern monarchies.
God made his name famous by his wonderful, distinguishing dispensations towards
him, particularly by so miraculously subduing, before him and his trained
servants, those armies of the four eastern kings. This great work of the most
high God, possessor of heaven and earth, was greatly noticed by Melchizedeck;
and one would think, should have been sufficient to awaken the attention of all
the nations in that part of the world, and to lead them to the knowledge and
worship of the only true God; especially if considered in conjunction with that
miraculous and most terrible destruction of Sodom, and all the cities of the
plain, for their wickedness, with Lot’s miraculous deliverance; facts which
doubtless in their day were much famed abroad in the world. But there is not the
least appearance, in any accounts we have, of any considerable good effect. On
the contrary those nations which were most in the way of observing and being
affected with these things, even that nations of Canaan, grew worse and worse,
till their iniquity came to the full, in Joshua’s time. And the posterity of
Lot, that saint so wonderfully distinguished, soon became some of the most gross
idolaters; as they appear to have been in Moses’s time. (See Num. 25). Yea,
and the far greater part even of Abraham’s posterity, the children of Ishmael,
Ziman, Joksham, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah, and Esau, soon forgot the true
God and fell off to heathenism.
Great things were
done in the sight of the nations, tending to awaken them, and lead them to the
knowledge and obedience of the true God, in Jacob’s and Joseph’s time; in
that God did miraculously, by the hand of Joseph, preserve from perishing by
famine, as it were the whole world; as appears by Gen. 41:56, 57. Agreeably to
which, the name the Pharaoh gave to Joseph, Zaphnath-Paaneah, as is said, in the
Egyptian language, signifies savior of the world. But there does not
appear to have been any good abiding effect of this; no, not so much as among
the Egyptians, the chief of all the heathen nations at that day, who had these
great works of Jehovah in their most immediate view. On the contrary, they grew
worse and worse, and seem to be far more gross in their idolatries and ignorance
of the true God, and every way more wicked, and ripe for ruin, when Moses was
sent to Pharaoh, than they were in Joseph’s time.
After this, in
Moses and Joshua’s time, the great God was pleased to manifest himself in a
series of the most astonishing miracles, for about fifty years together, wrought
in the most public manner, in Egypt, in the wilderness, and in Canaan, in the
view as it were of the whole world; miracles by which the world was shaken, the
whole frame of the visible creation, earth, seas, and rivers, the atmosphere,
the clouds, sun, moon, and stars were affected; miracles, greatly tending to
convince the nations of the world, of the vanity of their false gods, showing
Jehovah to be infinitely above them, in the thing wherein they dealt most
proudly, and exhibiting God’s awful displeasure at the wickedness of the
heathen world. And these things are expressly spoken of as one end of these
great miracles; Exo. 9:14; Num. 14:21; Jos. 4:23, 24. However, no reformation
followed, but by the scripture account, the nations which had them most in view,
were dreadfully hardened, stupidly refusing all conviction and reformation, and
obstinately went on in opposition to the living God, to their own destruction.
After this, God
from time to time very publicly manifested himself to the nations of the world,
by wonderful works wrought in the time of the Judges, of a like tendency with
those already mentioned. Particularly in so miraculously destroying, by the hand
of Gideon, almost the whole of the vast army of the Midianites, Amalekites, and all
the children of the east, consisting of about 135,000 men; Jdg. 7:12; 8:10.
But no reformation followed this, or the other great works of God, wrought in
the times of Deborah and Barak, Jeptha and Samson.
After these things,
God used new, and in some respects, much greater means with the heathen world,
to bring them to the knowledge and service of the true God, in the days of David
and Solomon. He raised up David, a man after his own heart, a most fervent
worshipper of the true God, and zealous hater of idols, and subdued before him
almost all the nations between Egypt and Euphrates; often miraculously assisting
him in his battles with his enemies. And he confirmed Solomon his son in the
full and quiet possession of that great empire, for about forty years; and made
him the wisest, richest, most magnificent, and every way the greatest monarch
that ever had been in the world; and by far the most famous, and of greatest
name among the nations; especially for his wisdom, and things concerning the
name of his God; particularly the temple he built, which was exceeding
magnificent, that it might be of fame and glory throughout all lands; 1 Chr.
22:5. And we are told, that there came of all people to hear the wisdom of
Solomon, from all kings of the earth; 1 Kin. 4:34; 10:24. And the Scripture
informs us, that these great things were done, that the nations in far
countries might hear of God’s great name, and of his outstretched arm; that
all the people of the earth might fear him, as well as his people Israel:
and that all the people of the earth might know, that the Lord was God, and that
there was none else; 1 Kin. 8:41-43, 60. But still there is no
appearance of any considerable abiding effect, with regard to any one heathen
nation.
After this, before
the captivity in Babylon, many great things were done in the sight of the
gentile nations, very much tending to enlighten, affect, and persuade them. As
God destroying the army of the Ethiopians of a thousand thousand, before Asa;
Elijah’s and Elisha’s miracles; especially Elijah miraculously confounding
Baal’s prophets and worshippers; Elisha healing Namaan, the king of Syria’s
prime minister, and the miraculous victories obtained, through Elisha’s
prayers, over the Syrians, Moabites, and Edomites; the miraculous destruction of
the vast united army of the children of Moab, Ammon, and Edom, at
Jehoshaphat’s prayer; 2 Chr. 20. Jonah’s preaching at Nineveh, together with
the miracles of his deliverance from the whale’s belly; which was published,
and well attested, as a sign to confirm his preaching: but more especially that
great work of God, in destroying Sennacherib’s army by an angel, for his
contempt of the God of Israel, as if he had been no more than the gods of the
heathen.
When all these
things proved ineffectual, God took a new method with the heathen world, and
used, in some respects, much greater means to convince and reclaim them than
ever before. In the first place, his people, the Jews, were removed to Babylon,
the head and heart of the heathen world (Chaldea having been very much the
foundation of idolatry), to carry thither the revelations which God had made of
himself, contained in the sacred writings; and there to bear their testimony
against idolatry; as some of them, particularly Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed-nego, did, in a very open manner before the king, and the greatest men of
the empire, with such circumstances as made their testimony very famous in the
world. And God confirmed it with great miracles; which were published through
the empire, by order of its monarch, as the mighty works of the God of Israel,
showing him to be above all gods: Daniel, that great prophet, at the same time
being exalted to be governor of all the wise men of Babylon, and one of the
chief officers of Nebuchadnezzar’s court.
After this, God
raised up Cyrus to destroy Babylon, for its obstinate contempt of the true God,
and injuriousness towards his people; according to the prophecies of Isaiah,
speaking of him by name, instructing him concerning the nature and dominion of
the true God; Isa. 45. Which prophecies were probably shown to him, whereby he
was induced to publish his testimony concerning the God of Israel, as THE GOD;
Ezra 1:2, 3. Daniel, about the same time, being advanced to be prime minister of
state in the new empire, erected under Darius, did in that place appear openly
as a worshipper of the God of Israel, and him alone; God confirming his
testimony for him, before the king and all the grandees of his kingdom, by
preserving him in the den of lions; whereby Darius was induced to publish to all
people, nations, and languages, that dwelt in all the earth, his testimony, that
the God of Israel was the living God, and steadfast forever, etc.
When, after the
destruction of Babylon, some of the Jews returned to their own land multitudes
never returned to their own land, multitudes never returned, but were dispersed
abroad through many parts of the vast Persian empire; as appears by the book of
Esther. And many of them afterwards, as good histories inform us, were removed
into the more western parts of the world; and so were dispersed as it were all
over the heathen world, having the Holy Scriptures with them, and synagogues
everywhere, for the worship of the true God. And so it continued to be, to the
days of Christ and his apostles; as appears by the Acts of the Apostles. Thus
that light, which God had given them, was carried abroad into all parts of the
world: so that now they had far greater advantages to come to the knowledge of
the truth, in matters of religion, if they had been disposed to improve their
advantages.
And besides all
these things, from about Cyrus’s time, learning and philosophy increased, and
was carried to a great height. God raised up a number of men of prodigious
genius, to instruct others, and improve their reason and understanding, in the
nature of things: and philosophic knowledge having gone on to increase for
several ages, seemed to be got to its height before Christ came, or about that
time.
And now let it be
considered what was the effect of all these things. — Instead of a
reformation, or any appearance or prospect of it, the heathen world in general
rather grew worse. As Dr. Winder observes, “The inveterate absurdities of
pagan idolatry continued without remedy, and increased as arts and learning
increased; and paganism prevailed in all its height of absurdity, when pagan
nations were polished to the height, and in the most polite cities and
countries; and thus continued to the last breath of pagan power.” And so it
was with respect to wickedness in general, as well as idolatry; as appears by
what the apostle Paul observes in Rom. 1. — Dr. T. speaking of the time when
the gospel-scheme was introduced (Key, § 289) says, “The moral and
religious state of the heathen was very deplorable, being generally sunk into
great ignorance, gross idolatry, and abominable vice.” Abominable vices
prevailed, not only among the common people, but even among their philosophers
themselves, yea, some of the chief of them, and of greatest genius; so Dr. T.
himself observes, as to that detestable vice of sodomy, which they commonly and
openly allowed and practiced without shame. (See Dr. T.’s note on Rom. 1:27).
Having thus
considered the state of the heathen world, with regard to the effect of means
used for its reformation, during the Jewish dispensation, from the first
foundation of it in Abraham’s time; let us now consider how it was with
that people themselves, who were distinguished with the peculiar privileges of
that dispensation. The means used with the heathen nations were great; but they
were small, if compared with those used with the Israelites. The
advantages by which that people were distinguished, are represented in Scripture
as vastly above all parallel, in passages which Dr. T. takes notice of (Key, §
54). And he reckons these privileges among those which he calls antecedent
blessings, consisting in motives to virtue and obedience; and says (Key, §
66). “That this was the very end and design of the dispensation of God’s
extraordinary favors to the Jews, viz. To engage them to duty and
obedience, or that it was a scheme for promoting virtue, is clear beyond
dispute, from every part of the Old Testament.” Nevertheless, the generality
of that people, through all the successive periods of that dispensation, were
men of a wicked character. But it will be more abundantly manifest, how strong
the natural bias to iniquity appeared to be among that people, by considering
more particularly their condition from time to time.
Notwithstanding the
great things God had done in the times of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to separate
them and their posterity from the idolatrous world, that they might be a holy
people to himself; yet in about two hundred years after Jacob’s death, and in
less than one hundred and fifty years after the death of Joseph, and while some
were alive who had seen Joseph, the people had in a great measure lost the true
religion, and were apace conforming to the heathen world. For a remedy, and the
more effectually to alienate them from idols, and engage them to the God of
their fathers, God appeared, in order to bring them out from among the
Egyptians, and separate them from the heathen world, and to reveal himself in
his glory and majesty, in so affecting and astonishing a manner, as tended most
deeply and durably to impress their minds; that they might never forsake him any
more. But so perverse were they, that they murmured even in the midst of the
miracles that God wrought for them in Egypt, and murmured at the Red sea,
in a few days after God had brought them out with such a mighty hand. When he
had led him through the sea, they sang his praise, but soon forgat his works.
Before they got to Mount Sinai, they openly manifested their
perverseness from time to time; so that God says of them; Exo. 16:28, “How
long refuse ye to keep my commandments, and my laws?” Afterwards they murmured
again at Rephidim.
In about two months
after they came out of Egypt, they came to Mount Sinai; where God entered into a
most solemn covenant with the people, that they should be an holy people unto
him, with such astonishing manifestations of his power, majesty, and holiness,
as were altogether unparalleled. God puts the people in mind; Deu. 4:32-34,
“For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day
that God created man upon the earth; and ask from one side of heaven unto the
other, whether there has been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath
been heard like it. Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the
midst of another nation?” etc. And these great things were in order to impress
their minds which such a conviction and sense of divine truth, and their
obligations, that they might never forget them; as God says; Exo. 19:9, “Lo, I
come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with
thee, and believe thee for ever.” But what was the effect of all? It was not
more than two or three months, before that people, under that very mountain,
returned to their old Egyptian idolatry, and were singing and dancing before a
golden calf, which they had set up to worship. And after awful manifestations of
God’s displeasure for that sin, and so much done to bring them to repentance,
and confirm them in obedience, it was but a few months before they came to that
violence of spirit, in open rebellion against God, that with the utmost
vehemence they declared their resolution to follow God no longer, but to make
them a captain to return into Egypt. And thus they went on in perverse
opposition to the Most High, from time to time repeating their open acts of
rebellion, in the midst of continued astonishing miracles, till that generation
was destroyed. And though the following generation seems to have been the best
that ever was in Israel, yet notwithstanding their good example, and
notwithstanding all the wonders of God’s power and love to that people in
Joshua’s time, how soon did that people degenerate, and begin to forsake God,
and join with the heathen in their idolatries, till God, by severe means, and by
sending prophets and judges, extraordinarily influenced from above, reclaimed
them! But when they were brought to some reformation by such means, they soon
fell away again into the practice of idolatry; and so from one age to another;
and nothing proved effectual for any abiding reformation.
After things had
gone on thus for several hundred years, God used new methods with his people, in
two respects: First, he raised up a great prophet, under whom a number of
young men were trained up in schools, that from among them there might be a
constant succession of great prophets in Israel, of such as God should choose;
which seems to have been continued for more than five hundred years. Secondly,
God raised up a great king, David, one eminent for wisdom, piety, and
fortitude, to subdue all their heathen neighbors, who used to be such a snare to
them; and to confirm, adorn, and perfect the institutions of his public worship;
and by him to reveal more fully the great salvation, and future glorious kingdom
of the Messiah. And after him was raised up his son, Solomon, the wisest and
greatest prince that ever was on earth, more fully to settle and establish those
things which his father David had begun, concerning the public worship of God in
Israel, and to build a glorious temple for the honor of JEHOVAH, and the
institutions of his worship, and to instruct the neighbor nations in true wisdom
and religion. But what was the success of these new and extraordinary means? If
we take Dr. T. for our expositor of Scripture, the nation must be extremely
corrupt in David’s time; for he supposes he has respect to his own times, in
those words; Psa. 14:2, 3, “The Lord looked down from heaven, to see if there
were any that did understand, and seek God; they are all gone aside: they are
together become filthy; there is none that doeth good; no, not one.” But,
whether Dr. T. be in the right in this, or not, yet if we consider what appeared
in Israel, in Absalom’s and Sheba’s rebellion, we shall not see cause to
think, that the greater part of the nation at that day were men of true wisdom
and piety. As to Solomon’s time, Dr. T. supposes, as has been already
observed, that Solomon speaks of his own times, when he says, he had found but
one in a thousand that was a thoroughly upright man.
However, it
appears, that all those great means used to promote and establish virtue and
true religion, in Samuel’s, David’s, and Solomon’s times, were so far from
having any general abiding good effect in Israel, that Solomon himself, with all
his wisdom, and notwithstanding the unparalleled favors of God to him, had his
mind corrupted, so as openly to tolerate idolatry in the land, and greatly to
provoke God against him. And as soon as he was dead, ten tribes of the twelve
forsook the true worship of God, and instead of it, openly established the like
idolatry that the people fell into at Mount Sinai, when they made the
golden calf; and continued fully obstinate in this apostasy, notwithstanding all
means that could be used with them by the prophets, whom God sent, one after
another, to reprove, counsel, and warn them, for about two hundred and fifty
years; especially those two great prophets, Elijah and Elisha. Of all the kings
that reigned over them, there was not so much as one but what was of a wicked
character. And at last their case seemed utterly desperate; so that nothing
remained to be done with them, but to remove them out of God’s sight. Thus the
scripture represents the matter; 2 Kin. 17.
And as to the other
two tribes; though their kings were always of the family of David, and they were
favored in many respects far beyond their brethren yet they were generally
exceeding corrupt. Their kings were, most of them, wicked men, and their
magistrates, and priests, and people, were generally agreed in the corruption.
Thus the matter is represented in the scripture history, and the books of the
prophets. And when they had seen how god had cast off the ten tribes, instead of
taking warning, they made themselves vastly more vile than ever the others had
done. 2 Kin. 17:18, 19; Eze. 16:46, 47, 51. God indeed waited longer upon them,
for his servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, that he had chosen;
and used more extraordinary means with them; especially by those great prophets,
Isaiah and Jeremiah, but to no effect: so that at last, as the prophets
represent the matter, they were like a body universally and desperately diseased
and corrupted, that would admit of no cure, the whole head sick, and the whole
heart faint, etc.
Things being come
to that pass, God took this method with them; he utterly destroyed their city
and land, and the temple which he has among them, made thorough work in purging
the land of them; as when a man empties a dish, wipes it, and turns it upside
down; or when a vessel is cast into a fierce fire, till its filthiness is
thoroughly burnt out: 2 Kin. 21:13; Eze. 24. They were carried into
captivity, and there left, till that wicked generation was dead, and those old
rebels were purged out; that afterwards the land might be resettled with a more
pure generation.
After the return
from the captivity, and God had built the Jewish church again in their own land,
by a series of wonderful providences; yet they corrupted themselves again, to so
great a degree, that the transgressors were come to full again in the days of
Antiochus Epiphanes; as the matter is represented in the prophecy of Daniel:
Dan. 8:23. And then God made them the subjects of a dispensation, little, if
anything, less terrible, than that which had been in Nebuchadnezzar’s days.
And after God had again delivered them, and restored the state of religion among
them, by the instrumentality of the Maccabees, they degenerated again; so that
when Christ came, they were arrived to that extreme degree of corruption, which
is represented in the accounts given by the evangelists.
It may be observed
here in general, that the Jews, though so vastly distinguished with advantages,
means, and motives to holiness, yet are represented, from time to time, as more
wicked in the sight of God, than the very worst of the heathen. As, of old, God
swore by his life, that the wickedness of Sodom was small, compared with that of
the Jews; Eze. 16:47, 48, etc. Also chapter 5:5-10. So, Christ speaking of the
Jews, in his time, represents them as having much greater guilt than the
inhabitants of Tyre and Sydon, or even Sodom and Gomorrah.
But we are now come
to the time when the grandest scene was displayed that ever was opened on earth.
After all other schemes had been so long and thoroughly tried, and had so
greatly failed of success, both among Jews and Gentiles; that wonderful
dispensation was at length introduced — the greatest scheme for suppressing
and restraining iniquity among mankind, that ever infinite wisdom and mercy
contrived — even the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. “A new dispensation of
grace was erected (to use Dr. T.’s own words, p.239, 240) for the more certain
and effectual sanctification of mankind, into the image of God; delivering them
from the sin and wickedness, into which they might fall, or were already fallen;
to redeem the from all iniquity, and bring them to the knowledge and obedience
of God.” In whatever high and exalted terms the Scripture speaks of the means
and motives which the Jews enjoyed of old; yet their privileges are represented
as having no glory in comparison of the advantages of the gospel. Dr. T.’s
words (p. 233) are worthy to be here repeated. “Even the heathen (says he)
knew God, and might have glorified him as God; but under the glorious light of
the gospel, we have very clear ideas of the divine perfections, and particularly
of the love of God as our Father, and as the God and Father of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ. We see our duty in the utmost extent, and the most cogent
reasons to perform it: we have eternity opened to us, even an endless state of
honour and felicity, the reward of virtuous actions; and the Spirit of God
promised for our direction and assistance. And all this may and ought to be
applied to the purifying of our minds, and the perfecting of holiness. And to
these happy advantages we are born; for which we are bound forever to praise and
magnify the rich grace of God in the Redeemer.” And he elsewhere says, [Key,
§ 167] “The gospel-constitution is a scheme the most perfect and effectual
for restoring true religion, and promoting virtue and happiness, that ever the
world has yet seen.” And [Note on Rom. 1:16.] admirably adapted to
enlighten our minds, and sanctify our hearts. And never were motives so divine
and powerful proposed, to induce us to the practice of all virtue and goodness.
And yet even these
means have been ineffectual upon the far greater part of them with whom they
have been used; of the many that have been called, few have been chosen.
As to the Jews,
God’s ancient people, with whom they were used in the first place, and used
long by Christ and his apostles, the generality of them rejected Christ and his
gospel, with extreme pertinacity of spirit. They not only went on still in that
career of corruption which had been increasing from the time of the Maccabees;
but Christ’s coming, his doctrine and miracles, the preaching of his
followers, and the glorious things that attended the same, were the occasion,
through their perverse misimprovement, of an infinite increase of the
wickedness. They crucified the Lord of glory, with the utmost malice and
cruelty, and persecuted his followers; they pleased not God, and were contrary
to all men; they went on to grow worse and worse, till they filled up the
measure of their sin, and wrath came upon them to the uttermost; and they were
destroyed, and cast out of God’s sight, with unspeakably greater tokens of the
divine abhorrence and indignation, than in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. The
greater part of the whole nation were slain, and the rest were scattered abroad
through the earth in the most abject and forlorn circumstances. And in the same
spirit of unbelief and malice against Christ and the gospel, and in their
miserable dispersed circumstances, do they remain to this day.
And as to the
gentile nations, though there was a glorious success of the gospel amongst them,
in the apostles’ days; yet probably not one in ten of those that had the
gospel preached to them embraced it. The powers of the world were set against
it, and persecuted it with insatiable malignity. And among the professors of
Christianity, there presently appeared in many a disposition to abuse the gospel
to the service of pride and licentiousness. The apostles foretold a grand
apostasy of the Christian world, which should continue many ages; and observed,
that there appeared a disposition to such an apostasy, among professing
Christians, even in that day; 2 Thes. 2:7. The greater part of the ages now
elapsed, have been spent in that grand and general apostasy, under which the
Christian world, as it is called, has been transformed into what has been vastly
more dishonorable and hateful to God, and repugnant to true virtue, than the
state of the heathen world before: which is agreeable to the prophetical
descriptions given of it by the Holy Spirit.
In these latter
ages of the Christian church, God has raised up a number of great and good men,
to bear testimony against the corruptions of the church of Rome, and by their
means introduced that light into the world, by which, in a short time, at least
one-third part of Europe was delivered from the more gross enormities of
Anti-Christ: which was attended at first with a great reformation, as to vital
and practical religion. But how is the gold become dim! To what a pass are
things come in Protestant countries at this day, and in our nation in
particular! To what a prodigious height has a deluge of infidelity, profaneness,
luxury, debauchery, and wickedness of every kind, arisen! The poor savage
Americans are mere babes, if I may so speak, as to proficiency in wickedness, in
comparison of multitudes in the Christian world. Dr. T. himself, as before
observed, represents, that the generality of Christians have been the most
wicked, lewd, bloody, and treacherous of all mankind; and (Key, §
388) that “The wickedness of the Christian world renders it so much like the
heathen, that the good effects of our change to Christianity are but little
seen.”
With respect to the
dreadful corruption of the present day, it is to be considered, besides the
advantages already mentioned, that great advances in learning and philosophic
knowledge have been made in the present and past century; affording great
advantage for a proper and enlarged exercise of our rational powers, and for our
seeing the bright manifestation of God’s perfection in his works. And it is to
observed, that the means and inducements to virtue, which this age enjoys, are
in addition to most of those which were mentioned before, as given of
old; and among other things, in addition to the shortening of man’s life to 70
or 80 years, from near a thousand. And with regard to this, I would observe,
that as the case now stands in Christendom, take one with another of those who
ever come to years of discretion, their life is not more than forty or
forty-five years; which is but about the twentieth part of what it once was: and
not so much in great cities, places where profaneness, sensuality, and
debauchery, commonly prevail to the greatest degree.
Dr. T. (Key, § 1)
truly observes, That God has from the beginning exercised wonderful and infinite
wisdom, in the methods he has, from age to age, made use of to oppose vice, cure
corruption, and promote virtue in the world; and introduced several schemes to
that end. It is indeed remarkable, how many schemes and methods were tried of
old, both before and after the flood; how many were used in the times of the Old
Testament, both with Jews and heathens, and how ineffectual all these ancient
methods proved, for 4000 years together, till God introduced that grand
dispensation, for redeeming men from all iniquity, and purifying them to
himself, a people zealous of good works; which the Scripture represents as the
subject of the admiration of angels. But even this has now so long proved
ineffectual, with respect to the generality, that Dr. T. thinks there is need
of a new dispensation; the present light of the gospel being insufficient for
the full reformation of the Christian world, by reason of its corruptions: Note
on Rom. 1:27. — And yet all these things, according to him, without any
natural bias to these things, according to him, without any natural bias to the
contrary; no stream of natural inclination or propensity at all, to oppose
inducements to goodness; no native opposition of heart, to withstand those
gracious means, which God has ever used with mankind, from the beginning of the
world to this day; any more than there was in the heart of Adam, the moment God
created him in perfect innocence.
Surely Dr. T.’s
scheme is attended with strange paradoxes. And that his mysterious tenets may
appear in a true light, it must be observed that — at the same time he
supposes these means, even the very greatest and best of them, to have proved so
ineffectual, that help from them, as to any general reformation, is to be
despaired of — that he maintains all mankind, even the heathen in all parts of
the world, yea, every single person in it (which must include every Indian in
America, before the Europeans came hither; and every inhabitant of the unknown
parts of Africa and Terra Australis), has ability, light, and means sufficient
to do their whole duty; yea, many passages in his writings plainly suppose, to
perform perfect obedience to God’s law, without the least degree of vice or
iniquity. (See p. 259. 63, 64, 72. S.)
But I must not omit
to observe, that Dr. T. supposes, the reason why the gospel-dispensation has
been so ineffectual, is, that it has been greatly misunderstood and perverted.
In his Key (§ 389) he says, “Wrong representations of the scheme of the
gospel have greatly obscured the glory of divine grace, and contributed much to
the corruption of its professors. — Such doctrines have been almost
universally taught and received, as quite subvert it. Mistaken notions about
nature, grace, election and reprobation, justification, regeneration,
redemption, calling, adoption, etc. have quite taken away the very ground of the
Christian life.”
But how came the
gospel to be so universally and exceedingly misunderstood? Is it because it is
in itself so very dark and unintelligible, and not adapted to the apprehension
of the human faculties? If so, how is the possession of such an obscure and
unintelligible thing, so glorious an advantage? — Or is it because of the
native blindness, corruption, and superstition of mankind? But this is giving up
the thing in question, and allowing a great depravity of nature. Dr. T. speaks
of the gospel as far otherwise than dark and unintelligible; he represents it as
exhibiting the clearest and most glorious light, calculated to deliver the world
from darkness, and to bring them into marvelous light. He speaks of the light
which the Jews had, under the Mosaic dispensation, as vastly exceeding the light
of nature, which the heathen enjoyed; and yet he supposes that even the latter
was so clear, as to be sufficient to lead men to the knowledge of God, as their
whole duty to him. He speaks of the light of the gospel as vastly exceeding the
light of the Old Testament; and says of the apostle Paul in particular, “That
he wrote with great perspicuity; that he takes great care to explain every part
of his subject; that he has left no part of it unexplained and unguarded; and
that never was an author more exact and cautious in this.” [Pref. To Par. On
Rom. p. 146, 48.] Is it not strange, therefore, that the Christian world,
without any native depravity, should be so blind in the midst of such glaring
light, as to be all, or the generality, agreed from age to age, so essentially
to misunderstand that which is made so very plain?
Dr. T. says (p. 167
S) “It is my persuasion, that the Christian religion was very early and
grievously corrupted by dreaming, ignorant, superstitious monks, too
conceited to be satisfied with the plain gospel; and has long remained in that
deplorable state.” — But how came the whole Christian world, without any
blinding depravity, to hearken to these ignorant foolish men, rather than unto
wiser and better teachers? Especially, when the latter had plain gospel
on their side, and the doctrines of the other were (as our author supposes) so
very contrary not only to the plain gospel, but to men’s reason and common
sense? Or were all teachers of the Christian church nothing but a parcel of ignorant
dreamers? If so, this is very strange indeed, unless mankind naturally loves
darkness rather than light; seeing in all parts of the Christian world,
there was a great multitude in the work of the ministry, who had the gospel in
their hands, and whose whole business it was to study and teach it; and
therefore had infinitely greater advantages to become truly wise, than the
heathen philosophers. But if, by some strange and inconceivable means,
notwithstanding all these glorious advantages, all the teachers of the Christian
church through the world, without any native evil propensity, very early became
silly dreamers — and also in their dreaming, generally stumbled
on the same individual monstrous opinions, and so the world might be
blinded for a while — yet, why did not they hearken to that wise and great
man, Pelagius, and others like him, when he plainly held forth the truth to the
Christian world? Especially seeing his instructions were so agreeable to the
plain doctrines, and the bright and clear light of the gospel of Christ, and
also so agreeable to the plainest dictates of the common sense and understanding
of all mankind; but the other so repugnant to it, that (according to our author)
if they were true, it would prove understanding to be no
understanding, and the Word of God to be no rule of truth, nor at all to
be relied upon, and God to be a Being worthy of no regard?
Besides, if the
inefficacy of the gospel to restrain sin and promote virtue, be owing to the
general prevalence of these doctrines, which are supposed to be so absurd and
contrary to the gospel, here is this further to be accounted for; namely, Why,
since there has been so great an increase of light in religious matters (as must
be supposed on Dr. T.’s scheme) in this and the last age, and these monstrous
doctrines of original sin, election, reprobation, justification, regeneration,
etc. Have been so much exploded, especially in our nation, there has been no
reformation attending this great advancement of light and truth: but on the
contrary, vice, and everything opposite to practical Christianity, has gone on
to increase, with such a prodigious celerity, as to become like an overflowing
deluge; threatening, unless God mercifully interposes, speedily to swallow up
all that is virtuous and praiseworthy.
Many other things
might have been mentioned under this head — the means which mankind
have had to restrain vice, and promote virtue — such as wickedness being many
ways contrary to men’s temporal interest and comfort, and their having
continually before their eyes so many instances of persons made miserable by
their vices; the restraints of human laws, without which men cannot live in
society; the judgments of God brought on men for their wickedness, with which
history abounds, and the providential rewards of virtue; and innumerable
particular means, that God has used from age to age to curb the wickedness of
mankind, which I have omitted. But there would be no end of a particular
enumeration of such things. They that will not be convinced by the instances
which have been mentioned, probably would not be convinced, if the world had
stood a thousand times so long, and we had the most authentic and certain
accounts of means having been used from the beginning, in a thousand times
greater variety; and new dispensations had been introduced, after others had
been tried in vain, ever so often, and still to little effect. He that will not
be convinced by a thousand good witnesses, it is not likely that he would be
convinced by a thousand thousand.
The proofs that
have been extant in the world, from trial and fact, of the depravity of man’s
nature, are inexpressible, and as it were infinite, beyond the representation of
all similitude. If there were a piece of ground which abounded with briers and
thorns, or some poisonous plant, and all mankind had used their endeavors, for a
thousand years together, to suppress that evil growth — and to bring that
ground by manure and cultivation, planting and sowing, to produce better fruit,
all in vain; it would still be overrun with the same noxious growth — it would
not be a proof, that such a produce was agreeable to the nature of that soil, in
any wise to be compared to that which is given in divine providence, that
wickedness is a produce agreeable to the nature of the field of the world of
mankind. For the means used with it have been various, great, and wonderful,
contrived by the unsearchable and boundless wisdom of God; medicine procured
with infinite expense, exhibited with a vast apparatus; a marvelous succession
of dispensations, introduced one after another, displaying an incomprehensible
length and breadth, depth and height, of divine wisdom, love, and power, and
every perfection of the godhead, to the eternal admiration of principalities and
powers in heavenly places.
SECTION IX
Several evasions of the
arguments for the depravity of nature, from trial and events considered.
Evasion
I. Dr. T. says (p. 231, 232) “Adam’s nature, it is allowed, was very far
from being sinful; yet he sinned. And therefore, the common doctrine of Original
Sin, is no more necessary to account for the sin that has been or is in the
world, than it is to account for Adam’s sin. [Belsham] Again (p. 52-54 S etc.)
“If we allow mankind to be as wicked as R. R. has represented them to be; and
suppose that there is not one upon earth that is truly righteous, and without
sin, and that some are very enormous sinners, yet it will not thence follow,
that they are naturally corrupt. — For, if sinful action infers a nature
originally corrupt, then whereas Adam (according to them that hold the doctrine
of Original Sin) committed the most heinous and aggravated sin, that ever was
committed in the world; for, according to them, he had greater light than any
other man in the world, to know his duty, and greater power than any other man
to fulfill it, and was under greater obligations than any other man to
obedience; he sinned, when he knew he was the representative of millions, and
that the happy or miserable state of all mankind, depended on his conduct; which
never was, nor can be, the case of any other man in the world: — then, I say,
it will follow, that his nature was originally corrupt, etc. —
Thus their argument from the wickedness of mankind, to prove a sinful and
corrupt nature, must inevitably and irrecoverably fall to the ground. — Which
will appear more abundantly, if we take in the case of the angels, who in
numbers sinned, and kept not their first estate, though created with a nature
superior to Adam’s.” Again (p. 145 S) “When it is inquired, how it comes
to pass that our appetites and passions are now so irregular and strong, as that
not one person has resisted them, so as to keep himself pure and innocent? If
this be the case, if such as make the inquiry will tell the world, how it came
to pass that Adam’s appetites and passions were so irregular and strong, that
he did not resist them, so as to keep himself pure and innocent, when upon their
principles he was far more able to have resisted them; I also will tell them how
it comes to pass, that his posterity does not resist them.[See p. 81, note.] Sin
doth not alter its nature, by its being general; and therefore how far soever it
spreads, it must come upon all just as it came upon Adam.”
These things are
delivered with much assurance. But is there any reason in such a way of talking?
One thing implied in it, and the main thing, if any at all to the purpose, is,
that because an effect being general, does not alter the nature of the
effect, therefore nothing more can be argued concerning the cause, from its
happening constantly, and in the most steady manner, than from its happening but
once. But how contrary is this to reason! Suppose a person, through the
deceitful persuasions of a pretended friend, once takes a poisonous draught of a
liquor to which he had before no inclination; but after he has once taken of it,
he is observed to act as one that has an insatiable, incurable thirst after more
of the same, in his constant practice, obstinately continued in as long as he
lives, against all possible arguments and endeavors used to dissuade him from
it. And suppose we should from hence argue a fixed inclination, and begin to
suspect that this is the nature and operation of the poison, to produce such an
inclination, or that this strong propensity is some way the consequence of the
first draught. In such a case, could it be said with good reason, that a fixed
propensity can no more be argued from his consequent constant practice,
than from his first draught? Or, suppose a young man, soberly inclined,
enticed by wicked companions, should drink to excess, until he had got a habit
of excessive drinking, and should come under the power of a greedy appetite
after strong drink, so that drunkenness should become a common and constant
practice with him: and suppose an observer, arguing from this general practice,
should say, “It must needs be that this young man has a fixed inclination to
that sin; otherwise, how should it come to pass that he should make such a trade
of it?” And another, ridiculing the weakness of his arguing, should reply,
“Do you tell me how it came to pass, that he was guilty of that sin the first
time, without a fixed inclination, and I will tell you how he is guilty of it so
generally without a fixed inclination. Sin does not alter its nature by being
general: and therefore, how common soever it becomes, it must come at all times
by the same means that it came at first.” I leave it to everyone to judge, who
would be chargeable with weak arguing in such a case.
It is true, there
is no effect without some cause, ground, or reason of that effect, and some
cause answerable to the effect. But certainly it will not follow, that a transient
effect requires a permanent cause, or a fixed propensity. An effect
happening once, though great, yea, though it may come to pass on the same
occasion in many subjects at the same time, will not prove any fixed propensity,
or permanent influence. It is true, it proves an influence great and extensive,
answerable to the effect, once exerted, or once effectual; but it proves
nothing in the cause fixed or constant. If a particular tree, or a great
number of trees standing together, have blasted fruit on their branches at a
particular season — or if the fruit be very much blasted, and entirely spoiled
— it is evident that something was the occasion of such an effect at that
time; but this alone does not prove the nature of the tree to be bad. But
if it be observed, that those trees, and all other trees of the kind, wherever
planted, and in all soils, countries, climates, and seasons, and however
cultivated and managed, still bear ill fruit, from year to year, and in all
ages, it is a good evidence of the evil nature of the tree. And if the fruit, at
all these times, and in all these cases, be very bad, it proves the nature of
the tree to be very bad. If we argue, in like manner, from what appears among
men, it is easy to determine, whether the universal sinfulness of mankind —
all sinning immediately, as soon as capable of it, and continually and generally
being of a wicked character, at all times, in all ages, in all places, and under
all possible circumstances, against means and motives inexpressibly manifold and
great, and in the utmost conceivable variety — be from a permanent internal
great cause.
If the voice of
common sense were heard, there would be no occasion for labor in multiplying
arguments to show, that one act does not prove a fixed inclination; but that
constant pursuit does. We see that, in fact, it is agreeable to the reason of
all mankind, to argue fixed principles tempers, and prevailing inclinations,
from repeated and continued actions — though the actions are voluntary, and
performed of choice — and thus to judge of the tempers and inclinations of
persons, ages, sexes, tribes, and nations. But is it the manner of men to
conclude, that whatever they see others once do, they have a fixed
abiding inclination to do? Yea, there may be several acts seen, and yet
not be taken as good evidence of an established propensity; even though that one
act, or those several acts, are followed by such constant practice, as
afterwards evidences fixed disposition. As for example; there may be several
instances of a man drinking some spirituous liquor, and those instances be no
sign of a fixed inclination to that liquor: but these acts may be introductory
to a settled habit or propensity, which may be made very manifest afterwards by
constant practice.
From these things
it is plain, that what is alleged concerning the first sin of Adam, and
of the angels, without a previous fixed disposition to sin, cannot in the least
weaken the arguments brought to prove fixed propensity to sin in mankind, in
their present state. From the permanence of the cause has been argued, the
permanence of the effect. And that the permanent cause consists in an internal
fixed propensity, and not in any particular external circumstances, has been
argued from the effects being the same, through a vast variety and change of
circumstances. But the first acts of sin in Adam or the angels, considered in
themselves, were no permanent, continued effects. And though a great number of
the angels sinned, and the effect on that account was the greater, and more
extensive; yet this extent of the effect is a very different thing from
that permanence, or settled continuance of effect, which is supposed to
show a permanent cause, or fixed propensity. Neither was there any trial of a
vast variety of circumstances attending a permanent effect, to show the fixed
cause to be internal, consisting in a settled disposition of nature, in the
instances objected. And however great the sin of Adam, or of the angels,
was, and however great the means, motives, and obligations were against which
they sinned — and whatever may be thence argued concerning the transient
cause, occasion, or temptation, as being very subtle, remarkably tending to
deceive and seduce, etc. — yet it argues nothing of any settled disposition,
or fixed cause, either great or small; the effect both in the angels and
our first parents, being in itself transient, and, for ought appears,
happening in each of them under one system or coincidence of influential
circumstances [See p. 81, note].
The general
continued wickedness of mankind, against such means and motives, proves each of
these things, viz. that the cause is fixed, and that the fixed
cause is internal in man’s nature, and also that it is very powerful.
It proves, that the cause is fixed, because the effect is so abiding,
through so many changes. It proves that the fixed cause is internal,
because the circumstances are so various — including a variety of means and
motives — and they are such circumstances as cannot possibly cause the effect,
being most opposite to it in their tendency. And it proves the greatness
of the internal cause; or that the propensity is powerful; because the means
which have opposed its influence, have been so great, and yet have been statedly
overcome.
But here I may
observe, by the way, that with regard to the motives and obligations against
which our first father sinned, it is not reasonably alleged, that he sinned when
he knew his sin would have destructive consequences to all his posterity,
and might in process of time, pave the whole globe with skulls, etc. It
is evident, by the plain account the scripture gives us of the temptation which
prevailed with our first parents to commit that sin, that it was so contrived by
the subtlety of the tempter, as first to blind and deceive them as to that
matter, and to make them believe that their disobedience should be followed with
no destruction or calamity at all to themselves (and therefore not to
their posterity), but on the contrary, with a great increase and advancement of
dignity and happiness.
Evasion II.
Let the wickedness of the world be ever so general and great, there is no
necessity of supposing any depravity of nature to be the cause: man’s own free
will is cause sufficient. Let mankind be more or less corrupt, they make
themselves corrupt by their own free choice. This Dr. T abundantly insists upon,
in many parts of his book [Page 257, 258. 52, 53. S. and many other places].
But I would ask how
it comes to pass that mankind so universally agree in this evil exercise of
their free will? If their wills are in the first place as free to good as to
evil, what is it to be ascribed to, that the world of mankind, consisting of so
many millions, in so many successive generations, without consultation, all
agree to exercise their freedom in favor of evil? If there be no natural
tendency or preponderation in the case, then there is as good a chance for the
will being determined to good as to evil. If the cause be indifferent,
why is not the effect in some measure indifferent? If the balance be no heavier
at one end than the other, why does it perpetually preponderate one way? How
comes it to pass, that the free will of mankind has been determined to evil, in
like manner before the flood and after the flood; under the law and under the
gospel; among both Jews and Gentiles, under the Old Testament, and since then,
among Christians, Jews, Mahometans; among papists and Protestants; in those
nations where civility, politeness, arts, and learning most prevail, and among
the Negroes and Hottentots in Africa, the Tartars in Asia, and Indians in
America, towards both the poles, and on every side of the globe; in greatest
cities and obscurest villages; in palaces and in huts, wigwams, and cells under
ground? Is it enough to reply, It happens so, that men everywhere, and in all
times, choose thus to determine their own wills, and so to make themselves
sinful, as soon as ever they are capable of it, and to sin constantly as long as
they live, and universally to choose never to come up half way to their duty?
A steady effect
requires a steady cause; but free will, without any previous propensity to
influence its determinations, is no permanent cause; nothing can be
conceived of, farther from it: for the very notion of freedom of will,
consisting in self-determining power, implies contingence; and if the will is
perfectly free from any government of previous inclination, its freedom must
imply the most absolute and perfect contingence: and surely
nothing can be conceived of, more unfixed than that. The notion of liberty of
will, in this sense, implies perfect freedom from everything that should
previously fix, bind, or determine it; that it may be left to be fixed and
determined wholly by itself: therefore its determinations must be previously
altogether unfixed. And can that which is so unfixed, so contingent, be a cause
sufficient to account for an effect, in such a manner, and to such a degree,
permanent, fixed, and constant?
When we see any
person going on in a certain course with great constancy, against all manner of
means to dissuade him, do we judge this to be no argument of a fixed disposition
of mind, because, being free, he may determine to do so, if he will, without any
such disposition? Or if we see a nation, or people, that differ greatly from
other nations, in such and such instances of their constant conduct — as
though their tempers and inclinations were very diverse — and any should say,
We cannot judge at all of the temper or disposition of people, by anything
observable in their constant practice or behavior, because they have all free
will, and therefore may all choose to act so, if they please, without anything
in their temper or inclination to bias them. Would such an account of such
effects be satisfying to the reason of mankind? But infinitely further would it
be from satisfying a considerate mind, to account for the constant and universal
sinfulness of mankind, by saying, that their will is free, and therefore all
may, if they please, make themselves wicked: they are free when they first begin
to act as moral agents, and therefore all may, if they please, begin to sin as
soon as they begin to act: they are free as long as they continue to act in the
world, and therefore they may all commit sin continually, if they will: men of
all nations are free, and therefore all nations may act alike in these respects,
if they please, though some do not know how other nations do act. Men of high
and low condition, learned and ignorant, are free, and therefore they may agree
in acting wickedly, if they please, though they do not consult together. Men in
all ages are free, and therefore men in one age may all agree with men in every
other age in wickedness, if they please, though they do not know how men in
other ages have acted, etc. Let everyone judge whether such an account of things
can satisfy reason.
Evasion III.
It is said by many opposers of the doctrine of original sin, that the corruption
of mankind may be owing not to a depraved nature, but to bad example. And
I think we must understand Dr. T as having respect to the powerful influence of
bad instruction and example, when he says, (p. 118) “The Gentiles in their
heathen state, when incorporated into the body of the gentile world, were
without strength, unable to help or recover themselves.” And in several other
places to the like purpose. If there was no depravity of nature, what else could
there be but bad instruction and example, to hinder the heathen world, as a
collective body, (for as such Dr. T speaks of them, as may be seen p. 117, 118)
from emerging out of their corruption, on the rise of each new generation? As to
their bad instruction, our author insists upon it, that the heathen,
notwithstanding all their disadvantages, had sufficient light to know God, and
do their whole duty. Therefore it must be chiefly bad example, according to him,
that rendered their case helpless.
Now concerning this
way of accounting for the corruption of the world, by the influence of bad
example, I would observe,
1. It is accounting
for the thing by the thing itself. It is accounting for the corruption of the
world by the corruption of the world. For, that bad examples are general all
over the world to be followed by others, and have been so from the beginning, is
only an instance, or rather a description, of that corruption of the world which
is to be accounted for. If mankind are naturally no more inclined to evil than
good, then how come there to be so many more bad examples than good ones, in all
ages? And if there are not, how come to bad examples that are set, to be so much
more followed than the good? If the propensity of man’s nature be not to evil,
how comes the current of general example, everywhere, and at all times, to be so
much to evil? And when opposition has been made by good examples, how comes it
to pass that it has had so little effect to stem the stream of general wicked
practice?
I think from the
brief account the Scripture gives us of the behavior of our first parents, and
of the expressions of their faith and hope in God’s revealed mercy, we have
reason to suppose, that before ever they had any children, they repented, were
pardoned, and became truly pious. So that God planted the world at first with a noble
vine; and at the beginning of their generations, he set the stream of
example the right way. And we see, that children are more apt to follow the
example of their parents, than of any others; especially in early youth, their
forming time, when those habits are generally contracted, which abide by them
all their days. Besides, Adam’s children had no other examples
to follow, but those of their parents. How therefore came the stream so soon to
turn, and to proceed the contrary way, with so violent a current? When mankind
became so universally and desperately corrupt, as not to be fit to live on earth
any longer, and the world was everywhere full of bad examples, God destroyed
them all at once — except righteous Noah and his family — in order to remove
those bad examples, and that the world might be planted again with good example,
and the stream again turned the right way. How therefore came it to pass, that
Noah’s posterity did not follow his good example, especially when they had
such extraordinary things to enforce it, but so generally, even in his
life-time, became exceeding corrupt? One would think, the first generations at
least, while all lived together as one family, under Noah, their venerable
father, might have followed his good example. And if they had done so, then,
when the earth came to be divided in Peleg’s time, the heads of the several
families would have set out their particular colonies with good examples, and
the stream would have been turned the right way in all the various divisions,
colonies, and nations of the world. But we see, in fact, that in about fifty
years after Noah’s death, the world in general was overrun with dreadful
corruption; so that all virtue and goodness was like soon to perish from among
mankind, unless something extraordinary should be done to prevent it.
Then, for a remedy,
God separated Abraham and his family from all the rest of the world, that they
might be delivered from the influence of bad example, and that in his posterity
he might have an holy seed. Thus God again planted a noble vine; Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob being eminently pious. But how soon did their posterity
degenerate, till true religion was like to be swallowed up! We see how
desperately and almost universally corrupt they were, when God brought them out
of Egypt, and led them in the wilderness.
Then God was
pleased, before he planted his people in Canaan, to destroy that perverse
generation in the wilderness, that he might plant them there a noble vine,
wholly a right seed, and set them out with good example, in the land where
they were to have their settled abode. Jer. 2:21. It is evident, that the
generation which came with Joshua into Canaan was an excellent generation, by
innumerable things said of them. (See Jer. 2:2, 3; Psa. 68:14; Jos. 22:2, 23:8;
Deu. 4:3, 4; Hos. 11:1, 9:10; Jdg. 2:7, 17, 22, and many other places.) But how
soon did that people, nevertheless, become the degenerate plant of a strange
vine!
And when the nation
had a long time proved desperately and incurable corrupt, God destroyed them,
and sent them into captivity — till the old rebels were dead and purged out,
in order to deliver their children from their evil example. And when the
following generation was purified as in a furnace, God planted them again in the
land of Israel, a noble vine, and set them out with good example; which
yet was not followed by their posterity.
When again the
corruption was become inveterate, the Christian church was planted; and a
glorious out-pouring of the Spirit of God caused true virtue and piety to be
exemplified far beyond whatever had been on earth before; and thus the Christian
church was planted a noble vine. But that primitive good example has not
prevailed, to cause virtue to be generally and steadfastly maintained in the
Christian world. To how great a degree it has been otherwise, has already
been observed.
After many ages of
general and dreadful apostasy, God was pleased to erect the Protestant church,
as separated from the more corrupt part of Christendom; and true piety
flourished in it very much at first; God planted it a noble vine: but
notwithstanding the good examples of the first reformers, what a melancholy pass
is the Protestant world come to at this day!
When England grew
very corrupt, God brought over a number of pious persons, and planted them in
New England, and this land was planted a noble vine. But how is the gold
become dim! How greatly have we forsaken the pious examples of our fathers!
So prone have
mankind always proved themselves to degeneracy and backsliding, that it shows
plainly their natural propensity. And when good has revived, and been promoted
among men, it has been by some divine interposition, opposing the natural
current; the fruit of some extraordinary means. And the efficacy of such means
has soon been overcome by constant natural bias, the effect of good example
presently lost, and evil has regained the dominion. Like a heavy body, which may
by some great power be caused to ascend, against its nature, a little while, but
soon goes back again towards the center, to which it naturally and constantly
tends.
So that evil
example will in nowise account for the corruption of mankind, without supposing
a natural proneness to sin. The tendency of example alone will not account for
general wicked practice, as consequent on good example. And if the influence of
bad example is a reason of some of the wickedness, that alone will not
account for men becoming worse than the example set, degenerating more and more,
and growing worse and worse, which has been their manner.
2. There has been
given to the world an example of virtue, which, were it not for a dreadful
depravity of nature, would have influence on them who live under the gospel, far
beyond all other examples; that is, the example of Jesus Christ.
God, who knew the
human nature, and how apt men are to be influenced by example, had made
answerable provision. His infinite wisdom has contrived that we should have set
before us the most amiable and perfect example, in such circumstances, as should
have the greatest tendency to influence all the principles of man’s nature,
but his corruption. Men are apt to be moved by the example of others like
themselves, or in their own nature: therefore this example was given in our
nature. Men are ready to follow the example of the great and honorable;
and this — though that of one in our nature, yet — was the example of one
infinitely higher and more honorable than kings or angels. A people are apt to
follow the example of their prince. This is the example of that glorious
person, who stands in a peculiar relation to Christians as their Lord and King,
the supreme head of the church; and not only so, but the King of kings, supreme
head of the universe, and head over all things to the church. Children are apt
to follow the example of their parents; this is the example of the Author
of our being, and of our holy and happy being; the Creator of the world, and
everlasting Father of the universe. Men are very apt to follow the example of
their friends: the example of Christ is that of one who is infinitely our
greatest friend, standing in the most endearing relations of brother, redeemer,
spiritual head and husband; whose grace and love expressed to us, transcends all
other love and friendship, as much as heaven is higher than the earth. The
virtues and acts of his example were exhibited to us in the most endearing and
engaging circumstances that can possibly be conceived of. — His obedience and
submission to God, his humility, meekness, patience, charity, self-denial, etc.
being exercised and expressed in a work of infinite grace, love, condescension,
and beneficence to us — and had all their highest expressions in his laying
down his life, and meekly, patiently, and cheerfully undergoing unutterable
suffering for our eternal salvation. Men are peculiarly apt to follow the
example of those from whom they have great benefits: but it is utterly
impossible to conceive of greater benefits, that we could have by the virtues of
any person, than we have by the virtuous acts of Christ; we, who depend upon
being thereby saved from eternal destruction, and brought to inconceivable,
immortal glory at God’s right hand. Surely if it were not for an extreme
corruption of the human heart, such an example would have that strong influence
on it, which would as it were swallow up the power of all the evil and hateful
examples of a generation of vipers.
3. The influence of
bad example, without corruption of nature, will not account for children
universally committing sin as soon as capable of it; which, I think, is a fact
that has been made evident by the Scripture. It will not account for it in the
children of eminently pious parents; the first example set in their view being
very good; which was especially the case of many children in Christian families
in the apostolic days, when the apostle John supposes that every individual
person had sin to repent of, and confess to God.
4. What Dr. T
supposes to have been fact, with respect to a great part of mankind — the
state of the heathen world, which he supposes, considered as a collective body,
was helpless, dead in sin, and unable to recover itself — cannot consistently
be accounted for from the influence of bad example. Not evil example alone, no,
nor as united with evil instruction, can be supposed a sufficient reason why
every new generation that arose among them, should not be able to emerge from
the idolatry and wickedness of their ancestors, in any consistence with his
scheme. The ill example of ancestors could have no power to oblige them to sin,
any other way than as a strong temptation. But Dr. T himself says, (p. 72, S.)
“To suppose men’s temptations to be superior to their powers, will impeach
the goodness and justice of God, who appoints every man’s trial.” And as to
bad instructions, as he supposes that they all, yea every individual person, had
light sufficient to know God, and do their whole duty. And if each one could do
this for himself, then surely they might all be agreed in it through the power
of free will, as well as the whole world be agreed in corruption by the same
power.
Evasion IV.
Some modern opposers of the doctrine of original in, thus account for the
general prevalence of wickedness, viz. that in the course of nature our
senses grow up first, and the animal passions get the start of reason. So Dr.
Turnbull [See Mor. Phil. p. 279 and Chris. Phil. p. 274],
“Sensitive objects first affect us, and inasmuch as reason is a principle,
which, in the nature of things, must be advanced to strength and vigor, by
gradual cultivation, and these objects are continually assailing and soliciting
us; so, unless a very happy education prevents, our sensitive appetites must
have become very strong, before reason can have force enough to call them to an
account, and assume authority over them.” From hence Dr. Turnbull supposes it
comes to pass [Chris. Phil. p. 282, 283], “That though some few may,
through the influence of virtuous example, be said to be sanctified from the
womb, so liberal, so generous, so virtuous, so truly noble is their cast of
mind; yet generally speaking, the whole world lieth in such wickedness, that,
with respect to the far greater part of mankind, the study of virtue is
beginning to reform, and is a severe struggle against bad habits, early
contracted, and deeply rooted; it is therefore putting off an old inveterate
corrupt nature, and putting on new form and temper; it is molding ourselves
anew; it is a being born again, and becoming as children. — And how few are
there in the world who escape its pollutions, so as not to be early in that
class, or to be among the righteous that need no repentance!”
Dr. Taylor, though
not so explicit, seems to hint at the same thing, (p. 192) “It is by slow
degrees that children come to the use of understanding; the animal passions
being for some years the governing part of their constitution. And therefore,
though they may be froward and apt to displease us, yet how far this is sin in
them, we are not capable of judging. But it may suffice to say, that it is the
will of God that children should have appetites and passions to regulate and
restrain, that he hath given parents instructions and commands to discipline and
inform their minds, that if parents first learned true wisdom for themselves,
and then endeavored to bring up their children in the way of virtue, there would
be less wickedness in the world.”
Concerning these
things I would observe, that such a scheme is attended with the very same
difficulties, which they who advance it would avoid by it; liable to the same
objections, which they make against God’s ordering it so, that men should be
brought into being with a prevailing propensity to sin. For this scheme
supposes, the Author of nature has so ordered things, that men should come into
being as moral agents, that is, should first have existence in a state and
capacity of moral agency, under a prevailing propensity to sin. For that
strength, which sensitive appetites and animal passions come to by their
habitual exercise, before persons come to the exercise of their rational powers,
amounts to a strong propensity to sin, when they first come to the exercise of
those rational powers, by the supposition: because this is given as a reason why
the scale is turned for sin, and why, generally speaking, the whole world
lies in wickedness, and the study of virtue is a severe struggle against bad
habits, early contracted, and deeply rooted. These deeply rooted habits must
imply a tendency to sin; otherwise they could not account for that which they
are brought to account for, namely, prevailing wickedness in the world: for that
cause cannot account for an effect, which is supposed to have no tendency to
that effect. And this tendency which is supposed, is altogether
equivalent to a natural tendency, being as necessary to the subject. For
it is supposed to be brought on the person, who is the subject of it, when he
has no power to oppose it; the habit, as Dr. Turnbull says, becoming very
strong, before reason can have force enough to call the passions to account, or
assume authority over them. And it is supposed, that this necessity, by which
men become subject to this propensity to sin, is from the ordering and disposal
of the Author of nature; and therefore must be as much from his hand, and as
much without the hand of the person himself, as if he were first brought into
being with such a propensity. Moreover, it is supposed that the effect is truly wickedness.
For it is alleged as a cause why the whole world lies in wickedness, and
why all but a very few are first in the class of the wicked, and not
among the righteous, that need no repentance. If they need repentance,
what they are guilty of is truly and properly wickedness, or moral evil; for
certainly men need no repentance for that which is not sin, or blamable evil.
It, as a consequence of this propensity, the world lies in wickedness, and the
far greater part are of a wicked character, without doubt the far greater part
go to eternal perdition: for death does not pick and choose, only for men of a
righteous character. And certainly that is an evil, corrupt state of things,
which naturally tends to and issues in this consequence, that as it were the
whole world lies and lives in wickedness, dies in wickedness, and perishes
eternally. And this by the supposition, is a state of things, wholly ordered by
the Author of nature, before mankind are capable of having any hand in the
affair. And is this any relief to the difficulties, which these writers object
against the doctrine of natural depravity?
And I might here
also observe, that this way of accounting for the wickedness of the world
amounts to just the same thing with that solution of man’s depravity,
mentioned before, against which Dr. T cries out, as too gross to be admitted,
(p. 188, 189) viz. God creating the soul pure, and putting it into such a
body, as naturally tends to pollute it. For this scheme supposes, that God
creates the soul pure, and puts it into a body, and into such a state in that
body, that the natural consequence is a strong propensity to sin, as soon as the
soul is capable of sinning.
Dr. Turnbull seems
to suppose, that the matter could not have been ordered otherwise, consistent
with the nature of things, than that animal passions should be so aforehand with
reason, as that the consequence should be that which has been mentioned; because
reason is a faculty of such a nature, that it can have strength and vigor no
otherwise than by exercise and culture [Mor. Phil. p. 311]. But can there
be any force in this? Is there anything in nature, to make it impossible, but
that the superior principles of man’s nature should be so proportioned to the
inferior, as to prevent such a dreadful consequence, as the moral and natural
ruin, and eternal perdition of the far greater part of mankind? Could not those
superior principles be in much greater strength at first, and yet be capable of
endless improvement? And what should hinder its being so ordered by the Creator,
that they should improve by vastly swifter degrees than they do? If we are
Christians, we must be forced to allow it to be possible in the nature of
things, that the principles of human nature should be so balanced, that the
consequence should be no propensity to sin, in the very beginning of a capacity
for moral agency; because we must own, that it was so in fact in Adam,
when first created, and also in the man Christ Jesus; though the faculties of
the latter were such as grew by culture and improvement, so that he increased in
wisdom as he grew in stature.
Evasion V.
Seeing men in this world are in a state of trial, it is fit that their virtue
should meet with trials, and consequently that it should have opposition and
temptation to overcome; not only from without, but from within, in the animal
passions and appetites; that by the conflict and victory our virtue may be
refined and established [Belsham]. Agreeably to this Dr. T (p. 253) says,
“Without a right use and application of our powers, were they naturally ever
so perfect, we could not be judged fit to enter into the kingdom of God. —
This gives a good reason why we are now in a state of trial and temptation, viz.
to prove and discipline our minds, to season our virtue, and to fit us for
the kingdom of God; for which, in the judgment of infinite wisdom, we cannot be
qualified, but by overcoming our present temptations.” And, (p. 78, S.) “We
are upon trial, and it is the will of our Father that our constitution should be
attended with various passions and appetites, as well as our outward condition
with various temptations.” He says the like in several other places. To the
same purpose very often Dr. Turnbull, particularly Chris. Phil. p. 310.
“What merit (he says) except from combat? What virtue without the encounter of
such enemies, such temptations, as arise both from within and from abroad? To be
virtuous, is to prefer the pleasures of virtue to those which come into
competition with it, and vice holds forth to tempt us; and to dare to adhere to
truth and goodness, whatever pains and hardships it may cost. There must
therefore, in order to the formation and trial, in order to the very being of
virtue, be pleasures of a certain kind to make temptations to vice.”
In reply to these
things I would say, either the state of temptation, which is supposed to be
ordered for men’s trial, amounts on the whole to a prevailing tendency to that
state of general wickedness and ruin, which has been proved to take place, or it
does not. If it does not amount to a tendency to such an effect, then how does
it account for it? When it is inquired, by what cause such an effect should come
to pass, is it not absurd to allege a cause, which is owned at the same time to
have no tendency to such an effect? Which is as much as to confess, that it will
not account for it. I think it has been demonstrated, that this effect must be
owing to some prevailing tendency. — But if the other part of the dilemma be
taken, and it be said, that this state of things does imply a prevailing
tendency to that effect, which has been proved, viz. that all mankind,
without one exception, sin against God, to their own deserved eternal ruin —
and not only so, but sin thus immediately, as soon as capable of it, and
continually, have more sin than virtue, and have guilt that infinitely outweighs
the value of all the goodness any ever have, and that the generality of the
world in all ages are extremely stupid and foolish, of a wicked character, and
actually perish forever — then I say, if the state of temptation implies a
natural tendency to such an effect as this, it is a very evil, corrupt, and
dreadful state of things, as has been already largely shown.
Besides, such a
state has a tendency to defeat its own supposed end, which is to refine, ripen,
and perfect virtue, and so to fit men for the greater eternal happiness and
glory: whereas, the effect it tends to, is the reverse of this, viz. general,
eternal infamy and ruin, in all generations. It is supposed, that men’s virtue
must have passions and appetites to struggle with, in order to have the glory
and reward of victory: but the consequence is, a prevailing, continual, and
generally effectual tendency — not to men’s victory over evil appetites
and passions, and the glorious reward of that victory, but — to the
victory of evil appetites and lusts over men, utterly and eternally
destroying them. If a trial of virtue be requisite, yet the question is, Whence
comes so general a failing in the trial, if there be no depravity of nature? If
conflict and war be necessary, whence the necessity that there should be more
cowards than good soldiers? and whence is it necessary that the whole world as
it were should lie in wickedness, and die in cowardice?
Next > Part I: Chapter II
Index < Content