Concerning That Objection, That to Suppose Men Receive Their First Existence in Sin Is to Make Him Who Is the Author of Their Being the Author of Their Depravity
One artument men’s bar supposed to be born sinful depravity, which Dr. Taylor p;reatly insists upon, is, That this does in effect charge him, who is the author of cur nature who formed us in the ivombi with beini the author qfa sinful corrufition of nature; and that it is hii;hhj injurious to the God of our nature, nvhosc hands have formed and fash’ ioned us, to believe our nature to be originally corrufited, and that in the worst sense of corruption”*
With respect to this, I would observe in llie fast place that this writer, in his handling this objection, supposes something to belong to the doctrine objected against, as maintained by the divines whom he is opposing, which docs not belong to it, nor does fallow from it: As particularly, he supposes the doctrine of Original 3in to imply, that nature must be corrupted by some positive infuence; “something, by some means or other, ijfused into the human nature; some quality or other, not from the choice of our minds, but like a taint tincture, or infection, altering the natural constitution, faculties, and dispositions of our souls. f That sin and evil dis- -positions are imfdantcd in the fcclus in the womb.”t Whereas truly our doctrine neither implies nor infers any such thing. In order to account for a sinful corruption of nature, yea, a
rage 137, 187, 188, 189, 256, 258, 260, 141, S. and other p’.aco r Vi%o 187. X Pjtijc 146, 148, 1/.9, S, and the like in many o’.lu-r plac
3(3f8 ORIGINAI. SIN.
total native depravity of the heart of man, there is not Ihb least need of siipposui?^ any evil quality, infused imfilantcdyovnvrought into the nature of man, by any positive cause, or influence whatsoever, either from God, or the creature; or of supposing, that man is conceived and born with a fountain of evil in his heart, such as is any thing properly positive. I think, a liitlc attention to the nature of things will be sufficient to satisfy any impartial, considerate inquirer, that the absence of positive good principles, and so the withholding of a special divine influence to impart and maintain those good principles, leaving the common natural principles of selflove, natural appetite, See. (which were in man in innocence) leaving these, 1 say, to themselves, without the government of superior divine principles, will certainly be followed with the corruption, yea, the total corruption of the heart, without occasion for any positive influence at all: And, that it was thus indeed that corruption of nature came on Adam, immediately on his fall, and comes on all his posterity, as sinning in him, and falling with him.
The case with man was plainly this: When God made man at first, he implanted in him two kinds of principles-There was an inferior kind, which may be called naiiiral, being the principles of mere human nature; such as selflove, with those natural appetites and passions, which be’ong to the ’ nature of man in which his love to his own liberty, honor, and pleasure, were e”xercised: These, when alone,, and left to themselves, are what the scriptures sometimes cz flesh. liesides these, there were supericr principles, that were spiritual, holy, and divine, summarily comprehended in divine love; wherein consisted the spiritual image of God. and man’s righteousness and true holiness; which are calkd in scripture the (Uvinc r,a!ure. These principles may, in some sense, be called supervaluraL^ being (however ccncrealed or con-
* To prevent all cavil:-, the reader is dcsiicd particulaily lo observe, i:: what sense I here use the words natural and ivperna’utal: Not as epithets of distinction between that which is concrca ed or connate, and that which is extraordinarily introduced aftciwards, besides ihc first state of things, or the nnte, yet; such as are above those principles that arc essentially implied in, or necessarily rcsulrinj; from, uiul inseparably connected wilh, 7ncrc hurmni iiuture; and bciiii; siicli as immediately depend on man’s union and communion wilh God, or divine communicaticnsand influences of (;od’s Spirit: Which, thouih withdiawn, anrl man*s nature forsaken of ihcso principles, human nature would be human nature still; man’s nature, as such, being entire, without these divine /ir’mci/iUA, which the scripture sometimes calls ftfr’nt in contradistinction to ^/fes/i. These superior principles were yivcn lo possess the throne, and maintain an absolute dominion in the heart: The other to be wholly subordinate and subservient. And while thints continued thus, all things Nyerc in cxccllL-nt order, peace, and beautiful harmony, and in th.eir proper and perfect state.
These divine prhiciples thus reigning, were the digqiiy, life, happiness, and glory of man’s nature. V/hen man sinned, and broke God’s covenant, and fell under his curse, these superior principles left his heart: Tor indeed God then left him; that communion with God, on which these principles depended, entirely ceased; the Holy Spirit, that divint inhabitant, forsook the house. Because it would have been uiterly improper in itself, and inconsistent with the covenant and constitution God had established, that God should still maintain communion with man, and continue, by his friendly, gracious, vital influences, to dwell with him and in him, after he was become a rebel, and had incurred God’s wrath and cur.sc.
order established oiiginaliy, beginning Ahcn man’s nature began; but as dt»- tinguishing between >A(‘hat belongs to, or flows from, that nature which man has, merely as man, and those things which arc ^bovc this, by which one is denominated, not only a man, but a truly viituous, holy, and spiritual man; which, though they began in Adam, as soon as humanity began, rnd arc necessary to tb« peifection and well being of the human nature, yet are not essential to the constitution of it, or necessary to its being: Inasmuch as one may have everv thing needful to his being man, exclusively of them. If in thus using the words, vatural znl iupernutural, I use them in an uncommon scnw, it is not from any atlcctatioH of singularity, but for want of other terras more ypt.]y to express my meaning.
Therefore immediately the superior divine principles wholly teased; so light ceases in a room when the candle is withdrawn; and thus man was left in a slaie of darkness, woeful corruption and ruin; nothing but flesh without spirit. The inferior principles of selflove, and natural appetite, which were given only to serve, beino; alone, and left to themselves, of voitrse became reigning principles; having no superior principles to regulate or control them, they became absolute masters of the heart. The immediate consequence of which was t. fatal catastrophe a turning of all things upside down, and the succession of a state of the most odious aid dreadful confusion* Man did immediately set up himself and the objects of his private affections and appetites, as supreme; and so they took the place of God. These inferior principles are liliQfirc in an house; which, we say, is a good servant, but a bad master; very useful while kept in its place, but if left to take possession of the whole house, soon brings all to destruction. Man’s love to his own honor, separate interest, and private pleasure, which before was wholly subordinate unto love to God, and regard to his authority and glory, now disposes and impels him to pursue those objects, without regard to God’s honor or law; because there is no true reg rd to these divine things left in him. In consequence of which, he seeks those objects as much when against God’s honor and law, as when agreeable to them. And God, still continuing strictly to require supreme regard to himself, and forbidding all gratifications of these inferior passions, but only in perfect subordination to the ends, and agreeabieness to the rules and limits, which his holiness, honor, and law prescribe, hence immediately arises enmity in the heart, now wholly under the power of selflove; and nothing but nvar ensues, in a constant course, against God. As, when a subject has once renounced his lawful sovereign, and set up a pretender in his stead, a state of enmity and war against his rightful king necessarily ensues. It were easy to shew, how every lust, and depraved disposition of man’s lcart would naturally arise from this f.rivativc original, if here were room for it. Thus it is easy to give an account, how total corruption of heart should follow gn man’s eating the forbidden fruit, though ihat was bui on* act of sin, nvithout Godls /iittting’ any evil into his heart, or im- /ilanting any bad principle, or infusinr any corrupt taint, and so becoming the author of depravity. Only God’s withdraw ing as it was hip;hly proper and necessary iliat he should, from rebel man, being as it were driven away l)y his abominable wickedness, and men’s natural principles bcin left to rhcmselves, this is suflicient to account for his becoming entirely corrupt, and bent on sinning against Go<l.
And as Adam’s nature became corrupt, without God’s implanting or infusing any evil thing into his nature; so doc3 the nature of his fiosterity. God dealing with Adam as the head of his posterity (as has been shcwri) and treating them as one, he deals with his poaerity as having all ^m/zfi-/ m ////y. And therefore, as God withdrew spiritual communion, and his vital, gracious influence from the common head, o he withholds the same from all the members, as they come into existence; whereby they come into the world mercyr*//, anti entirely under the government of natural and inferior principles; and so become wholly corrupt, as Adam did.
Now, for God so far to have the disposal of this aflair, as to wi l/i hold ihost influences, without which nature will be corrufit is not to be the author of sin. But, concerning this, I must refer the reader to what I have said of it in my discourse on the frccdf.mofthe nvill.*’ Though, besides what I have there said, I may here observe. That if for God so far to order and dispose the being of sin, as vo Jicrmit it, by withholding the gracious influences necessary to prevent ii, is for him to be the author of in, then some things which Dr. Tay** lor himself lays down, will equally be att»inded with this very consequence. For, from time to lime, he speaks of God’s giving men up to the vilest lusts and affeclions, by permitting, or leuvinj: them.f Now, if the ccTUainancc of si’u anci its increase and prevalence, may be in consequence orCiod’ir disposal, by Ms wiiiiholdiiig that grace, that h needful, tmdci
Part iv. 9, p 354, &c. f Key., j 388, i’cptf; an.l Pjaph, oti Rom, z 2^ «6, such circumstances, to prevent it, without Gou’b being the author of that coyitinuancc atul prevalence of bin; then, byparity of reason, may the bchi of sin in the race of Adanii be in consequence of God’s disposal, by his withholding that grace, that is needful to prevent it, without his being the author of that beir.g of sin.
If here it should be said, that God is not the author of sin, in giving men up to sin, who have already made themselves sinful, because when men have once made themselves sinful, their continuing so, and sin’s prevailing in them, and becoming more and more habitual, will follow in a course of nature: I answer. Let that be remembered, which this writer so greatly urges, in opposition to them that suppose original corruption comes in a course of nature, viz. That the course of nature is nothing without God, He utterly rejects the notion of the “Course ofnature^ being a proper active cause, which will work, and go on by itself, %vithout God if he lets or permits it.” But affirms,^ “That the course of nature, separate from the agency of God, is 720 cause or Jiothing; and that the course of nature should continue itself, or go on to operate by itself, any more than at first produce itself, is absolutely imfios’ sible” These strong expressions are his. Therefore, to explain the continuance of the habits of sin in the same person, when once introduced, yea, to explain the very being of any such habits, in consequence of repeated acts, our author nust have recourse to those same principles, which he rejects as absurd to the utmost degree, when alleged to explain the corruption of nature in the posterity of Adam. For, that habits, either good or bad, should co?itini:c, after being once establishedj or that habits should be settled and have existence in consequence of repeated acts, can be owing only to a course of nature, and those laws of nature which God has established.
That the posterity of Adam should be born without holiness, and so with a depraved nature, comes to pass as much by the established course ofiiature as the continuance of a corrupt disposition in a particular person, after he cnce has it;
* FiT^c 134, S, See also with what vehemence this is urged in p, 137, S.
CT as much as Adam’s continuing unholy and corrupt, after he had once lost his holiness. For Adam’s posterity arc from him, and as it were in l.im, and belonging to him, ac» cordinj; lo an established course of nature a-» much as the branches of a tree arcp according to a course of nature from the tree, m the tiee, and beloning to the tree; or (to make use of the comparison which Ir. Taylor himself chooses and makes use of from time to time, as proper to illustrate the matter*) just as trie acorn is derivtd from the oak. And I think, the acorn is as much derived from the oak, according to the course of nature, as the buds and branches. It is true, that God, by his own almitlity power, creates the soui of the infant; and it is also true, as Dr. Taylor often insists, that God, by his immediate power, forms and fashions the tody of the infant in the wowib; yet he d(»cs both according to that course of nature, which he ha*> been pleased to establish. The course of nature is demonstrated, by late improvements in philosophy, to be indeed what our author himself says it is, viz. Nothing but the established order of the atency and operation of the author of nature. And though there be the immediate agency of God in bringing the soul into existence in generatiouvyet it is done according to the me’liod and older established by the author of nature, as much as his producing the bud, or the acorn of the ouk; and as much as hb contin- 3ing a particular prison in being, after he once has existence. God’s immediate agency in brinijing the soul of a child into being, is as much according to an establishid order, as his immediate agency m any of the wot ks of nature whatsoever. It is agreeable to the established order of nature, that the good qualities watuing in the tree, should also be wanting in the bnu.ches av.d fuit. Ii is a).rreeable to the order of nature. thut when a particular person is without good moral qualities! in l»is hear’, he should continue without them, till some new cause or tflicicncy produces then.; and it is as much agreeable to aii established course and order of nature, that since Adam, the iitad of the race of mai. kid- ‘’-• •.»>■ i>-^lh.jl :^ici«t
TJiciiC, 1S7. 2Q tree with many branches springing from it, was deprived of ’ original righteousness, the branches should come forth without It. Or if any dislike the word nature as used in this la&t casej and instead of it choose to call it a constitution or established or of of successive events, the alteration of the name will not in. the least alter the statje of the present argument. Where the T)amei vaiurc is allowed without dispute, no more is meant than an established method and ordpr of events, settled and limited by divine wisdom.
If any should object to this, that if the want of original righteousness be thus according to an established course of nature then why are not principles of holiness, when restored by divine grace also communicated io fiosterity? I answer, the divine lav.s and establishments of the author of 7?a/wr(?, are precisely settled by him as he pleaseth, and limited by his wi-dom. Grace is introduced among the race of mankind by a ne-jj establishment; not on the foot of the original estabt iishment of God, as the head of the natural world, and author of the first creation; but by a conslitulion of a vastly hii;her lUnd; wherein Christ is made the root of the tree, whose branches are his spiritual sefo?, and he is the head of the new creation; of which I need not stand now to speak particularly.
But here I desire it may be noted, that I do not suppose -the natural depravity of the posterity of Adam is owing to the course of nature only; it is also owing to the wi’^X judgment of God. But yet I think, it is as truly and in the samp fanner owing to the course of ;;a/ur<?, that Adam’s posterity; come into the world without original rightusness, as that Adam continued without it, after he had once lost it. That Adam continued dcsiitute of holiness, when he bad lost it, nd would always have sp continued, had it not been restored by a Rcc’ccmer, was not only a natural consequence, according to the course of things estabiibhed by God, as the Author of Nature i but it vr.as also i penal consequence, or a punish.- cut of his sin. God, in V^{€^Q.li judgraerd continued to tbcnt himself fr( m Adam aficr he became a rebel; and ‘jfiihheld from him now those influences of the Holy Spiiit,.
^hich he before had. And just thus I suppose it to be whh tevery natural branch of mankind: All arc looked upon as simiirig in and v/uh their common root; and God ri;;htcously withholds special influences and spiiiiual communicaiions frcm all, for this sin. But of the manner and order of ihcic thint’s, more may be said in the next chapter.
On the whole, this grand objection ayainsi the doctrine 6f men’s bcinr horn corrupt, Thai it makes him who gave U9 cur bewgy to be the cause of the bthig of corru/Hion, can have TJo more force in it, than a like argument has to prove, that if men, by a course of nature, continue wicked, or remain wirhout goodness, after they have l)y vicious acts coniractcd vicious habits, and so made themselves wicked, it makes him, who is the cause of their continuance in being, and the cause of the continuance of the course of nature, to be the cause oi their continued wickedness. Dr. Taylor says,* »’ God would ncJt make any thing that is hateful to him; because, by the very terms, he would hate to 77.0^^ such a thing.” But if this be good arguing in the case to which it is applied, may 1 not aS well say, God ivoiild 7iot continue a thing in being, that is hateful to him, because, by the very tervis he would hate to continue such a thing in being? I think the very terms do as much (and no nioiej inter one of these jjioposiiions, as the other. In like manner the rest that he says on that head may be shewn to be unreasonable, by only substituting the word, continucy’m the ^wict 6{ ??mke and /iro/iagatr, I may faiily imitate his way of reasoning thus: ‘’ To say,Ciod continues us ac- -eording to his own original decree, or law of contfnuaiioM, which obliges him to continue us in a manner he abhors, is re.dly to make bad worse; FtT it is supposing him to be defective in wisdom, or by his own decree or law to lay such a constraint upon his own actions, thai he cannot do what he would, but IS continually doing what he would not, what he hales to do, and what he condemns in us viz, continuing’ us sinful, when he cOTdemns u for continuing nurstlves sinful.” If the reasoning be tt”-’a’ in the one cube, it is no less so iA .the other.
*Pag” 136,5.
If any shall still insist, that there is a difference betweei) God’s so disposing things as that depravity of heart shall be continued according to the settled course of nature, in the same person, who has l)y his own fault introduced it; and his so disposing as that men, according to a course of nature, should be born with depravity, in consequence of Adam’s introducing sin, by his act which we had no concern in, and cannot be justly charged with. On this I would observe, that it is quite going off the objection, which we have been upon, from God’s agency, and 0ying to another. It is then no longer insisted on, that simfity for him, from whose agency the course of nature and our existence derive, so to dispose things, as that we should have existence in a corrupt statCj is for him to be the author of sin; but the plea now advanced is, that it is not proper and just for such an agent so to dispose, in this case and only in consequence of Adam’s sin; it pot being just to charge Adam’s sin to his posterity. And this matter shall be particularly considered, in answer to th.e tiext objection, to which 1 now proceed.