PART III
THE EVIDENCE GIVEN US, RELATIVE TO THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN, IN WHAT THE SCRIPTURES REVEAL CONCERNING THE REDEMPTION BY CHRIST
CHAPTER I
THE EVIDENCE OF ORIGINAL SIN, FROM THE NATURE OF REDEMPTION,
IN THE PROCUREMENT OF IT
ACCORDING
to Dr. T.’s scheme, a very great part of mankind are the subjects of Christ’s
redemption, who live and die perfectly innocent, who never have
had, and never will have, any sin
charged to their account, and never are exposed to any punishment whatsoever,
viz. all that die in infancy. They are the subjects of Christ’s
redemption, as he redeems them
from death, or as they by his righteousness have justification,
and by his obedience are made
righteous, in the resurrection of the body, in the sense of Rom. 5:18,
19. And all mankind are thus the subjects of Christ’s redemption, while
they are perfectly guiltless, and exposed to no punishment, as by
Christ they are entitled to a resurrection.
Though, with respect to such persons as have sinned, he allows it is in
some sort by Christ and his
death, that they are saved from sin, and the punishment of it.
Now let us see
whether such a scheme well consists with the scripture-account of the
redemption by Jesus Christ.
I. The
representations of the redemption by Christ, everywhere in Scripture, lead us to
suppose, that all whom he came to redeem are sinners; that his
salvation, as to the term from
which (or the evil to be redeemed from), in all, is sin, and
the deserved punishment of
sin. It is natural to suppose, that when he had his name Jesus, or Savior, given him by God’s special and immediate appointment, the
salvation meant by that name should
be his salvation in general; and not only a part of his salvation, and
with regard only to some of
them whom he came to save. But this name was given him to signify “his saving his people from their sins,”
Mat. 1:21. And the great doctrine of Christ’s
salvation is, that “he came into the world to save sinners,” 1 Tim.
1:15. And that “Christ hath once
suffered, the just for the unjust,” 1 Pet. 3:18. “In this was
manifested the love of God towards
us (towards such in general as have the benefit of God’s love in giving Christ), that God sent his only-begotten Son into the
world, that we might live through
him. Herein is love, that he sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,”
1 John 4:9, 10. Many other texts
might be mentioned, which seem evidently to suppose, that all who are redeemed by Christ are saved from SIN. We are
led by what Christ himself said, to
suppose, that if any are not sinners, they have no need of him as
a Redeemer, any more than a man in
health of a physician, Mark 2:17. And that, in order to our being the proper subjects of the mercy of God through
Christ, we must first be in a state
of sin, is implied in Gal. 3:22, “But the Scripture hath concluded all
under sin, that the promise
by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” To the same effect
is Rom. 11:32.
These things are
greatly confirmed by the scripture doctrine of sacrifices. It is abundantly
plain, both from the Old and New Testament, that these were types of Christ’s
death, and were for sin, and supposed sin in those for whom they
were offered. The apostle supposes,
that in order to any having the benefit of the eternal inheritance by
Christ, there must of necessity be the death of the testator; and gives
that reason for it, “That without
shedding of blood there is no remission,” Heb. 9:15-18, etc. And Christ himself, in representing the benefit of his blood, in the
institution of the Lord’s supper, under
the notion of the blood of a testament, calls it, “The blood of the New
Testament shed for the remission
of sins,” Mat. 26:28. But according to the scheme of our author, many
have the eternal inheritance by the death of the testator, who never had any
need of remission.
II. The Scripture
represents the redemption by Christ, as a redemption from deserved
destruction; and that, not merely as it respects some particulars, but as the
fruit of God’s love to mankind.
John 3:16, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only- begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life;” implying, that
otherwise, they must perish, or be destroyed. But what necessity of this, if they did not deserve to be destroyed? Now,
that the destruction here spoken of, is deserved
destruction, is manifest, because it is there compared to the perishing of such
of the children of Israel as
died by the bite of the fiery serpents, which God in his wrath, for
their rebellion sent amongst them. And the same thing clearly appears by
the last verse of the same chapter, “He that believeth on the Son,
hath everlasting life; and he that
believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on
him” or, is left remaining on
him: implying, that all in general are found under the wrath of
God, and that they only of all
mankind who are interested in Christ, have this wrath removed, and
eternal life bestowed; the rest are left with the wrath of God still
remaining on them. The same is
clearly illustrated and confirmed by John 5:24, “He that believeth, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is
passed from death to life.” In
being passed from death to life is implied, that before, they were all in
a state of death; and they are
spoken of as being so by a sentence of condemnation; and if it be a just
condemnation, it is a deserved
condemnation.
III. It will follow
on Dr. T.’s scheme, that Christ’s redemption, with regard to a great
part of them who are the subjects of it, is not only a redemption from no sin,
but from no calamity, and so from no evil of any
kind. For as to death, which infants are redeemed from, they never were subjected to it as a calamity,
but purely as a benefit. It came
by no threatening or curse denounced upon or through Adam; the covenant with him
being utterly abolished, as to all its force and power on mankind
(according to our author), before the sentence of mortality. Therefore trouble
and death could be appointed to
innocent mankind no other way than on account of another covenant, the covenant
of grace; and in this
channel they come only as favors, not as evils. Therefore they could need
no remedy, for they had no disease. Even death itself, which it is supposed
Christ saves them from, is only a medicine; and one of the greatest
of benefits. It is ridiculous to
talk of persons’ needing a medicine, or a physician, to save them from an
excellent medicine; or of a remedy
from a happy remedy! If it be said, though death be a benefit, yet it is so because Christ changes it, and turns it
into a benefit, by procuring a resurrection:
I would ask, what can be meant by turning or changing it into
a benefit, when it never was otherwise,
nor could ever justly be otherwise? Infants could not at all be
brought under death as a calamity; for they never deserved it. And it
would be only an abuse (be it far
from us, to ascribe such a thing to God) in any being, to offer any poor sufferers a Redeemer from a calamity which he had
brought upon them, without the least desert
of it on their part.
But it is plain,
that mortality was not at first brought on mankind as a blessing, by the
covenant of grace through Christ; and that Christ and grace do not bring mankind
under death, but find them under it. 2 Cor. 5:14-15,
“We thus judge, that if one died for all,
then were all dead.” Luke 19:10, “The Son of man is come to seek and
save that which was lost.”
The grace which appears in providing a deliverer from any state, supposes
the subject to be in that state prior to his deliverance. In our
author’s scheme, there never could be any sentence of death or condemnation,
that requires a Savior from it;
because the very sentence itself, according to the true meaning of it, implies
and makes sure all that good, which
is requisite to abolish and make void the seeming evil to the innocent subject. So that the sentence itself is in effect
the deliverer; and there is no need
of another to deliver from that sentence. Dr. T. insists upon it, that
“nothing comes upon us in
consequence of Adam’s sin, in any SENSE, KIND, or DEGREE, inconsistent with the original blessing pronounced on Adam at his
creation; and nothing but what is perfectly
consistent with God’s blessing, love, and goodness, declared to Adam as soon as
he came out of his Maker’s hands.” (Page 88, 89 S) If the case be so, it is
certain there is no evil or calamity at all for Christ to redeem us from; unless
things agreeable to the divine
goodness, love and blessing, are things from which we need redemption.
IV. It will follow,
on our author’s principles, not only with respect to infants, but even
adult persons, that redemption is needless, and Christ is dead in
vain. Not only is there no need of
Christ’s redemption in order to deliverance from any consequences of Adam’s sin, but also in order to perfect freedom from
personal sin, and all its evil consequences.
For God has made other sufficient provision for that, viz. a sufficient power
and ability, in all mankind, to do all their duty, and wholly to avoid sin.
Yea, he insists upon it, that “when men have not sufficient power
to do their duty, they have no duty
to do. We may safely and assuredly conclude (says he), that mankind in all parts
of the world have SUFFICIENT power
to do the duty which God requires of them; and that he requires of them NO MORE than they have SUFFICIENT powers
to do” (page 111, 68, 64. S). And
in another place (page 67. S), “God has given powers EQUAL to the duty
which he expects.” And he expresses a great dislike at R. R.’s supposing,
that our propensities to evil, and temptations, are too strong to be
EFFECTUALLY and CONSTANTLY
resisted; or that we are unavoidably sinful IN A DEGREE; that our appetites and passions will be breaking out, notwithstanding
our everlasting watchfulness”
(page 68. S). These things fully imply, that men have in their own natural ability
sufficient means to avoid sin, and to be perfectly free from it; and so, from
all the bad consequences of it. And if the means are sufficient,
then there is no need of more; and
therefore there is no need of Christ dying, in order to it. What Dr. T. says (p.
72. S) fully implies, that it would
be unjust in God to give mankind being in such circumstances, as that they would be more likely to sin, so as
to be exposed to final misery, than
otherwise. Hence then, without Christ and his redemption, and without any grace
at all, MERE JUSTICE makes sufficient provision for our being free from
sin and misery, by our own power.
If all mankind, in
all parts of the world, have such sufficient power to do their whole duty,
without being sinful in any degree, then they have sufficient power to
obtain righteousness by the law: and then, according to the apostle
Paul, Christ is dead in vain. Gal.
2:21, “If righteousness come by law, Christ is dead in vain;” — äéá
íïìïõ, without the article, by law, or the rule of right action, as
our author explains the phrase [Pref. to Par.
on Rom. p. 143, 38.]. And according to the sense in which he explains this very place,
“it would have frustrated, or rendered useless, the grace of God, if Christ
died to accomplish what was or
MIGHT have been effected by law itself, without his death.” [Note on Rom. 5:20, p. 297.] So that it most clearly follows
from his own doctrine, that Christ
is dead in vain, and the grace of God is useless. The same apostle
says, if there had been a law which
COULD have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the
law, Gal. 3:21, i.e. (still according to Dr. T.’s own sense), if
there was a law, that man, in his
present state, had sufficient power perfectly to fulfill. For Dr. T. supposes
the reason why the law could not give life, to be “not because
it was weak in itself, but through
the weakness of our flesh, and the infirmity of the human nature in the present state.”
(Ibid.) But he says, “We are under a mild dispensation of GRACE, making allowance
for our infirmities” (page 92. S). By our infirmities, we may upon good
grounds suppose he means that
infirmity of human nature, which he gives as the reason why the law cannot give life. But what grace is there
in making that allowance for our infirmities,
which justice itself (according to his doctrine) most absolutely
requires, as he supposes divine
justice exactly proportions our duty to our ability?
Again, if it be
said, that although Christ’s redemption was not necessary to preserve men
from beginning to sin, and getting into a course of sin, because they
have sufficient power in themselves to avoid it; yet it may be necessary to
deliver men, after they have by
their own folly brought themselves under the dominion of evil appetites
and passions. I
answer, if it be so, that men need deliverance from those habits and passions,
which are become too strong for
them, yet that deliverance, on our author’s principles, would be no salvation from sin. For the exercise of passions
which are too strong for us, and which
we cannot overcome, is necessary: and he strongly urges, that a necessary
evil can be no moral evil.
It is true, it is the effect of evil, as it is the effect of a bad
practice, while the man had power
to have avoided it. But then according to Dr. T. that evil cause alone is
in; for he says expressly, “The cause of every effect is alone from
it.” (Page 128) And as to that
sin which was the cause, the man needed no Savior from that,
having had sufficient power
in himself to have avoided it. So that it follows by our author’s scheme, that
none of mankind, neither infants nor adult persons, neither the more nor
less vicious, neither Jews nor
Gentiles, neither heathens nor Christians, ever did or ever could stand in any need of a Savior; and that, with respect to all,
the truth is, Christ is dead in vain.
If any should say,
although all mankind in all ages have sufficient ability to do their whole
duty, and so may by their own power enjoy perfect freedom from sin, yet God foresaw that they would sin, and that after they
had sinned, they would need Christ’s death.
I answer, it is plain, by what the apostle says in those places which were just
now mentioned (Gal. 2:21 and 3:21)
that God would have esteemed it needless to give his Son to die for men, unless there had been a prior
impossibility of their having righteousness
by any law; and that, if there had been a law which COULD have given life,
this other way by the death of Christ would not have been provided. And this appears to be agreeable to our author’s own sense of things,
by his words which have been cited,
wherein he says, “It would have FRUSTRATED or rendered USELESS the grace
of God, if Christ died to accomplish what was or MIGHT HAVE BEEN effected by
law itself, without his death.”
V. It will follow on Dr. T.’s scheme, not only that Christ’s redemption is needless for saving from sin, or its consequences, but also that it does no good that way, has no tendency to any diminution of sin in the world. For as to any infusion of virtue or holiness in to the heart, by divine power through Christ or his redemption, it is altogether inconsistent with this author’s notions. With him, inwrought virtue, if there were any such thing, would be no virtue; not being the effect of our own will, choice, and design, but only of a sovereign act of God’s power (See p. 180, 245, 250). And therefore, all that Christ does to increase virtue, is only increasing our talents, our light, advantages, means, and motives; as he often explains the matter (In p. 44, 50 and innumerable other places). But sin is not at all diminished. For he says, our duty must be measured by our talents; as, a child that has less talents, has less duty; and therefore must be no more exposed to commit sin, than he that has greater talents; because he that has greater talents, has more duty required, in exact proportion (See page 234, 61, 64-72 S). If so, he that has but one talent, has as much advantage to perform that one degree of duty which is required of him, as he that has five talents, to perform his five degrees of duty, and is no more exposed to fail of it. And that man’s guilt, who sins against greater advantages, means, and motives, is greater in proportion to his talents (See Paraph. on Rom. 2:9, also on verse 12). And therefore it will follow, on Dr. T.’s principles, that men stand no better chance, have no more eligible or valuable probability of freedom from sin and punishment, or of contracting but little guilt, or of performing required duty, with the great advantages and talents implied in Christ’s redemption, than without them; when all things are computed, and put into the balances together, the numbers, degrees, and aggravations of sin exposed to, degrees of duty required, etc. So that men have no redemption from sin, and no new means of performing duty, that are valuable or worth anything at all. And thus the great redemption by Christ in every respect comes to nothing, with regard both to infants and adult persons.
Next > Part III: Chapter II
Index < Content