PART II
CONTAINING OBSERVATIONS ON PARTICULAR PARTS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE, WHICH PROVE THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN.
CHAPTER III
OBSERVATIONS
ON VARIOUS OTHER PLACES OF SCRIPTURE, PRINCIPALLY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, PROVING THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN
SECTION I
Observations on John 3:6 in
connection with some other passages in the New Testament.
THOSE
words of Christ, giving a reason to Nicodemus, why we must be born again,
John 3:6, “That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which is
born of the Spirit is spirit,” have not without good reason been produced by
divines, as a proof of the doctrine
of original sin: supposing, that by flesh here is meant the human
nature in a debased and corrupt
state. Yet Dr. T. (p. 144) thus explains these words, that which is
born of the flesh, is flesh; “that which is born by natural descent
and propagation, is a man consisting of body and soul, or the mere constitution and
powers of a man in their natural
state.” But the constant use of these terms, flesh and spirit, in
other parts of the New Testament,
when thus set in opposition, and the latter said to be produced by the
Spirit of God, as here — and when expressive of the same thing, which
Christ is here speaking of to
Nicodemus, viz. the requisite qualifications to salvation — will fully
vindicate the sense, of our divines. Thus in the 7th and 8th chapters of
Romans, where these terms flesh
and spirit (óáñî
and ðíåõìá)
are abundantly repeated, and set in opposition,
as here. So Rom. 7:14. The law is (ðíåõìáôéêïò)
spiritual, but I am (óáñêéêïò)
carnal, sold under sin. He cannot only mean, “I am a man consisting
of body and soul, and having the
powers of a man.” Verse 18, “I know that in me, that is, in my
flesh, dwelleth no good thing.” He does not mean to condemn his
frame, as consisting of body and
soul; and to assert, that in his human constitution, with the powers of a
man, dwells no good thing. And
when he says in the last verse of the chapter, “With the mind, I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the
law of sin;” he cannot mean, “I myself
serve the law of God; but with my innocent human constitution, as having
the powers of a man, I serve
the law of sin.” And when he says in the next words, the beginning of the 8th chapter, “there is no condemnation to
them, — that walk not after the flesh,
but after the spirit;” and verse 4, “The righteousness of the law is
fulfilled in us, who walk not after
the flesh;” he cannot mean, “there is no condemnation to them that walk not according to the powers of a man,”
etc. And when he says (Rom. 8:5, 6), “They
that are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh; and to
be carnally minded is
death;” he does not intend, “they that are according to the human
constitution, and the powers of a
man, do mind the things of the human constitution and powers; and to
mind these is death.” And when he says, Rom. 8:7 and 8, “The
carnal (or fleshly) mind is enmity
against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be: so
that they that are in the flesh,
cannot please God;” he cannot mean, that to mind the things which are agreeable to “the powers and constitution of a
man,” who as our author says, is
constituted or made right, is enmity against God; and that a mind which is
agreeable to this right human
constitution, as God hath made it, is not subject to the law of God, nor
indeed can be; and that they who are according to such a constitution,
cannot please God. And when it is said, verse 9, “Ye are not in the
flesh, but in the spirit;” the apostle cannot
mean, “ye are not in the human nature, as constituted of body and soul, and
with the powers of a man.” It
is most manifest, that by the flesh here the apostle means a
nature that is corrupt, of an evil tendency, and directly opposite
to the law and holy nature of God; so that to walk according to it, and to have a
mind so conformed, is to be an
utter enemy to God and his law; in a state of perfect inconsistency with
subjection to God, and of being
pleasing to him; and in a sure and infallible tendency to death, and
utter destruction. And it is plain, that here by walking after, or
according to, the flesh, is meant
the same thing as walking according to a corrupt and sinful nature; and to walk
according to the spirit, is to walk according to a holy and divine
nature, or principle: and to be carnally
minded, is the same as being viciously and corruptly minded; and to be spiritually minded, is to be of a virtuous and holy
disposition.
When Christ says,
John 3:6, “That which is born of the flesh, is flesh,” he
represents the flesh not
merely as a quality; for it would be incongruous to speak of a quality as a
thing born. Therefore man, as in his whole nature corrupt, is called flesh;
which is agreeable to other scripture representations, where the
corrupt nature is called the old man,
the body of sin, and the body of death. Agreeable to this are
those representations in the 7th
and 8th chapters of Romans. There, flesh is figuratively represented as a
person, according to the
apostle’s manner. This is observed by Mr. Locke, and after him by Dr.
T. who takes notice, that the apostle, in the 6th and 7th of Romans,
represents sin as a person; and
that he figuratively distinguishes in himself two persons, speaking of flesh as
his person. For I know that in ME, that is, in my FLESH, dwelleth
no good thing. And it may be
observed, that in the 8th chapter he still continues this representation,
speaking of the flesh as a
person. Accordingly, in the 6th and 7th verses, he speaks of the mind of
the flesh (öñïíçìáñêïò)
and of the mind of the spirit (ðíåõìáôïò)
as if the flesh and spirit were
two opposite persons, each having a mind contrary to that of the other. Dr. T.
interprets this mind of the flesh, and mind of the spirit, as
though the flesh and the spirit were
the different objects, about which the mind is conversant. But this is
plainly beside the apostle’s
meaning; who speaks of the flesh and spirit as the subjects in which the
mind is; and in a sense the agents, but not the objects, about
which it acts. We have the same phrase again. Rom. 8:27, “He that searcheth the
hearts, knoweth what is the mind of
the spirit” (öñïíçìá
ðíåìáôïò). The mind of
the spiritual nature in the saints is the same
with the mind of the Spirit of God himself, who imparts and actuates that
spiritual nature; and here the
spirit is the subject and agent; but not the object. The same apostle,
in a similar manner, uses the word (íïïò)
mind. Col. 2:18, “Vainly puffed up by his fleshly
mind (õðï
ôïõ íïïò ôçò óáñêïò áõôïõ)
by the mind of his flesh.” And this agent so often
called flesh, represented by the apostle as altogether evil,
without any good thing dwelling in
it, or belonging to it — yea perfectly contrary to God and his law, and
tending only to death and ruin, and directly opposite to the spirit —
is what Christ speaks of to
Nicodemus as born in the first birth, and furnishing a reason why there is a
necessity of a new birth, in order to a better production.
One thing is
particularly observable in that discourse of the apostle — in which he
so often uses the term flesh, as opposite to spirit —
that he expressly calls it sinful flesh,
Rom. 8:3. It is manifest, that by sinful flesh he means the same
thing with that flesh spoken of in all the context: and that when it is said,
Christ was made in the likeness of sinful
flesh, the expression is equipollent with those that speak of Christ as made
sin, and made a curse for
us.
Flesh and
spirit are opposed to one another in Gal. 5 in the same manner as in the
8th of Romans. And there, assuredly, by flesh cannot be meant only
the human nature of body and
soul, or the mere constitution and powers of a man, as in its natural
state, innocent and right. In Gal.
5:16 the apostle says, “Walk in the spirit, and ye shall not
fulfil the lusts of the flesh:” the flesh, is something
of an evil inclination, desire, or lust. But
this is more strongly signified in the next words; “For the flesh lusteth
against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh;
and these are contrary the one to the other.” What
could have been said more plainly, to show that what the apostle means by
flesh, is something very
evil in its nature, and an irreconcilable enemy to all goodness? And it
may be observed, that in these words, and those that follow, the apostle
still figuratively represents the flesh as a person or agent, desiring,
acting, having lusts, and performing works.
And by works of the flesh, and fruits of the spirit, which are
opposed to each other (from Gal.
5:19, to the end), are plainly meant the same as works of a sinful nature,
and fruits of a holy renewed nature. “Now the works of the flesh
are manifest, which are these:
adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft,
hatred, variance, wrath, strife,
seditions, heresies,” etc. “But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy,
peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, “ etc. The apostle, by flesh,
does not mean anything that is
innocent and good in itself, which only needs to be restrained, and kept
in proper bounds; but something altogether evil, which is to be
destroyed. 1 Cor. 5:5, “To
deliver such an one to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh.” We
must have no mercy on it; we
cannot be too cruel to it; it must even be crucified. Gal. 5:24,
“They that are Christ’s, have crucified
the flesh with the affections and lusts.”
The apostle John
— the same apostle that writes the account of what Christ said to
Nicodemus — by the spirit means the same thing as a new, divine,
and holy nature, exerting itself in
a principle of divine love, which is the sum of all Christian holiness. 1
John 3:23, 24, “And that we should love one another, as he gave us
commandment; and he that keepeth
his commandments, dwelleth in him and he in him: and hereby we know
that he abideth in us, by the spirit that he hath given us. Chap.
4:12, 13, “If we love one another,
God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us: hereby know we, that we
dwell in him, because he hath given us of his Spirit.” The
spiritual principle in us being as
it were a communication of the Spirit of God to us.
And as by (ðíåõìá)
spirit, is meant a holy nature, so by the epithet (ðíåõìôéêïò)
spiritual, is meant the same as truly virtuous and holy. Gal. 6:1,
“Ye that are spiritual, restore
such an one in the spirit of meekness.” The apostle refers to what he had just
said at the end of the foregoing
chapter, where he had mentioned meekness as a fruit of the
spirit. And so by carnal, or fleshly (óáñêéêïò)
is meant the same as sinful. Rom. 7:14, “The
law is spiritual (i.e. holy), but I am carnal, sold under sin.”
And it is evident,
that by flesh, as the word is used in the New Testament, and
opposed to spirit, when speaking of the qualifications for eternal
salvation, is meant — not only what is now vulgarly called the sins of the
flesh, consisting in inordinate appetites
of the body, and their indulgence; but — the whole body of sin, implying those
lusts that are most subtle, and farthest from any relation to the body;
such as pride, malice, envy, etc.
When the works of the flesh are enumerated, Gal. 5:19-21, they are vices of the latter kind chiefly that are mentioned;
“idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance,
emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings.” So, pride of
heart is the effect or operation of
the flesh. Col. 2:18, “Vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind:” in the
Greek (as before observed), by
the mind of the flesh. So, pride, envying, and strife, and division,
are spoken of as works of the flesh, 1 Cor. 3:3, 4, “For ye
are yet carnal (óáñêéêïé,
fleshly). For whereas there is envying, and strife, and division,
are ye not carnal, and walk
as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are ye
not carnal?” Such kind of lusts
do not depend on the body, or external senses; for the devil
himself has them in the highest degree, who has not, nor ever had,
anybody or external senses to
gratify.
Here, if it should
be inquired, how corruption or depravity in general, or the nature
of man as corrupt and sinful, came to be called flesh, and not
only that corruption which consists
in inordinate bodily appetites? I think, what the apostle says in the last cited
place, “Are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” leads us to the
true reason. It is because a corrupt
and sinful nature is what properly belongs to mankind, or the race of
Adam, as they are in themselves,
and as they are by nature. the word flesh is often used in both
the Old and the New Testament to
signify mankind in their present state. To enumerate all
the places, would be very tedious; I shall therefore only mention a few
in the New Testament. Mat. 24:22,
“Except those days should be shortened, no flesh should be
saved.” Luke 3:6, “All flesh shall see the salvation of
God.” John 17:2, “Thou hast given him
power over all flesh.” [See also Acts 2:17; Rom 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal.
2:16.] Man’s nature, being left to itself, forsaken of the Spirit
of God, as it was when man fell, and consequently
forsaken of divine and holy principles, of itself became exceeding
corrupt, utterly depraved and
ruined: and so the word flesh, which signifies man, came to be
used to signify man as he is in
himself, in his natural state, debased, corrupt, and ruined. On
the other hand, the word spirit came to be used to signify a
divine and holy principle, or new nature: because that is not of man, but of God,
by the indwelling and vital influence of
his Spirit. And thus to be corrupt, and to be carnal, or fleshly,
and to walk as men, are the
same thing. And so in other parts of Scripture, to savor the things that be
of man, and to savor things
which are corrupt, are the same; and, sons of men, and wicked men,
also are the same, as observed
before. And on the other hand, to savor the things that be of
God, and to receive the things of the Spirit of God, are
phrases that signify as much as relishing
and embracing true holiness or divine virtue.
All these things
confirm what we have supposed to be Christ’s meaning in saying,
“That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of
the Spirit, is spirit.” His speech implies, that what is born in the first birth of
man, is nothing but man as he is of
himself, without anything divine in him; depraved, debased, sinful, ruined
man, utterly unfit to enter into
the kingdom of God, and incapable of the spiritual divine happiness of
that kingdom. But that which is born, in the new birth, of the Spirit of
God, is a spiritual principle, a holy and divine nature, meet for the heavenly
kingdom. It is no small confirmation
of this being the true meaning, that the words understood in this sense,
contain the proper and true reason, why a man must be born again, in
order to enter into the kingdom of
God; the reason given everywhere in other parts of Scripture for the
necessity of a renovation, a change of mind, a new heart, etc. in order
to salvation: to give a reason of
which to Nicodemus, is plainly Christ’s design in the words which have been insisted on. — Before I proceed, I would observe one
thing as a corollary from what has
been said.
Corol.
If by flesh and spirit, when spoken of in the New Testament, and opposed to
each other, in discourses on the necessary qualifications for salvation,
we are to understand what has been
now supposed, it will not only follow, that men by nature are
corrupt, but wholly corrupt, without any good thing. If by flesh
is meant man’s nature, as he receives it in his first birth, then therein dwelleth
no good thing; as appears by Rom 7:18.
It is wholly opposite to God, and to subjection to his law, as appears by Rom.
8:7, 8. It is directly contrary to
true holiness, and wholly opposes it, as appears by Gal. 5:17.
So long as men are in their natural state, they not only have no good
thing, but it is impossible they
should have or do any good thing; as appears by Rom. 8:8. There is
nothing in their nature, as they have it by the first birth, whence
should arise any true subjection of
God; as appears by Rom. 8:7. If there were anything truly good in the flesh,
or in man’s nature, or natural disposition, under a moral view,
then it should only be amended; but
the Scripture represents as though we were to be enemies to it, and were to seek nothing short of its entire destruction, as before
observed. And elsewhere the apostle
directs not to the amending of the old man, but putting it off,
and putting on the new man;
and seeks not to have the body of death made better, but to be delivered
from it; and says, “that if any
man be in Christ, he is a new creature (which doubtless means
the same as a man new born), old things are (not amended, but)
passed away, and all things
are become new.”
But
this will be further evident, if we particularly consider the apostle’s
discourse in 1 Cor. the latter part of the second chapter and the beginning
of the third. There the apostle speaks
of the natural man, and the spiritual man; where natural and
spiritual are opposed just
in the same manner as carnal and spiritual often are. In 1 Cor.
2:14, 15, he says, “the natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they
are spiritually discerned. But he
that is spiritual, judgeth all things.” And not only does the apostle here
oppose natural and spiritual,
just as he elsewhere does carnal and spiritual, but his following
discourse evidently shows, that he means the very same distinction, the
same two distinct and opposite
things. For immediately on his thus speaking of the difference
between the natural and the spiritual man, he says, “And
I, brethren, could not speak unto
you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal.” Referring manifestly
to what he had been saying, in the
immediately preceding discourse, about spiritual and natural men,
and evidently using the word, carnal,
as synonymous with natural. By which it is put out of
all reasonable dispute, that the apostle by natural men means the
same as men in that carnal,
sinful state, that they are in by their first birth; — notwithstanding all the
glosses and criticisms, by which
modern writers have endeavored to palm upon us another sense of this phrase; and so to deprive us of the clear instruction
the apostle gives in that 14th verse,
concerning the sinful miserable state of man by nature. Dr. T. says, by øõ÷éêï,
is meant the animal man, the man who maketh sense and appetite the
law of his action. If he aims to
limit the meaning of the word to external sense, and bodily appetite, his
meaning is certainly not the apostle’s. For the apostle in his sense
includes the more spiritual vices
of envy, strife, etc. as appears by the four first verses of the next chapter;
where, as I have observed, he substitutes the word carnal in the
place of øõ÷éêïò.
So the apostle Jude used the word
in like manner, opposing it to spiritual, or having the
Spirit, Jude 19, “These are they that separate themselves, sensual
(øõ÷éêïé),
not having the Spirit.” The vices he had been just speaking of,
were chiefly of the more spiritual kind,
Jude 16, “These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and
their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in
admiration, because of advantage.” The vices mentioned are much of the same
kind with those of the Corinthians,
for which he calls them carnal; envy, strife, divisions, saying, I am
of Paul, and I of Apollos; and
being puffed up for one against another. We have the same word
again, Jam. 3:14, 15, “If ye have bitter envying and strife, glory not,
and lie not against the truth: this wisdom descendeth not from above, but is
earthly, sensual (øõ÷éêç)
and devilish;” where also the
vices the apostle speaks of are of the more spiritual kind.
So that on the
whole, there is sufficient reason to understand the apostle, when he
speaks of the natural man, in 1 Cor. 2:14. as meaning man in his
native corrupt state. And his words represent him as totally corrupt, wholly a
stranger and enemy to true virtue
or holiness, and things appertaining to it, which it appears are commonly
intended in the New Testament by
things spiritual, and are doubtless here meant by things of the Spirit of God. These words also represent, that it is
impossible man should be otherwise, while
in his natural state. The expressions are very strong: The natural man
receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God, is not susceptible of things of that kind, neither can he
know them, can have no true sense or relish of them, or notion of
their real nature and true
excellency; because they are spiritually discerned; they are not
discerned by means of any principle
in nature, but altogether by a principle that is divine, something
introduced by the grace of God’s Holy Spirit, which is above all that
is natural. The words are in a
considerable degree parallel with those of our Savior, John 14:16, 17, “He
shall give you the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive,
because it seeth him not, neither
knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in
you.”
SECTION II
Observations on Romans 3:9-24
IF
the Scriptures represents all mankind as wicked in their first state, before
they are made partakers of the benefits of Christ’s redemption, then they are
wicked by nature: for doubtless men’s first state is their native
state, or that in which they come into the world. But the Scriptures do thus
represent all mankind.
Before I mention
particular texts to this purpose, I would observe, that it alters not the case,
as to the argument in hand, whether we suppose these texts speak directly of
infants, or only of such as understand something of their duty and state. For if
all mankind, as soon as ever they are capable of reflecting, and knowing their
own moral state, find themselves wicked, this proves that they are wicked by
nature; either born so, or born with an infallible disposition to be wicked
as soon as possible, if there by any difference between these; and either of
them will prove men to be born exceedingly depraved. I have before
proved, that a native propensity to sin certainly follows from many things said
of mankind in the Scripture; but what I intend now, is to prove by direct
scripture testimony, that all mankind, in their first state, are really of a
wicked character.
To this purpose,
exceeding full, express, and abundant is that passage of the apostle, in Rom.
3:9-24, which I shall set down at large, distinguishing the universal terms
which are here so often repeated, by a distinct character. The apostle having in
the first chapter (Rom. 1:16, 17) laid down his proposition, that none can be
saved in any other way than through the righteousness of God, by faith in Jesus
Christ, he proceeds to prove this point, by showing particularly that all are in
themselves wicked, and without any righteousness of their own. First, he insists
on the wickedness of the Gentiles, in the first chapter; next, on the wickedness
of the Jews, in the second chapter. And then, in this place, he comes to sum up
the matter, and draw the conclusion in the words following: “What then, are we
better than they? No, in no wise; for we have before proved both Jews and
Gentiles, that they are ALL under the sin: as it is written, there is NONE
righteous, NO, NOT ONE; there is NONE that understandeth; there is NONE that
seeketh after God; they are ALL gone out of the way; they are TOGETHER become
unprofitable; there is NONE that doeth good, NO, NOT ONE. Their throat is an
open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is
under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are
swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of
peace they have not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we
know, that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the
law, that EVERY mouth may be stopped, and ALL THE WORLD may 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. But now the righteousness of God
without the law, is manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even
the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto ALL, and upon
ALL them that believe; for there is NO DIFFERENCE. For ALL have sinned, and come
short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace, through the
redemption which is in Jesus Christ.”
Here the thing
which I would prove, viz. that mankind in their first state, before they
are interested in the benefits of Christ’s redemption, are universally wicked,
is declared with the utmost possible fullness and precision. So that if here
this matter be not set forth plainly, expressly, and fully, it must be because
no words can do it, and it is not in the power of language, or any manner of
terms and phrases, however contrived and heaped up one upon another,
determinately to signify any such thing.
Dr. T. to take off
the force of the whole, would have us to understand (p. 104-107) that these
passages quoted from the Psalms, and other parts of the Old Testament, do not
speak of all mankind, nor of all the Jews; but only of them of whom they were
true. He observes, there were many that were innocent and righteous; though
there were also many, a strong party, that were wicked, corrupt, etc. of whom
these texts were to be understood. Concerning which I would observe the
following things:
1. According to
this, the universality of the terms in these places, which the apostle
cites from the Old Testament, to prove that all the world, both Jews and
Gentiles, are under sin, is nothing to his purpose. The apostle uses
universal terms in his proposition, and in his conclusion, that ALL are under
sin, that EVERY MOUTH is stopped, ALL THE WORLD guilty, — that by the deeds of
the law NO FLESH can be justified. And he chooses out a number of universal
sayings or clauses out of the Old Testament, to confirm this universality; as, There
is none righteous; no, not one: they are all gone out of the way; there is none
that understandeth, etc. But yet the universal terms found in them have no
reference to any such universality, either in the collective, or personal sense;
no universality of the nations of the world, or of particular persons in those
nations, or in any one nation in the world: “but only of those of whom they
are true!” That is, there is none of them righteous, of whom it is true,
that they are not righteous: no, not one; there is none that understand, of
whom it is true, that they understand not: they are all gone
out of the way, of whom it is true, that they are gone out of the
way, etc. Or these expressions are to be understood concerning that strong party
in Israel, in David and Solomon’s days, and in the prophets’ days; they are
to be understood of them universally. And what is that to the apostle’s
purpose? How does such an universality of wickedness — that all were
wicked in Israel, who were wicked; or, that there was a particular evil party,
all of which were wicked — confirm that universality which the apostle would
prove, viz. That all Jews and Gentiles, and the whole world, were
wicked, and every mouth stopped, and that no flesh could be
justified by their own righteousness.
Here nothing can be
said to abate the nonsense, but this, that the apostle would convince the Jews,
that they were capable of being wicked, as well as other nations;
and to prove it, he mentions some texts,
which show that there was wicked party in Israel a thousand years ago. And as to
the universal terms which happened to be in these texts, the apostle had no
respect to them; but his reciting them is as it were accidental, they happened
to be in some texts which speak of an evil party in Israel, and the apostle
cites them as they are, not because they are any more to his purpose for the
universal terms, which happen to be in them. But let the reader look on the
words of the apostle, and observe the violence of such a supposition.
Particularly let the words of the 9th and 10th verses, and their connection, be
observed. All are under sin: as it is written, There is none righteous; no,
not one. How plain it is, that the apostle cites that latter universal
clause out of the 14th Psalm, to confound the preceding universal words of his
own proposition! And yet it will follow from what Dr. T. supposes, that the
universality of the terms in the last words, there is none righteous; no, not
one, hath no relation at all to that universality he speaks of in the
preceding clause, to which they are joined, all are under sin: and is no
more a confirmation of it, than if the words were thus, “There are some
or there are many in Israel, that are not righteous.”
2. To suppose, the
apostle’s design in citing these passages, was only to prove to the Jews, that
of old there was a considerable number of their nation that were wicked men, is
to suppose him to have gone about to prove what none of the Jews denied, or made
the least doubt of, even the Pharisees, the most self-righteous sect of them,
who went furthest in glorying in the distinction of their nation from other
nations, as a holy people, knew it, and owned it; they openly confessed that
their forefathers killed the prophets, Mat. 23:29-31. And if the
apostle’s design had been only to refresh their memories, to put them in mind
of the ancient wickedness of their nation, to lead to reflection on themselves
as guilty of the like wickedness, as Stephen does (Acts 7) what need had he to
go so far about to prove this — gathering up many sentences here and there
which prove, that their scriptures speak of some as wicked men — and
then to prove, that the wicked men spoken of must be Jews, by this argument,
that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the
law, or that whatsoever the books of the Old Testament said, it must be
understood of that people who had the Old Testament? What need had the apostle
of such an ambages as this, to prove to the Jews, that there had been many of
their nation in past ages, which were wicked men; when the Old Testament was
full of passages that asserted this expressly, not only of a strong
party, but of the nation in general? How much more would it have been to such a
purpose, to have put them in mind of the wickedness of the people in general in
worshipping the golden calf; of the unbelief, murmuring, and perverseness of the
whole congregation in the wilderness, for forty years, as Stephen does! Which
things he had no need to prove to be spoken of their nation, by any such
indirect argument as this, Whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them
that are under the law.
3. It would have been
impertinent to the apostle’s purpose, even as our author understands his
purpose, for him to have gone about to convince the Jews, that there had
been a strong party of bad men in the time of David and Solomon, and the
prophets, For Dr. T. supposes, that apostle’s aim is to prove the great
corruption of both Jews and Gentiles when Christ came into the world. (See Key,
§ 307, 310.)
In order the more fully to
evade the clear and abundant testimonies to the doctrine of original sin,
contained in this part of the Holy Scripture, our author says, the apostle is
here speaking of bodies of people, of Jews and Gentiles in a collective
sense, as two great bodies into which mankind are divided; speaking of them
in their collective capacity, and not with respect to particular persons; that
the apostle’s design is to prove, that neither of these two great bodies, in
their collective sense, can be justified by law, because both were corrupt; and
so that no more is implied, than that the generality of both were wicked.
(Page 102, 104, 117, 119, 120. and note on Rom. 3:10-19.) On this I observe,
(1.) That this supposed
sense disagrees extremely with the
terms and language which the apostle here makes use of. For according to
this, we must understand, either.
First,
that the apostle means no universality at all, but only the far greater
part. But if the words which the apostle uses, do not most fully and
determinately signify an universality, no words ever used in the Bible are
sufficient to do it. I might challenge any man to produce any one paragraph in
the Scripture, from the beginning to the end, where there is such a repetition
and accumulation of terms, so strongly, and emphatically, and carefully, to
express the most perfect and absolute universality; or any place to be compared
to it. What instance is there in the Scripture, or indeed in any other writing,
when the meaning is only the much greater part, where this meaning is
signified in such a manner, They are all, — They are all, — They
are all — together, — everyone, — all the world;
joined to multiplied negative terms, to show the universality to be without
exception; saying, There is no flesh, — there is none, — there
is none, — there is none, — there is none, four times over;
besides the addition of No, not one, — no, not one, — once and
again! or,
Secondly,
if any universality at all be allowed, it is only of the collective bodies
spoken of: and these collective bodies but two, as Dr. T. reckons them, viz. the
Jewish nation, and the Gentile world; supposing the apostle is
here representing each of these parts of mankind as being wicked. But is this
the way of men using language, when speaking of but two things, to
express themselves in such universal terms, when they mean no more than
that the thing affirmed is predicated of both of them? If a man speaking
of his two feet as both lame, should say, All my feet are lame —
They are all lame — All together are become weak — None of
my feet are strong — None of them are sound — No, not one;
would not he be thought to be lame in his understanding, as well as his feet?
When the apostle says, That every mouth may be stopped, must we suppose,
that he speaks only of these two great collective bodies, figuratively ascribing
to each of them a mouth, and means that these two mouths are stopped? Besides,
according to our author’s own interpretation, the universal terms used in
these texts, cited from the Old Testament, have no respect to those two great
collective bodies, nor indeed to either of them; but to some in Israel, a
particular disaffected party in that one nation, which was made up of wicked
men. So that his interpretation is every way absurd and inconsistent.
(2.) If the apostle is
speaking only of the wickedness or guilt of great collective bodies, then it
will follow, that also the justification he here treats of, is no other
than the justification of such collective bodies. For, they are the same
of whom he speaks as guilty and wicked, and who cannot be justified by
the works of the law, by reason of their being wicked. Otherwise his
argument is wholly disannulled. If the guilt he speaks of be only of collective
bodies, then what he argues from that guilt, must be only, that collective
bodies cannot be justified by the works of the law, having no respect to the
justification of particular persons. And indeed this is Dr. T.’s declared
opinion. He supposes the apostle here, and in other parts of this epistle, is
speaking of men’s justification considered only as in their collective
capacity (See note on Rom. 3:10-19; chap. 5:11, and chap. 9:30, 31). But the
contrary is most manifest. The 26th and 28th verses of this third chapter,
cannot, without the utmost violence, be understood otherwise than of the
justification of particular persons. “That he might be just, and the justifier
of him that believeth in Jesus. — Therefore we conclude that a man
is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law.” So in Rom. 4:5, “But
to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” And what the apostle
cites in the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses from the book of Psalms, evidently shows,
that he is speaking of the justification of particular persons. “Even as David
also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth
righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are
forgiven, and whose sins are covered.” David says these things in the 32d
Psalm, with a special respect to his own particular case; there expressing the
great distress he was in,
while under a sense of personal sin and guilt, and the great joy he had when God
forgave him.
And what can be plainer,
that in the paragraph we have been upon (Rom. 3:20) it is the justification of particular
persons of which the apostle speaks. “Therefore by the deeds of the law,
there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” He refers to Psa. 143:2,
“Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man
living be justified.” Here the psalmist is not speaking of the
justification of a nation, as a collective body, or of one of the two parts of
the world, but of a particular man. And it is further manifest, that the apostle
is here speaking of personal justification, inasmuch as this place is evidently
parallel with Gal. 3:10, 11, “For as many as are of the works of the law, are
under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth
not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no
man is justified by the works of the law, is evident; for, The just shall
live by faith.” It is plain, that this place is parallel with that in the 3d
of Romans, not only as the thing asserted is the same, and the argument by which
it is proved — that all are guilty, and exposed to condemnation by the law.
— But the same saying of the Old Testament is cited (Gal. 2:16). Many other
things demonstrate, that the apostle is speaking of the same justification in
both places, which I omit for brevity’s sake.
And besides all these
things, our author’s interpretation makes the apostle’s argument wholly void
another way. The apostle is speaking of a certain subject which cannot be
justified by the works of the law; and his argument is, that the same subject is
guilty, and is condemned by the law. If he means, that one subject, suppose a
collective body or bodies, cannot be justified by the law, because another
subject, another collective body, is condemned by the law, it is plain, the
argument would be quite vain and impertinent. Yet thus the argument must stand
according to Dr. T.’s interpretation. The collective bodies which he supposes
are spoken of as wicked, and condemned by the law, considered as in their
collective capacity, are those two, the Jewish nation, and the heathen
world: but the collective body which he supposes the apostle speaks of as
justified without the deeds of the law, is neither of these, but the Christian
church, or body of believers; which is a new collective body, a new creature,
and a new man (according to our author’s understanding of such phrases), which
never had any existence before it was justified, and therefore never was wicked
or condemned, unless it was with regard to the individuals of which it
was constituted; and it does not appear, according to our author’s scheme,
that these individuals, had before been generally wicked. For according to him,
there was a number both among the Jews and Gentiles, that were righteous before.
And how does it appear, but that the comparatively few Jews and Gentiles, of
which this new-created collective body was constituted, were chiefly of the best
of each?
So that in every view, this
author’s way of explaining the passage appears vain and absurd. And so clearly
and fully has the apostle expressed himself, that it is doubtless impossible to
invent any other sense to put upon his words, than that which will imply, that
all mankind, even every individual of the whole race, but their Redeemer
himself, are in their first original state corrupt and wicked.
Before I leave this passage (Rom. 3:9-24) it may be proper to observe, that it not only is a most clear and full testimony to the native depravity of mankind, but also plainly declares that natural depravity to be total and exceeding great. It is the apostle’s manifest design in these citations from the Old Testament, to show these three things. 1. That all mankind are by nature corrupt. 2. That everyone is altogether corrupt, and, as it were, depraved in every part. 3. That they are in every part corrupt in an exceeding degree. With respect to the second of these, it is plain the apostle puts together those particular passages of the Old Testament, herein most of those members of the body are mentioned, that are the soul’s chief instruments or organs of external action. The hands (implicitly) in those expressions, “They are together become unprofitable, There is none that doth good.” The throat, tongue, lips, and mouth, the organs of speech, in those words; “Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.” The feet in those words, verse 15, “Their feet are swift to shed blood.” These things together signify, that man is as it were all over corrupt in every part. And not only is the total corruption thus intimated, by enumerating the several parts, but also by denying all good; any true understanding or spiritual knowledge, any seeking after God. “There is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God; there is none that doth good; the way of peace have they not known.” And in general, by denying all true piety or religion in men in their first state, verse 18, “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” — The expressions also are evidently chosen to denote a most extreme and desperate wickedness of heart. An exceeding depravity is ascribed to every part: to the throat, the scent of an open sepulcher; to the tongue and lips, deceit, and the poison of asps; to the mouth, cursing and bitterness; of their feet it is said, they are swift to shed blood: and with regard to the whole man, it is said, destruction and misery are in their ways. The representation is very strong of each of these things, viz. That all mankind are corrupt; that everyone is wholly and altogether corrupt; and also extremely and desperately corrupt. And it is plain, it is not accidental, that we have here such a collection of such strong expressions, so emphatically signifying these things; but that they are chosen of the apostle on design, as being directly and fully to his purpose; which purpose appears in all his discourse in the whole of this chapter, and indeed from the beginning of the epistle.
SECTION III
Observations on Rom. 5:6-10
and Eph. 2:3 with the context, and Rom. 7
ANOTHER
passage of this apostle, which shows that all who are made partakers of
the benefits of Christ’s redemption, are in their first state wicked,
desperately wicked, is Rom. 5:6-10, “For when we were yet without strength,
in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for a good man
some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love towards us, in
that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then,
being now justified by his blood, we
shall be saved from wrath through him. For if while we were enemies
we were reconciled to God through
the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall
be saved by his life.” — Here all for whom Christ died, and who are
saved by him, are spoken of as
being in their first state sinners, ungodly, enemies to God, exposed to
divine wrath, and without
strength, without ability to help themselves, or deliver their souls
from this miserable state.
Dr. T. says, the
apostle here speaks of the Gentiles only in their heathen state, in
contradistinction to the Jews; and that not of particular persons
among the heathen Gentiles, or as to the state they were in personally; but
only of the Gentiles collectively taken,
or of the miserable state of that great collective body, the heathen world:
and that these appellation, sinners,
ungodly, enemies, etc. were names by which the apostles in
their writings were wont to dignify and distinguish the heathen world, in
opposition to the Jews; and that in this sense these appellations
are to be taken in their epistles, and in this
place in particular [Page 114-120. See also Dr. T.’s Paraph. and notes on the
place.]. And it is observable, that
this way of interpreting these phrases in the apostolic writings
is become fashionable with many late writers; whereby they not only evade
several clear testimonies to the doctrine of original sin, but make void
great part of the New Testament; on
which account it deserves the more particular consideration.
It is allowed to
have been long common and customary among the Jews, especially
the sect of the Pharisees, in their pride, and confidence in their
privileges as the peculiar people of God, to exalt themselves exceedingly above other
nations, and greatly to despise the
Gentiles, calling them by such names as sinners, enemies, dogs, etc.
Themselves they accounted, in general (excepting the publicans,
and the notoriously profligate), as the friends, the special favorites and
children, of God; because they were
the children of Abraham, were circumcised, and had the law of Moses, as
their peculiar privilege, and as a
wall of partition between them and the Gentiles.
But it is very
remarkable, that a Christian divine, who has studied the New
Testament, and the epistle to the Romans in particular, so diligently as
Dr. T. has done, should so strongly
imagine that the apostles of Jesus Christ countenance and cherish
these self-exalting, uncharitable dispositions and notions of the Jews
which gave rise to such a custom,
so far as to fall in with that custom, and adopt that language of their pride and contempt; and especially that the apostle Paul should do
it. It is a most unreasonable imagination
on many accounts.
1. The whole gospel
dispensation is calculated entirely to overthrow and abolish
everything to which this self-distinguishing, self-exalting language of
the Jews was owing. It was
calculated wholly to exclude such boasting, and to destroy the pride and
self-righteousness which were the causes of it. It was calculated to
abolish the enmity, and break down
the partition-wall between Jews and Gentiles, and of twain, to make
one new man, so making peace:
to destroy all dispositions in nations and particular persons
to despise one another, or to say one to another, Stand by thyself,
come not near to me; for I am holier than thou; and to establish the contrary
principles of humility, mutual esteem,
honor and love, and universal union, in the most firm and perfect manner.
2. Christ, when on
earth, set himself, through the whole course of his ministry, to
militate against this pharisaical spirit, practice, and language of the
Jews; by which they showed so much contempt of the Gentiles, publicans, and such
as were openly lewd and vicious,
and thus exalted themselves above them; calling them sinners and enemies,
and themselves holy, and God’s
children; not allowing the Gentile to be their neighbor, etc.
He condemned the Pharisees for not esteeming themselves sinners,
as well as the publicans; trusting
in themselves that they were righteous, and despising others. He
militated against these things in his own treatment of some Gentiles,
publicans, and others, whom they
called sinners, and in what he said on those occasions (Mat. 8:5-13; Chap. 9:9-13; Chap. 11:19-24; Chap. 15:21-28; Luke 7:37 to
the end; Chap. 17:12-19; Chap.
19:1-10; John 4:9, etc.; verse 39, etc. Compare Luke 10:29, etc.).
He opposed these
notions and manners of the Jews in his parables (Mat. 21:28-32;
Chap. 22:1-10; Luke 14:16-24. Compare Luke 13:28, 29, 30), and in his
instructions to his disciples how
to treat the unbelieving Jews (Mat. 10:14, 15); and in what he says to
Nicodemus about the necessity of a new birth, even for the Jews, as well
as the unclean Gentiles with regard
to their proselytism, which some of the Jews looked upon as a new
birth. And in opposition to their notions on their being the children
of God, because the children of
Abraham, but the Gentiles by nature sinners and children of wrath, he tells
them that even they were children of the devil.
3. Though we should
suppose the apostles not to have been thoroughly brought off
from such notions, manners, and language of the Jews, till after
Christ’s ascension; yet after the
pouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, or at least, after the
calling of the Gentiles, begun in
the conversion of Cornelius, they were fully instructed in this
matter, and effectually taught no longer to call the Gentiles unclean,
as a note of distinction from the
Jews, Acts 10:28, which was before any of the apostolic epistles
were written.
4. Of all the
apostles, none were more perfectly instructed in this matter, than Paul,
and none so abundant in instructing others in it, as this great apostle
of the Gentiles. None of the
apostles had so much occasion to exert themselves against the
forementioned notions and language of the Jews, in opposition to Jewish
teachers and judaizing Christians who strove to keep up the
separation-wall between Jews and Gentiles,
and to exalt the former, and set at nought the latter.
5. This apostle, in
his epistle to the Romans, above all his other writings, exerts
himself in a most elaborate manner, and with his utmost skill and power,
to bring the Jewish Christians off
from everything of this kind. He endeavors by all means that there
might no longer be in them any remains of these old notions, in which
they had been educated, or such a
great distinction between Jews and Gentiles, as were expressed in the names they used to distinguish them by; the Jews, holy
children of Abraham, friends and children
of God; but the Gentiles, sinners, unclean, enemies, and the like. He
makes it almost his whole business,
from the beginning of the epistle, Rom. 5:6, etc. to convince
them that there was no ground for any such distinction, and to prove that
in common, both Jews and Gentiles,
all were desperately wicked, and none righteous, no not one. He
tells them, Rom. 3:9, that the Jews were by no means better than the
Gentiles; and (in what follows in
that chapter) that there was no difference between Jews and Gentiles;
and represents all as without strength, or any sufficiency of their own
in the affair of justification and
redemption. And in the continuation of the same discourse, in the 4th
chapter, he teaches that all who were justified by Christ, were in
themselves ungodly; and that
being the children of Abraham was not peculiar to the Jews. In this 5th chapter
still in continuation of the same discourse — on the same subject and
argument of justification through
Christ, and by faith in him — he speaks of Christ dying for the
ungodly and sinners, and those who were without strength
or sufficiency for their own salvation,
as he had done all along before. But now, it seems, the apostle by sinners
and ungodly, must not be understood according as he used
these words before; but must be supposed
to mean only the Gentiles as distinguished from the Jews; adopting the
language of those self-righteous, self-exalting, disdainful judaizing
teachers, whom he was with all his might opposing: countenancing the very same
thing in them, which he had been
from the beginning of the epistle discountenancing, and endeavoring to
discourage, and utterly to abolish, with all his art and strength.
One reason why the
Jews looked on themselves better than the Gentiles, and called
themselves holy, and the Gentiles sinners, was, that they
had the law of Moses. They made their boast of the law. But the apostle shows
them, that this was so far from making
them better, that it condemned them, and was an occasion of their being sinners,
in a higher degree, and more aggravated manner, and more effectually and
dreadfully dead in sin (See
Rom. 7:4-13, agreeably to those words of Christ, John 5:45).
It cannot be justly
objected here, that this apostle did, in fact, use this language, and
call the gentiles sinners, in contradistinction to the Jews, in what he
said to Peter, Gal. 2:15, 16, “We
who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing
that a man is not justified by the
works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” It is true, that the apostle here refers to this distinction, as what was
usually made by the self-righteous Jews,
between themselves and the Gentiles; but not in such a manner as to adopt, or
favor it; but on the contrary, so as plainly to show his disapprobation
of it; q.d. “Though we
were born Jews, and by nature are of that people which are wont to make their
boast of the law, expecting to be
justified by it, and trust in themselves that they are righteous,
despising others, calling the Gentiles sinners, in distinction
from themselves; yet we being now
instructed in the gospel of Christ, know better; we now know that a man is
not justified by the works of the law; that we are all justified only by
faith in Christ, in whom there is no difference, no distinction of Greek or
Gentile, and Jew, but all are one in
Christ Jesus.” And this is the very thing he there speaks of, which he blamed
Peter for; that by his withdrawing
and separating himself from the Gentiles, refusing to eat with
them, etc. he had countenanced this self-exalting, self-distinguishing,
separating spirit and custom of the
Jews, whereby they treated the Gentiles, as in a distinguishing manner
sinners and unclean, and not fit to come near them who were
a holy people.
6. The very words
of the apostle in this place, show plainly, that he uses the term
sinners, not as signifying Gentiles, in opposition to Jews, but as
denoting the morally evil, in opposition to such as are righteous or good.
This latter distinction between sinners
and righteous is here expressed in plain terms. “Scarcely for a righteous
man will one die; yet
peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die; but God
commended his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us.” By righteous men are doubtless meant the same
that are meant by such a phrase, throughout
this apostle’s writings, throughout the New Testament, and throughout the
Bible. Will anyone pretend, that by the righteous man, for whom men would
scarcely die, and by the good man,
for whom perhaps some might even dare to die, is meant a
Jew? Dr. T. himself does not explain it so, in his exposition of this
epistle; and therefore is not very
consistent with himself, in supposing, that in the other part of the distinction the apostle means Gentiles, as distinguished from the Jews.
The apostle himself had been laboring
abundantly, in the preceding part of the epistle, to prove, that the Jews were
sinners in opposition to righteous; that all had sinned,
that all were under sin, and therefore
could not be justified, could not be accepted as righteous, by their own
righteousness.
7. Another thing
which makes it evident that the apostle, when he speaks in this
place of the sinners and enemies for whom Christ died, does
not mean only the Gentiles, is,
that he includes himself among them, saying, while WE were sinners, and
when we were enemies.
Our author from
time to time says, the apostle, though he speaks only of the
Gentiles in their heathen state, yet puts himself with them, because
he was the apostle of the Gentiles. But this is very unreasonable. There is no
more sense in it, than there would be
in a father ranking himself among his children, when speaking to his children of
the benefits they have by being
begotten by himself; and saying, We children. Or in a
physician ranking himself with his patients, when talking to them of
their diseases and cure; saying, We
sick folks. Paul being the apostle of the Gentiles to save them from their
heathenism, is so far from being a reason for him to reckon himself among
the heathen, that on the contrary,
it is the very thing that would render it in a peculiar manner
unnatural and absurd for him so to do. Because, as the apostle of the
Gentiles, he appears as their healer and deliverer from heathenism; and therefore
in that capacity, in a peculiar
manner, appears in his distinction from the heathen, and in opposition to the
state of heathenism. For it is by the most opposite qualities only, that
he is fitted to be an apostle of the heathen, and recoverer from heathenism. As the
clear light of the sun is what
makes it a proper restorative from darkness; and, therefore, the sun being
spoken of as such a remedy, none
would suppose to be a good reason why it should be ranked
among dark things. Besides, the apostle, in this epistle, expressly ranks
himself with the Jews when he
speaks of them as distinguished from the Gentiles; as in Rom. 3:9, “What
then? are we better than they?” That is, are we Jews better than
the Gentiles?
It cannot justly be
alleged in opposition to this, that the apostle Peter puts himself
with the heathen, 1 Pet. 4:3, “For the time past of our life may
suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles; when we walked in lasciviousness,
lusts, excess of wine, revellings,
banquetings, and abominable idolatries.” For the apostle Peter (who by the
way was not an apostle of the Gentiles) here does not speak of himself as
one of the heathen, but as one of
the church of Christ in general, made up of those who had been Jews,
proselytes, and heathens, who were now all one body, of which body he was a
member. It is this society, therefore, and not the Gentiles, that
he refers to in the pronoun US. He
is speaking of the wickedness that the members of this body or society
had lived in before their
conversion; not that every member had lived in all those vices here
mentioned, but some in one, others in another. Very parallel is the
passage with that of the apostle
Paul to Titus: Tit. 3:3, “For we ourselves also” (i.e. we of
the Christian church) “were
sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and
pleasures,” (some one lust and pleasure, others another), “living in
malice, envy, hateful, and hating one another,” etc. There is nothing in this, but
what is very natural. That the apostle,
speaking to the Christian church, and of that church, confessing
its former sins, should speak of himself
as one of that society, and yet mention some sins that he
personally had not been guilty of, and among others, heathenish idolatry,
is quite a different thing from
what it would have been for the apostle, expressly distinguishing
those of the Christians, which had been heathen, from those which had
been Jews, to have ranked
himself with the former, though he was truly of the latter.
If a minister in
some congregation in England, speaking in a sermon of the sins of
the nation, being himself of the nation should say, “We have greatly
corrupted ourselves, and provoked God by our deism, blasphemy, profane swearing,
lasciviousness, venality,” etc.
speaking in the first person plural, though he himself never had been a
deist, and perhaps none of his hearers, and they might also have been
generally free from other sins he
mentioned; yet there would be nothing unnatural in his thus expressing
himself. But it would be quite a different thing, if one part of the
British dominions, suppose our
king’s American dominions, had universally apostatized from Christianity
to deism, and had long been in such a state, and if one who had been born
and brought up in England among
Christians, the country being universally Christian, should be sent
among them to show them the folly and great evil of deism, and convert
them to Christianity; and this
missionary, when making a distinction between English Christians,
and these deists, should rank himself with the latter, and say, WE
American deists, WE foolish blind
infidels, etc. This indeed would be very unnatural and absurd.
Another passage of
the apostle, to the like purpose with that which we have been
considering in the 5th of Romans, is that in Eph. 2:3 — “And were by
nature children of wrath, even as
others.” This remains a plain testimony to the doctrine of original sin, as
held by those who used to be called orthodox Christians, after all the
pains and art used to torture and
pervert it. This doctrine is here not only plainly and fully taught, but
abundantly so, if we take the words with the context; where Christians
are once and again represented as
being, in their first state, dead in sin, and as quickened and raised
up from such a state of death, in a most marvelous display of free rich
grace and love, and exceeding greatness of God’s power, etc.
With respect to
those words (çìåí
ðåêíá öõóïõ ïñãçò),
We were by nature children of
wrath, Dr. T. Says, p. 112-114. “The apostle means no more by this, than truly
or really children of wrath; using
a metaphorical expression, borrowed from the word that is used to signify a true and genuine child of a family, in
distinction from one that is a child
only by adoption.” In which it is owned, that the proper sense of the phrase
is, being a child by nature,
in the same sense as a child by birth or natural generation; but only he supposes, that here the word is used metaphorically.
The instance he produces as parallel,
to confirm his supposed metaphorical sense of the phrase, as meaning only
truly, really, or properly children of wrath, viz.
the apostle Paul’s calling Timothy his own
son in faith (íçóéïí
åêíïí) is so far from
confirming his sense, that it is rather directly
against it. For doubtless the apostle uses the word here (íçóéïí)
in its original signification, meaning his begotten son; íçóéïò
being the adjective from ãïíçò,
offspring, or the verb (ãåííáù,
to beget; as much as to say, Timothy my begotten son in the faith. For
as there are two ways of being begotten, one natural, and the other
spiritual; the first generation,
and regeneration; so the apostle expressly signifies which of these he means
in this place, Timothy my begotten son IN THE FAITH, in the same
manner as he says to the Corinthians,
1 Cor. 4:15, “In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.”
To say, the apostle uses the word, öíóåé,
in Eph. 2:3 only as signifying real, true, and
proper, is a most arbitrary interpretation, having nothing to warrant it
in the whole Bible. The word öíóéò is no where used in this sense in the New Testament. (The following are
all the other places where the word is used, Rom. 1:26; 2:14, 27; 11:21,
24, thrice in that verse; 1 Cor.
11:14; Gal. 2:15, 4:8; Jam. 3:7, twice in that verse; and 2 Pet. 1:4.)
Another thing which
our author alleges to evade the force of this, is, that the word
rendered nature, sometimes signifies habit contracted by custom,
or an acquired nature. But this
is not its proper meaning. And it is plain, the word in its common use, in the
New Testament, signifies what we properly express in English by
the word nature. There is
but one place where there can be the least pretext for supposing it to be used
otherwise; and that is 1 Cor. 11:14, “Doth not even nature
itself teach you, that if a man have
long hair, it is a shame unto him?” And even here there is, I think, no manner
of reason for understanding nature
otherwise than in the proper sense. The emphasis used
(áõôç
ç öõóéò) nature
ITSELF, shows that the apostle does not mean custom, but
nature in the proper sense. It is true, it was long custom which made
having the head covered a token of
subjection, and a feminine appearance; as it is custom that makes any
outward action or word a sign or signification of anything. But nature itself,
nature in its proper sense,
teaches, that it is a shame for a man to appear with the established signs of
the female sex, and with significations of inferiority, etc. As nature
itself shows it to be a shame for a father to bow down or kneel to his own child or
servant, or for men to bow to an
idol, because bowing down is by custom an established token or sign of
subjection and submission. Such a
sight therefore would be unnatural, shocking to a man’s very
nature. So nature would teach, that it is a shame for a woman to use
such and such lascivious words or
gestures, though it be custom that establishes the unclean
signification of those gestures and sounds.
It is particularly
unnatural and unreasonable, to understand the phrase (ôåêíá
öõóåé) in this place, any otherwise than in the proper sense, on the
following accounts. 1. It may be
observed, that both the words, ôåêíá and öõóéò,
in their original signification, have reference to birth or generation. So the
word öõóéò,
from öõù, which signifies to beget
or bring forth young, or to bud forth, as a plant, that brings forth young
buds and branches. And so the word ôåêíïí
comes from ôéêôù, which signifies to bring forth
children. — 2. As though the apostle took care by the word used here, to
signify what we are by birth, he
changes the word he used before for children. In the preceding
verse he used õéïé, speaking of the children of disobedience; but here ôåêíá,
which is a word derived, as
observed, from ôéêôù, to bring forth a child, and more properly signifies a begotten or born child. — 3. It
is natural to suppose that the apostle here
speaks in opposition to the pride of some, especially the Jews (for the
church in Ephesus was made up
partly of Jews, as well as the church in Rome), who exalted themselves in
the privileges they had by birth, because they were born the children of
Abraham, and were Jews by nature, öõóåé ÉÉïõäáéïé,
as the phrase is, Gal. 2:15. In opposition to this
proud conceit, he teaches the Jews, that notwithstanding this they were
by nature children of wrath, even as others, i.e. as well as the
Gentiles, which the Jews had been taught
to look upon as sinners, and out of favor with God by nature, and born children
of wrath. — 4. It is more plain,
that the apostle uses the word nature in its proper sense
here, because he sets what they were by nature in opposition to
what they are by grace. In
this verse, the apostle shows what they are by nature, viz. children of
wrath; and in the following verses
he shows, how very different their state is by grace; saying, Eph. 2:5,
“By grace ye are saved;” repeating it again, verse 8, “By grace ye
are saved.” But if, by being
children of wrath by nature, were meant no more than only their being really and
truly children of wrath, as Dr. T. supposes, there would be no
opposition in the signification of
these phrases; for in this sense they were by nature in a state of
salvation, as much as by
nature children of wrath; for they were truly, really, and properly
in a state of salvation.
If we take these
words with the context, the whole abundantly proves, that by nature
we are totally corrupt, without any good thing in us. For if we
allow the plain scope of the place, without attempting to hide it by doing extreme
violence to the apostle’s words, the
design here is strongly to establish this point; that what Christians have that
is good in them, or in their state,
is in no part of it naturally in themselves, or from themselves,
but is wholly from divine grace, all the gift of God, and his
workmanship, the effect of his
power, his free and wonderful love. None of our good works are primarily
from ourselves, but with respect to
them all, we are God’s workmanship, created unto good
works, as it were out of nothing. Not so much as faith itself, the
first principle of good works in
Christians, is of themselves, but that is the gift of God. Therefore the
apostle compares the work of God,
in forming Christians to true virtue and holiness, not only to a new creation, but a resurrection, or raising
from the dead. Eph. 2:1, “You hath he quickened,
who were dead in trespasses and sins.” And again, verse 5, “Even when we
were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.” In speaking
of Christians being quickened with
Christ, the apostle has reference to what he had said before, in the
latter part of the foregoing chapter, of God manifesting the exceeding
greatness of his power towards
Christian converts in their conversion, agreeable to the operation of his
mighty power, when he raised Christ from the dead. So that it is
plain by everything in this
discourse, the apostle would signify, that by nature we have no
goodness; but are as destitute
of it as a dead corpse is of life. And that all goodness, all good works, and
faith the principle of all, are perfectly the gift of God’s
grace, and the work of his great, almighty,
and exceeding excellent power. I think, there can be need of nothing but
reading the chapter, and minding what is read, to convince all who have
common understanding, of this;
whatever any of the most subtle critics have done, or ever can do,
to twist, rack, perplex, and pervert the words and phrases here used.
Dr. T. here again
insists, that the apostle speaks only of the Gentiles in their heathen
state, when he speaks of those that were dead in sin, and by
nature children of wrath; and that though he seems to include himself among those,
saying, WE were by nature children
of wrath, WE were dead in sins; yet he only puts himself among them because
he was the apostle of the Gentiles. The gross absurdity of this
may appear from what was said
before. But besides the things which have been already observed, there are some things which make it peculiarly unreasonable to understand it
so here. It is true, the greater
part of the church of Ephesus had been heathens, and therefore the apostle often
has reference to their heathen state, in this epistle. But the words in
this Eph. 2:3 plainly show, that he means himself and other Jews in distinction
from the Gentiles; for the distinction
is fully expressed. After he had told the Ephesians, who had been generally
heathen, that they had been dead in sin, and had walked according to the
course of this world, etc. (verse 1
and 2) he makes a distinction, and says, “among whom we also had
our conversation, etc. and were by nature children of wrath, even as
others.” Here first he
changes the person; whereas, before he had spoken in the second person, “ye
were dead, — ye in time
past walked,” etc. now he changes style, and uses the first person, in a most manifest distinction, among whom WE ALSO, that
is, we Jews, as well as ye Gentiles:
not only changing the person, but adding a particle of distinction, also;
which would be nonsense, if he
meant the same without distinction. And besides all this, more fully to express the distinction, the apostle further adds a
pronoun of distinction; WE also,
even as OTHERS, or we as well as others: most evidently having respect to
the notions, so generally
entertained by the Jews, of their being much better than the Gentiles, in being Jews by nature, children of Abraham, and
children of God; when they supposed
the Gentiles to be utterly cast off, as born aliens, and by nature
children of wrath: in
opposition to this, the apostle says, “We Jews, after all our glorying in our
distinction, were by nature children of wrath, as well as the rest of
the world.” And a yet further
evidence, that the apostle here means to include the Jews, and even himself, is
the universal term he uses, Among whom also we ALL had our
conversation, etc. Though wickedness
was supposed by the Jews to be the course of this world, as to the
generality of mankind, yet they
supposed themselves an exempt people, at least the Pharisees, and
the devout observers of the law of Moses and traditions of the elders;
whatever might be thought of publicans
and harlots. But in opposition to this, the apostle asserts, that they
all were no better by nature than others, but were to be reckoned
among the children of disobedience,
and children of wrath.
Besides, if the
apostle chooses to put himself among the Gentiles, because he was the
apostle of the Gentiles, I would ask, why does he not do so in the 11th verse of
the same chapter (Eph. 2:11), where
he speaks of the Gentile state expressly? “Remember
that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh.” Why does he
here make a distinction between the
Gentiles and himself? Why did he not say, Let us remember, that we
being in time past Gentiles? And why does the same apostle, even
universally, make the same distinction,
speaking either in the second or third person, and never in the first, where he
expressly speaks of the Gentilism of those of whom he wrote, or of whom
he speaks, with reference to their
distinction from the Jews? So everywhere in this same epistle; as
in chap. 1:12, 13, where the distinction is made just in the same manner
as here, by the change of the
person, and by the distinguishing particle, also: “That we should be to
the praise of his glory who first
trusted in Christ (the first believers in Christ being of the Jews, before the Gentiles were called), in whom ye also
trusted, after that ye heard the word
of truth, the gospel of your salvation.” And in all the following part of this
second chapter, as Eph. 2:11, 17,
19, and 22 in which last verse the same distinguishing particle
again is used; “In whom ye also are builded together for an
habitation of God through the Spirit” (See also the following chapters, Eph. 3:6 and
4:17. And not only in this epistle,
but constantly in other epistles; as Rom. 1:12, 13; chap. 11:13, 14, 17-25, 28,
30, 31; chap. 15:15, 16; 1 Cor.
12:2; Gal. 4:8; Col. 1:27; chap. 2:13; 1 Thes. 1:5, 6, 9; chap.
2:13, 14, 15, 16.)
Though I am far
from thinking our author’s exposition of the 7th chap. of Romans to
be in any wise agreeable to the true sense of the apostle, yet it is
needless here to stand particularly to examine it; because the doctrine of original
sin may be argued not the less strongly,
though we should allow the thing wherein he mainly differs from such as he
opposes in his interpretation, viz. That the apostle does not
speak in his own name, or to represent the state of a true Christian, but as representing
the state of the Jews under the law.
For even on this supposition, the drift of the place will prove, that everyone
who is under the law, and with
equal reason everyone of mankind, is carnal, sold under sin, in
his first state, and till delivered by Christ. For it is plain, that the
apostle’s design is to show the
insufficiency of the law to give life to anyone whatsoever. This appears by
what he says when he comes to draw his conclusion, in the continuation of
this discourse, Rom. 8:3.
“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the
flesh, God sending his own Son,” etc. Our author supposes what is here
spoken of, viz. “that the law
cannot give life, because it is weak through the flesh,” is true with respect
to every one of mankind (See note on Rom. 5:20). And when the
apostle gives this reason, in
that it is weak through the flesh, it is plain, that by the flesh,
which here he opposes to the spirit,
he means the same thing which in the preceding part of the same discourse, in the foregoing chapter, he had called by the
name flesh, Rom. 7:5, 14, 18 and
the law of the members, verse 23 and the body of death, verse 24.
This is what, through this chapter,
he insists on as the grand hindrance why the law could not give life; just as he does in his conclusion, Rom. 8:3. Which, in his
last place, is given as a reason why
the law cannot give life to any of mankind. And it being the same
reason of the same thing,
spoken of in the same discourse, in the former part of it — this last
place being the conclusion, of
which that former part is the premises — and inasmuch as the
reason there given is being in the flesh, and being carnal, sold under
sin: therefore, taking the
whole of the apostle’s discourse, this is justly understood to be a reason
why the law cannot give life to any
of mankind; and consequently, that all mankind are in the
flesh, and are carnal, sold under sin, and so remain till
delivered by Christ: and consequently,
all mankind in their first original state are very sinful; which was the thing
to be proved.
Next > Part II: Chapter IV
Index < Content