Wherein Several Other Objections Are Considered
DR. TAYLOR objects acainst Adam’s posterity’s bein**’ supposed to come into the world under ?k forfeiture of GodN and subject to his curse ihmugrh ilis sin. ...Thai at the restoration of the world after the ilood, God pronouncet? equivalent or greater blessings on Noah and his sons than he did on Adam at his creation, when he saiJ, “Be fruitful iind inuUiply, and replenish the earth, and have dominion over the fish of the sea,” Sec*
To this I answer, i’n the followrnp remarks.
I. As it has been already shewn, that in t!)c threa’emn^ denounced for Adam’s sin, tl;ere was nolhin?;; which appears inconaialent wilh the co7iti nuance of this /irrrnr life for a season, or with the /iroj’:agathiy his kind; so for the like reavoa, there appears nothii.pj in that threateriing, upon the supposition thut it reached Adam’s posterity, incoveisft-nt with thetr enjoying the temfioral dlrasintr,^ of the p”escnt life, as lonp ax this is continued; even those tcmpcrcl bleAsinys whith God pronounced on Adam at his first creation. For 1% must be observed, that tiic blessinp:s which Gr.d pronounced on Adam nhcn! e Ilrst cica’cd him, aiul rfjre the trial -f’t obrcfieacTp
were not the same with the blessinp;s which were susfiendeti on /2is obedience. The blessings thus suspendec!, were the blessings of eternal life; which, if he had maintained his integrity through his trial, would have been pronounced upon him afterwards; when God, as his judge, should have given him his reward. God might, indeed, if he had pleased, imme’ diately have deprived him oUife and of all temfioral blessings given him before. But those blessings pronounced on him beforehand, were not the things, for the obtaining of which his trial was appointed. These were reserved till the issue of his trial should be seen, and then to be pronounced in the blessed sentence, which would have been passed upon him by his judge, when God came to decree to him his reward for his approved fidelity. The pronouncing these latter blessings on a degenerate race, that had fallen under the threatening denounced, would indeed (without a redemption) have been inconsistent with the constitution which had been established. But the giving Ihem the former kind of blessings, which were not the things suspended on the trial, or dependent on his fidelity (and these to be continued for a season) was not at all inconsistent therewith.
2. It is no more an evidence of Adam’s posterity’s bein not included in the threatening, denounced for his eating thr. forbidden fruit, That they still have the ;ew/2orc, blessings ot fruitfulness and a dominion over the creatures continued to them, than it is an evidence of Adam*s being not included m that threatening himself, that he had these blessings continued to him, was fruitful, and had dominion over the creatures after his fall, equally with his posterity.
3. There is good evidence, that there were blessings implied in the benedictions God pronounced on Noah and his posterity, w hich were granted on a new foundation; on the foot of a dispensation diverse from any grant, promise or revelation wiich God gave to Adam, antecedently to his fall, even on the foundation of the covenant of grace, established in Christ Jesus; a dispensation, the design of which is to deliver men from the curse that came upon them by Adam’s sin, and to bring them to grea’.er blessings than ever he had.
•KIOINAL SIN. 345
These Messinrs were pronounced on Noah and his seed,onihc same found a Ion whereon afterwurdtjihc blcssinji: ‘was pronounced on Abrah un and his seed, which incKulcd bolh spiritual and temporal benefits. Noah h.ul his name prophetically given him by h< fal her /.amrcA, because by him aid bin seed, deliverance sho’ild be obtained from the curse which came by Adam’s fall. Gen. v. 29. And he called his name J^oahj (i. e. Rest) sayini;, This same shall comfort us concerninj{ our work, and toil of our haiuls. because of the “round which the Lord hath cursed.” Pursuant to the scope and intcilt of this prophecy (which indeed seems to respect the same thin{^ with the piophecy in Gen. iii. 15) are the bl6ssinfps pronounced on Noah after the flood. There is this evidence of these blessinus beini conveyed throufh ih.e channel of the covenant of race, and by the reden)piion throuyh Jesus Christ, that they vlcre obtained by sacrifice; or were bcsiowed as the efiect of God’s favor to mankind, which was in consequence of God’s smclUni a svjtet iavor the sacrifice which Noah offered. And it is very evident by the epistle to the Hebrews, that the ancient sacrifxes never obtained the favor of God, bi3t only by virtue of the relation they had to the sacrifice of C’hrist. Now that Noah and his family had been so wonderfully saved from the wrath of God, which had destioyed the res* of the world, and the world Mas as it were restored from a ruined sia’c, there was a proper occasion to point to the fpreat salvation lo come by Ghrist: As ir was a common thine for God, on occasion of some p;rcat temfioral salvation of his people, or restoration from a low and miserable state, to renew the intimations of the p:reat spiritual restoration of the “world by Christ’s redemption.* God deals with the yencrality of mankind, in their present state, f.r difiercntly, on occasion of the redemption by Jesus Christ, from what he otherwise would do; for, bcini capable subjects of savin,; mcrcvi Ihcy ha e a day of patience and irace, and innumerable ten»-
It may be n(»tcd that Dr. Taylor liimiclf signifies it m hij minJ, that these blessings on Noah wrrc oa th..* foot ot the c>.KenMt of race, p. 8^, o?,
oral blessings bestowed on tbcm; which, as the apostle signifies (Acts xiv. 17) are testimonies of God’s reconcileablenessi to sinful men, to put them upon seekhig after God.
But beside the sense in which the posterity of Noah in general partake of these blessings of do7nirdon over tke creatures 8cc. Noah himself, and all such of his posterhy ashave obtained like precious faith with that exercised by him in offering his sacrifice which made it a sweet savor, and by which it procured these blessings, have dominion over the creatures, through Christ, in a more excellent sense than Adam in innocency; as they are made kings and priests unto God, and reign with Christ, and all things are theirs, by a covenant of grace. They partake with Christ in that dominion “over the beasts of the earth, the fowls of the air, and fishes of the sea,” spoken of in the 8th Psalm; which is by the apostle interpreted of Christ’s dominion over the world. 1 Cor. XV. 27, and Heb. ii. 7. And the time is coming when the greater part of the posterity of Noah, and each of his sons, shall partake of this more honorable and excellent dominion over the creatures, through him “in whom all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Neither is there any need of supposing that these blessings have their most complete accomplishment until many ages after they were granted, any lYjore than the blessing on Japhet, expressed in those words, ‘i God shall enlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.”
But that Noah’s posterity have such blessings given them through the great Redeemer, who suspends and removes the curse which came through Adam*s sin, surely is no argument that they originally, and as they be in their natural state, are not under the curse. That men have blessings through grace.^ is no evidence of their being not justly exposed to the curse by nature, but it rather argues the contrary: For if they did not deserve the curse, they would not depend on grace and redemption for the removal of it, and for bringing them into a state of favor with God.
Another objection which our author strenuously urges against the doctrine of Ong’.nal Sin is, that it disparages the
divine goodness in giving us our beings which we ought to receive with thajikfulntss as a great gift of God’s beneficence, a::d look upon as the first, original, and fufclamental fruit of the divine liberality.*
To this I answer, in the following observations.
1. This argument is built on the supposed truth of a thing in dis/mtc, and so is a begging the question. It is built on this supposition, that we are not properly looked upon as one wlili Qwlfirst falher in the slate wherein God at first created him, and in his fall from that state. If we are so, it becomes the whole race to acknowledge God’s great gjodncsa to them, in the state wherein mankind was made atjirst; m the hajifiy state they were then in, and the fair opportunity Ihey then had of obtaining couyrmed and eternal happiness, and to acknowledge it as an aggravation of their apostasy, and to humble themselves, that they were so ungrateful as to rebel against their good Creator. .Certainly, we may all do this wiih as much reason, as (yea, much more than) the people of Israel in Daniel’s and Nehemiah’s times, did with thankfulness acknowledge God’s great goodness to their fath ers, many ages before, and in their confessions bewailed, and took shame to themselves, for the sins committed by their fathers notwithstanding such great goodness. See the ixth chapter of Daniel, and ixth of Nehemiah.
2. If Dr. Taylor would imply in his objection, that it doth not consist with the goodness of God, to give mankind being in a state of misery, what ever was done before by Adam, whether he sinned, or did not sin. I reply, if it be justly so ordei:ed, that there should be a posterity of Adam, which must be looked upon as one with him, then it is no more contrary to God*s attribute of goodness to give being to his posterity in a state of punisnment, than to continue the being of the ^a/nc wicked and guilty person, who has made himself guilty, in a state of punishment. The giving being, and the continuing being are both alike the work of God’s power and will, and
both are alike fundamental to all blessings of mii’s presep/.
*
Page 256, 257, 260, 71,... 74> S.
and future existence. And if it be said, it cannot fee justly so oidcred, iliat there ^^hould be a posterity of Adam, which Slould be looked upon as one with him, this is begging the qutsticn,
3. If our author would have us suppose that it is contrary to the attribute oi goodness forGod,in«^7/ case, by an immediate act of his power, to cause existence, and to cause new existence, which shall be an exceeding miserable existence, by reason of cx| osedness to eternal run; then his own sctieme must be supposed contrary to the attiibuie of God*s goodness; for he supposes that God will raise midtiiudcs from the dead at the last day (which will be giving new existence to their bodies, and to bodily life and sense) in oider only to their suffering eternal dtstruciion,
4. Notwiihsian(-ing we are so sinful and miserable, as we are by nature, yet we may have great reason to bless God, that he has given us our being under so glorious a dispensation of grace throuiih Jesus Chiist; by which we have a happy opj ortunity to be c?f/zrfrfr, frorn this sin and misery, and to ( btain U’ speakable, e’ernal hapfiincss. And because, through our own wicked inclinaticni, we are disposed so to TiCglect ai)d abue this mercy, as to fail of final benefit by it, this is no reason why we ought not to be thankful for it, even according to our author’s own sentiments. “What (says l.c*) if” the nvhole world lies in ivickedncss, and few therefore shall be saved, have men no reason to be thankful, because they are wicked and ungrateful, and abuse their, being and G(.d*s bounty? Suppose our own rvil inclinations do withhold us,** [viz. fiom seeking after happiness, which under the light of the gospel we are placed within the nearer and. easier reach of] “suppose the wh(Je Ci.ristian world should lie in wickedness, and but few Christians should be saved; is it therefore certainly trm-, that we cannot reasonably thank God for the gospel V* AVeil, and though the evil iyiclirMtwns which hinder our seeking and obtaining happiness by so glorious annvanlage, are what we are born with, yet if iliose inclination, ate our fault of 67/2, that alters not the case; and to say, they are not our sin, is still beggin^ the qxicstion. Yea, it will follow from several thinys asserted by our author, put together, that notwiihstandini men are born in such circumstances, as that they are under a very great imfirobability of ever becoming? ri(fh(eou.<;, yet they niay have reason to t-e thankful for their beini;. Thus, particularly, those that were born and Jived nmong the Heathen, before Ciu’ist came. For Dr. Taylor asserts, that all men have reason of thankfulness for their bc-injj; and yet he supposes, that the Heathen world, taken as a collective body, were dead in sin, and coukl no’ deliver or help themselves, and tnerefore stood in necessity of the Christian dispensation. And not only so, but he supposes, that the Christian world is now at lenyth brought to the like deplorable and helpless circumstances, and needs a new dispensation for its relief; as I observed before. According to these things, the world in genera), not only formerly, but even at this day, are dead in sin, and helpless as to their salvation; and therefore the generality of them that are born into it, are much more likely to perish, than otherwise, till the new dispensation comes: And yet he supposes, we all have reason to be thankful for our being. Yea, further still, I think, according to our author’s doctrine, men may have great reason to be thanHful to God for bringing them into a state, which yet, as the case is, is attended with 7niery as lis certain consequence. As, with respect to God’s raising’ the wicked to life, at the last day; which, he supposes, is in itself a great ^.”nr/?/, procured by Christ, and the wonderful grace of God through him: And if it be the fruit of God’s wonderful grace, surely men ouo-he to be thankful for that grace, and praise Ciod foi- it. Our doctrine of Original Sin, therefore, no more disparages God’s goodness in man’s formation in the womb, than his doctrine disparages God’s goodness in their resurrection from the grave.
Another argument which Dr. Taylor makes use of, ao;ainst the doctrine of Original Sin, is what the scripture reveals of the process of the day o judguwyit; which represents the judge as dealing with men singly and separalchjy rendering? to every man according to his deeds, and accoriling to the improve nient he has made of the particular powfrs and talents God has given him personalty.*
But this objection will vanish, if we consider what is the e?id or design of that public judgment. Now this will not be that God mikyjind out what men are, or what punishment or reward is proper for them, or in order to the passing a right judgment of these things within himself, which is the end of human trials; but it is to tnanifest what men are, to their own consciences, and to the world. As the day of judgment is called the day of the revelation of the righteous judg?nent of God; in order to this, God will make use of evidences or proofs. But the proper evidences of the wickedness of men’s hearts (the true seat of all wickedness) both as to corruption of r.ature, and additional pollution and guilt, are men’s works.
The special end of God’s public judgment will be, to make a proper, perfect, open distincizGn among men, rightly to state and manifest their difference one from another, in order to that separation and difference in the eternal retribution, that is to follow: And this difference will be made to appear, by their personal “joorks.
There are two things, with regard to which men will be tried, and openly distinguished by the perfect judgment oi’ God at the last clay; according to the twofold real distinction subsisting among mankind, viz. (1.) ThQ difference of state; ih&t firimary and grand distinction, whereby all mankind are divided into two sorts, the righteous and the wicked. (2.) That secondary distinction, whereiby both sorts differ from others in the same general siaicyin ‘<legrees of additional fruits of righteousness and wickedness. Now the judge, in order to manifest both these, will judge men according to their personal works. But to inquire at the day of judgment, whether Adam sinned or no, or whether men are to be looked upon as one with him? and so partakers in his sin, is what in no re?- T>tct tends to manifest either of these distinctions.
* Page 65, 66, 111, 5..’; ’
y. Jhejirat ihinc to be manifested, will be the state, that flach man is in, with respect to the grand distinction of th» whole world of mankind into ri,!^^htcous and wicked; or, in ■mctaphoi’icul hxnguage, ‘w/:rat i[ld tared; or, the children of the kingdom of Ghiist, and the children of the ni’icked one; the latter, the head of the apostasy; but the former, the head of the restoration and recovery. The judge, in manifesling this, will prove men’s hearts by their works, in such as have had opportunity to perform any works in the body. The evil ‘ivvrks of the children of the wicked one will be the proper Tnanifc station and evidence or proof of whatever belongs to the general stale of such; and particularly they will prove, that they belong to the kingdom of the great deceiver, and head of the apostasy, as they will demonstrate the exceeding corruption of their nature, and full consent of their hearts to the common apostasy; and also that their hearts never relinquished the apostasy, by a cordial adherence to Christ, the great restorer. The judge will also make use of the good Tjorks of the righteous to shew their interest in the redemption of Christ; as thereby will be manifested the sincerity of their hearts in their acceptance of, and adherence to the Redeemer and his righteousness. And in thus proving the state of men’s hearts by their actions, {he circumstcnces o those actions must necessarily come into consideration, to manifest the true quality of their actions; as, each one’s talents, opportunities, advantages, light, motives, &c.
2. The other thing to be manifested, will be that secondary distinction wherein particular persons, both righteous and’ wicked, differ from one another, in the degree of secondary good or evil, that is something beside what is common to ail in the sa7nc general state: Tne degree of evil fruit, which is additional to the guilt and corruption of the whole body of apostates and enemies; and the dtgrce of personal goodness and good fiuit, which is a secondary goodness, with respect to the righteousness and merits of Christ, which belong to all by that sincere faith manifested in all. Of this also each one’s works,, with their circumstances, oppovtuni’.ics, talents,, kc. will be the proper evidence.
As to the nature and aggravations of the general aipostasy’ by Adam’s sin, and also the nature and sufficiency of the re* demption by Jesus Christ, the great restorer, though both these will have vast influence on the eternal slate, which men shall be adjudged to, yet neither of ihem will properly belong to the trial men will be the subjects of at that day, in ord; r to the manifestation of their state wherein they are distingimihed one from another. They will belong to the business of that day no otherwise, than the manifestation of the great truths of religion in general; as the nature and perfections of God, the dependence ot mankind on God, as their creator and preserver. See. Such truths as these will also have great influence on the eternal state, which men will then be adjudged lo, as they aggravate the guilt of man’s wickedness, and must be considered in order to a due estimate of Christ’s righteousness, and men’s personal virtue; yet, being of general and equal concernment, will not properly belong to the trial of particular persons.
Another thing urged by our author particularly against the imputation of Adam’s sin, is this: “Though, in scripture, action is frequently said to be imfiutedf reckoned-^ accomited to a person, it is no other than his own act and deed!”* In the same place he cites a number of places of scripuire, where these words are used, which he says are all that he can find in the Bible.
. But we are no way concerned with this argument at present, any further than it relates to iinfiutatioii of sin or sinful action. Therefore all that is in the argument, which relates to the present purpose, is this: That the word is so often applied in scripture to signify Cod’s imputing personal sin, but never once to his imputing Adam’s ^lw.... So often !....Yio often ?....BvU twice. There are but two of all those places which he reckons up, that speak of, or so much as have any reference to, God’s irn/iuting sm to any person, where there is any evidtnce that only personal sin is meant; and they are Lcvit. :Lvii. 3, 4, and 2 Tim. iv. 16. All therefore the argur
OmCINAL SIN. 153
ment comes to, is this: That the word, imfiute, is applied in scripture, two times, to the case of God’s imputing sin, and neither of those times to signify the imputing of Adam’s sin, but both times it has reference to personal sin; therefore Adam’s sin is not imputed to his postrnly. And this is to be noted, that one of these two places, even that in Lcvit. xvii. 3, 4, noes not speak of imputing the act committed, but another not committed. The words are,” What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killcth an ox or lamb or goal in the camp, or thai killeth it out of the camp, and bringeth it not unto the door of the labernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord, before the tabernacle of the Lord, blood shall be imfiuted unto that man; he hath shed blood; that man shall be cut off from among his people, i. e. plainly, viurder shall be imputed to him: He shall be put to death for it, and therein punished with the same severity as if he had slain a man. It is plain by I^ai. lxvi. 3, that in some cases, a shedding the blood of beasts in an unlawful manner, was imfiuted io them, as if they slew a man.
But whether it be so or not, alihough in boih these places the word, impute be applied to personal sin, and to the very act done by the person bpoken of, and in ten more places; or although this could be said of all the places, which our author reckons up; yet that the word, imfiute, is never expressly applied to Adam’s sin, does no more argue, that it is not imputed to his posterity, than it argues, that pride, unbelief, lying, theft, oppression, persecution, fornication, adultery, sodomy, perjury, idolatry, and innumerable other paiticular moral evils, are never imputed to the persons that committed them, r in whom they are; because the word, imfiute, though so ©flen used in scripture, is never applied to any of these kinds «f wickedness.
1 know not what can be said here, except one of these two things: That though these sins are not expressly said to be imputed yet other words are used that do as plainly and certainly imply that they are imputed, as if it were said so expressly.; Very well, and so I say with respect to the imputation of Adam’s sin. The thing meant by the word, imfiut: 2 W may be as plainly and certainly expressed by using othw words, as if that word were expressly used; and more cer» tainlijy because the words used instead of it, may amount to an exfilanation of this word. And this, I think, is the very case here. Though the word, imfitUe is not used with respect to Adam’s sin, yet it is said, All ha-ue sinned; which, respecting infants, can be true only of their sinning by his sin. And, it is said. By his disobedience many ivtre made siir-Tiers; and, Judgment and condemnation came u/ion all by that sin; and that, by this means, death) [the wages of sin] passed on all men &c. Which phrases amount to full and precise explanations of the word, impute; and therefore do more certainly determine the point really insisted on.
Or, perhaps it will be said. With respect to those personal sins forementioned, pride unbeliefs &c. it is no argument, they are not imputed to those who are guilty of them, that the very word, impute is not applied to them; for the loord itself is rarf/i, used; not one time in a hundred, and perhaps five hundred, of those wherein the thing meant is plainly implied, or may be certainly inferred. Well, and the same also may be replied likewise, with respect to Adam’s sin.
It is probable, Dr. Taylor intends an argument against Orifinal Sin, by that which he says in opposition to what R, R. suggests of c/«7c?rew*« discovering the princifdes of iniquity and seeds of sin before they are capable of moral action* liz. That little children are made patterns of humility meekness and innocence in Malth. xviii. 3.... Cor. xiv. 20, and Psal. cxxxi. 2.
But when the utmost is made of this, there can be no shadow of reason, to understand more by these texts, than that little children are recommended as patterns in regard of a negative virtue, innocence with respect to the exercises and fruits of sin, harmlessness as to the hurtful effects of it; and that image of meekness and humility arising from this, in conjunction with a natural tenderness of mind, fear, selfdifiidence, yieldableness, and confidence in parents and others older than themselves. And so, they are recommended ns
Pag« 77, 7&, S.
patterns of virtue no more than cloves which are an harmless sort of creature, and have an image of the virtues of meekness and love. Even according to Dr. Taylor’s own doctrine, no more can be made of it than this: For his sclicme will not admit of any such thing as fiosilive virtue, or virtuous disposition, in infants; he insisting (as was observed before) that virtue must be the fruit of thought and rejiection. But there can be no thought and reflection, that produces posiiive virtue, in children, not yet capable of moral action; and it is such children he speaks of. And that little children have a negative virtue, or innocence, in relation to the fiositive acts and hurtful effects of vice, is no argument that they have not a corrujn nature within them: For let their nature be ever so corrupt, yet surely it is no wonder that they be not guilty of positive wicke<i action, before they are capable of any moral action at all. A young viper has a malignant nature though Incapable of doins: a malignant action, and at present appearing a harmless creature.
Another objection, which Dr. Taylpr and some others offer ap;ainst this doctrine, is, That it fioiira contemfit ufion the human nature.^
But their declaiming on this topic is like addressing the affections and conceits oi children, rather than rational arguing with men. It seems, this doctrine is not com/ilaisani enough. I am sensible, it is not suited to the taste of some, who are so very delicate (to say no worse) that they can bear iioihinf: but compliment and flattery. No contempt is by this doctrine cast upon the noble faculties and capacities o man*s nature or the exalted business, and divine and immortal happiness he is made capable of. And as to speaking ill of man’s present moral sia*,e I presume, it will not be denied, that shame helonG:s to them that are truly sinful; and to suppose, that this is not the native character of mankind, is still but meanly begging the question If we, as we come into the world, are truly sinful, and consequently miserable he acts but di friendly part to us, who endeavors fully to discover and
Page 74> 75’ manifest our disease. Whereas, on the contrary, he acts an unfriendly part, who to his utmost hides it from us; and so, in effect, does what in him lies to prevent our seeking a remedy from that, which, if not remedied in time, must bring us finally to shame and everlasting contempt and end in perfect and remediless destruction hereafter.
Another objection which some have made against this doctrine, much like the former, is, That it tends to beget in Us an ill ofiinion of our felloii creatures and so to promote ill nature and mutual hatred.
To which I would say, If it be truly so, that we all come ^nful into the world, then our heartily acknowledging it, tends to promote fiumility: But our disowning that sin and t:uilt, which truly belongs to us, and endeavoring to persuade ourselves that we are vastly better than in truth we are, eis t6 ft foolish selfexaltation and pride. And it is manifesi, by tea-Son, experience, and the word of God, that firide is the chief source of all the contention mutual hatred and /// w/V/, whirh are so prevalent in thfe’ world; and that nothing so effeciually promotes the contrary tempers and deportments, as humility. This doctrine teaches us to think no worse of others, than of ourselves: It teaches us, that we ar6 alU as we are by nature, tompanions in a miserable, helpkss condition; which, under a revelation of the divine mercy, tends to promote mutual tompassiom. And nothing has a greater tendency to promote those amiable dispositions of mercy, forbearance, long suffering, gentleness and forgiveness, than a sense of our own extreme unworthiness and niisery, and the infinite need we have of the divine pity, forbearance and iorgiveness, together with a hope of obtaining mercy. If the doctrine, which teaches that mankind are corrupt by nature, tends to promote ill willf “why should not Dr. Taylor’s doctrine tend to it as much? For he teaches us, that the generality of mankind are very fvickrd having made themselves so by their own free choice, without any necessity; which is a way of becoming wicked, that renders men truly worthy o resentment; but the other, rjyt at ally even according to his own doctrine*
Another exclamation against this doctrine, Is, That it xends to hinder comfort and joi/, and to firomote melancholy and gloominess of mind.
To which I shall briefly say, Doubtless, supposing men are really become sinful, and so exposed to the displeasure of God, by ivliafever means, if ihey once come to have their eye» opened, and are not very stupid, the reflection on their c se will tend to make them sorroiuful; and it is ft, il should. Men, with whom this is the case, may well be filled with sor* row, till they are sincerely willing to forsake their sins, and turn to God. But there is nothing in this doctrine, that in the least stands in the way of comfort and exceeding joy, to such as find in their hearts a sincere willingness, wholly to forsake all sin, and give their hearts and whole selves to Christ, and comply with the gospel method of salvation by
him.
Another thmg objected is, that to make men believe that wickedness belongs to their very nature, tends to encourage them in 6m, and plainly to lead them to all manner of iniquity; because they are taught, that sin is natural, and therefore necessary and unavoidable J*
But if this doctrine, which teaches that sm is natural to us, does also at the same time teach us, that it is never the better, or less to be condemned, for its being natural, then it does not at all encourage sin, any more than Dr. Taylor’s doctrine encourages wickedness, when it is become ?m;e/tfrar; who teaches, that such as by custom have contracted strong habits of sin, are unable to helix themselves And is it reasonable to represent it as encouraging a man’s boldly neglecting nd wilfully continuing in his disease, without seeking a cure, to tell him of his disease, to shew him that his disease is re and very fatal, and what he can never cure himself of; yeX withal directing him to a great /lAt/sfc/an, who is sufficient for his restoration? But for a more particular answer to what is objected against the doctrine of our naturalimyiorewc and
Page 231, and some other places. + See his exposition of Rooi. vii, p. «C5...!«ao. But especially in hi» Paraphra:c and Kciss on the Epistle; inability as being an encouragement to go on in sin, and a discouragement to the use of all means for our help, I must for brevity refer the reader to what has been largely written on this head in my discourse on the Freedom of the Will.
Our author is pleased to advance another notion, among others, by way of objection against the doctrine of Original Sin; that if this doctrine be true, it would be unlawful to beget children. He says,* ‘^ If natural generation be the means of unavoidably conveying all sin and wickedness into the world, it must itself be & sinful and tmlawful ih’m,” Now, if there be any force of argument here, it lies in this proposition, “Whatsoever is a means or occasion of the certain, infallible existence of sin and wickedness, must itself he sinful.” But I imagine Dr. Taylor had not thoroughly weighed this prop* osilion, nor considered where it would carry him. For God*s continuing in being the devil, and others that are finally given up to wickedness, will be attended, most certainly and infallibly, with an eternal series of the most hateful and horrid wickedness. But will any be guilty of such vile blasphemy, as to say, therefore God’s upholding them in being is itself a sinfjd thing? In the same place our author says, So far as we are generated in sin, it must be a sin to generate.” But there is no appearance of evidence in that position, any more than in this: “So far as any is upheld in existence in sin, it is a ain to uphold them in existence.** Yea, if there were any rea§on in the case, it would be strongest in the latter position; for parents, as Dr. Taylor himself observes, are not the all” thors of the beginning of existence; whereas, God is truly the author of the continuance of existence. As it is the known pvill of God, to continue Satan and vniLions of others in bdng though the most sure consequence is the continuance of a vast infernal world, full of everlasting hellish ivickcdnens; so it is part of the revealed will of God, that this world of mankind should be continued, and the spedes /iro/iagated for his own wise and holy purposes; which will is complied with by the parents joined in lawful marriage; whose children, though
Page 145.
GI^TGINAL Sm. 5iJ$’
they come into the world in sin, yet are capable subjects cff eternal holiness and happiness; which infinite benefits for their children, parents hae great reason to encourate a hope of, in the way of giving up ihcir children to*. God in faith, through a Redeemer, and bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I think, this may be answer enough to such a cavil.
Another objection is, that the doctrine of Original Sin is no oftener and o more plainly spoken of in scripture; it being, if true, a very important doctrine. Dr. Taylor, in manyparts of his book suggests to his readers, that there are very feio texts in the whole Bible, wherein there is the least appearance of their teaching any such doctrine.
Of this I took notice before, but would here say further, That the reader who has perused the preceding defence of this doctrine, must now be left to judge for himself, whether there be any ground for such ari allegation; whether there be not texts in sufficient number, both in the Old Testament and New, that exhibit undeniable evidence of this great article of Christian divinity; and whether it be not a doctrine taught in the scripture with great plainness. I think there are few, if any, doctrines of revelation, taught more plainly and expressly. Indeed, it is taught in an explicit manner more in the New Testament, than m the Old; which is not to be -wondered at; it being thus with respect to all the most important doctrines of revealed religion.
But if it had been so, that this doctrine were rarely taught in scripture; yet if we find that it is indeed a thing declared to us by God, if there be good evidence of its being held forth to us by any word of his, then what belongs to us, is, to believe his word, and receive the doctrine which he teaches us, and not, instead of this, to prescribe to him how often he shall speak of it, and to insist upon knowing what reasons he has for speaking of it no oftener before we will receive what he teaches us, or to pretend that he should give us an account, why he did not speak of it so plainly as we think he ought to have done, soo7ier than he did. In this way of proceeding, if it be reasonable, the Sadducees of old, who denied any resurxection or future state, miiht have maintained their ciausi; against Christ, when he blamed them for “not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God;” and for not understanding by the scripture that there would be a resurrection to spiritual enjoyment, and not to animal life, and sensual gratifications; and they might have insisted that these doctrines, if true, were very important and therefore ought to have been spoken of in the scriptures oftener and more exfilicitlyand not that the church of God should be left, till that lime, with only a/fw, oZ»sc«re intimations of that which so infinitely concerned them. And they might w ith disdain have rejected Christ*s argument by way of inference, from God*s calling himself, in the Books of Moses, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For answer, they might have said, that Moses was sent on purpose to teach the people the mind and will of God; and therefore, if these doctrines were true, he ought in reason and in truth to have taught them plainly and frequently, and not have left the people to spell out so important a doctrine, only from God’s saying, that he was the God of Abraham, 8cc.
One great end of the scripture is;, to teach the world what wanner of being God is; about which the world, without revelation, has been so wofuUy in the dark; and that God is an injinite beings is a doctrine of great imfiortance and a doctrine sufficiently taught in the scripture. But yet it appears to me, this doctrine is not taught there, in any measure, wiih such exfilicitness 2^Yld precisio?!^ as the doctrine of Original Sin; and the Socinians, who deny God*s omnipresence and omniscience, have as much room left them for cavil, as the Pelagians, who deny Original Sm.
Dr. Taylor particularly urges, that Christ says not one word of this doctrine throughout the four gospels; which doctrine, if true, being so important, and what so nearly concerned the great woik of redemption, which he came to work out (as is supposed) one would think, it should have been emphatically spoken of in every page of the gospels,*
•Figc 242,843.
In reply to this, it may be observed, that by the account given in the four gospels, Christ was continually saying those thinis which plainly imfiUed that all men in their original state are sinful and miserable. As, when he declared that “they which are whole, need not a physician, but they which are sick * that” he came to seek and to save that which was lost;“t that it was necessary for all to be born again and to be converted and that otherwise they could not enter into the kingdom of heaven; and that all were sinntrs as well aS those whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices, &c. and that every one luho did not re/ient, should fierish ;§ withal directing every one to firay to God for forgiveness of sin; using our necessity of forgiveness from God, as an ar;^ument “with all to forgive the injuries of their neighbors ;^ teaching that earthly parents, though kind to their children, are in themselves evil ;** and signifying, that things carnal and corrufic are properly the things of men; warning his disciples rather to beware of men, than of wild be usts often representing the world as evil as wicked in its works, at enmity with truth and holiness and hating him ;§§ yea, and teaching plainly, that all men are extremely and inexpressibly sinful, owing ten thousand talents to their divine creditor. (|lj
And whether Christ did not plainly teach Mcodemus thfc doctrine of original total depravity, when he came to him to know what his doctrine was, must be I6ft to the reader to judge, from what has been already observed on John iii. 1.... 11. And besides, Christ, in the course of his preaching, took the most proper method to convince men of the corruption of their nature, and to give them an effectual and practical knowledge of it, in application to themselves, in particular, by teaching and urging the holy and strict latv of God, in its extent and spirituality and dreadful threatenings. Which, above all things, tends to search the hearts of men,
*Matt.ix. 12. f Matt, xviil. ii,Lukexix. lo. Matt, xviii. 3. ^Lukcxiii. i....5. II Matt. vi. 12, Luke Xi. 4 UMatt. vi. 14, 15,and xviii. 35. **MaU. vii. 11. ft Matt. xvi. 23. XX Matt. x. 16, 17. Joha vU. 7, viii. e, xr>. 17, XV. 18, 19. Ijll Matt, xviii. 81, to the end.
and to teach them their inbred, exceeding depravity; ne! merely as a matter of speculation, but by proper conviction of conscience; which is the only knowledge of Original Sitij that can avail to prepare the mind for receivine: Christ’s redemption; as a man’s sense of his own sickness prepares him to apply in crood earnest to the physician.
And as to Christ’s beinp: no more frequent and particular in mentioninp: and incukating this point in a doctrinal manner, it is probable one reason to be given for it, is the same that is to be eien for his speaking no oftener of God’s creating the ivcrld; which, though so important a doctrine, is scarce ever spoken of in any of Christ’s discourses; and no wonder, seeing this was a matter which the Jews, to whom he confined hi personal ministry, had all been instructed in from their forefathers, and never was called in question am.ong them. And there is a great deal of reason, from the ancient Jewish writers, to suppose that the doctrine of Orig-Snal sin had ever been allowed in the open profession of that people ;* though they were generally, in that corrupt lime,
What IS found in the more ancient of the Jewish Rabbies, vho havfrvrrotc since the coming of Chr’St. is an argument of this. M^ny things of. this sort are taken notice of by Stapferus, in his Theologia PoUmica before mentioned. Some of these things which are there cited by him in Latin, 1 shallhere faithfully give in English, for the sake of the English reader.
**....So Manasseh, concerning Human Frailty, page 129. Gen. viii. 21. <♦/ will not ofiy more curse the earth for man*s sake; for the appetite of man isivxljrom his youth;” that is, from the time when he comes forth from his moth* er’s womb. For at the same time that he sucks the breasts, he followg his lust; and while he is yet an infant, he is under the dominion of anger, envy, hatred, and other vices to which that tender age is obnoxious. Prov xxii. 15. Solomon says, “Foolishness is bound to the mnd of a child.” Concerning which place, R. Levi Ben Gersom ohser-ves thus: “Foolishness as it were, grows ta him in his very beginning.’” Concerning this sin, which is common and original to all men, David said. Psalm Ji. 5. ‘* Behold, I was begotten in iniquity, and in sin did my mother warm me “Upon which place Eben Ezra says thus; “Behold, because of the concupiscence which is innate in the heart of man, it is said, I am begotten in iniquity” And the sense is, that there is implanted ia the heart of man, Jetzer harang, an evil figment, from his nativity.
“And Manasseh Ben Israel, de Fragil. page «.” Behold, I was formed in. f«if uifv, and in sin hath my mother warmed m:,** But whether this be undo.
very far from a practical conviction of it; and many notion* -were then prevalent, especially among the Pharisees, which were indeed inconsistent with it. And though on account of these prejudices they might need to have this doctrine explained and applied to them, yet it is well known, by all acquainted with their Bibles, that Christ, for wise reasons, spake
stood concerning the common mother, which was Eve, or whether David spake only of his own mother, he would sijjuify, that sin is as it were natural and inseparable in this life. For it ia to be observed, that Eve conceived aftet the transgression was commiitcd; and as many as were begotten afterwards,, were not brought forth in a conformity to the rule of right reason, but in conformity to disorderly and lustful atfec ions.” He adds, “One of the w.se men o? the Jews, namely, H. Aha rightly observed, David would signify that jt is impossible, even for pious men who excel in virtue, never to comp mit anv sin *’ job also asserts tho same thing with David, chap. xiv. 4, saying, “Who will givt a clean thing from an unclean? Truly not one.” Concerning which words Aben Ezra says thus: ‘* The sense is the same with that, / ■Siai begotten in iniquity., because man is made out of an unclean thing.” Stap” ferus Theolog. Polem. Tom. iii, p 36, 37,
Id. Ibid, p 133, &c. ‘■’■So Sal Jarchi ad Gemaran, Cod. Schabhath, fol. 14a, p. a. *’ And this is not only to be referred to sinners, because all the pofterity of lht first man are in like manner fubjected to all the curses pronounced ou him “And Manasseh Etw Israel, in his Preface to Human Fraiity, says, “I had a mind to shew by what means it came to pass, that when iht first father t all had lost his righteousness, his posterity are begotten liable to ihc same punm ishment with him.” And Munsterus, on the gos-pel of Matthew, cites the following words from the bo-k called The Bundle of Myrrh: “The blessed Lord laid to the first man, when he cursed him. Thorns and thistles skallit bring fo->ih to thee: and thou shdlt eat the herb 0/ ike field. The thing which he means, is, that because of his sin oil who should descend from him, should be W’cked and perverse, like tiorns and thistles, according to that word of the Lord, speaking to the Prophet: Thorns and iiritaton are with theSy and thou dwellest amo’g scorpions And all thjs is from the serpent, who was the Devil, Sam-miel, who emitted a mort lerous and corruptive poison into Eve, and became the cause of death to Adam himself, when he ate the fruit. Remarkable is the place quoted in Joseph de Foisn. against Martin Raymund, p. 471, of Master Menachcm Hakanatensis, Sect Bereschit, from Midrasch Tehillim, which is cited by Hoornbekius, against the Jews, in these words: It is no wonder that the sin of Adam and Eve is written and sealed with the king’s ring, and to be propagated to all following generations; because on the day that Adarn was created, al. things were ftnis. ed; so that he stood forth tlje f)crfection and completion of the whole workmanship oi the world; so whn more sparingly and obscurely of several of the most important doctrines of revealed religion, relating to the necessity, grounds, nature, and way of his redemption, and the method of the justification of sinners, while he lived here in the flesh, and left these doctrines to be more plainly and fully opened and inculcated by the Holy Spirit, after his ascension.
fte sinned, the whole world sinned, whose sin we bear and suffer. But the matter is not thus with respect to ihff sins of his posterity.” Thus far Stapferus.
Besides these, 2i& Ainszvort/i on Gen.viii. 21, observes, In BereshithRalba (a Hebrew commentary on this place) a Rabbin is said to be asked, When is the evil imagination put into man? And he answered, From the hour that he is formed.” And in Pool’s Synopsis it is added from Grotius, “So Rabbi Salomon interprets Gen. viii. 21. The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth of its being evil from the time thai he is taken out of his mother’s bowels ‘* Aben Ezra thus interprets Psalm li. 5. I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did. my mother conceive me; that evil concupiscence is implanted in the heart from childhood, as if he verc formed in it; and by my mother, he understands Eve, who did not bear children till she had sinned. And so Kafvcnaki says, How shall I avoid sinning? My original is corrupt, and from thence are those sins. So Manasseh Ben Israel, from this place (Psalm li. 5) concludes that not only David, but all makind, ever since sin was introduced into the world, do sin from their original. To this purpose is the answer of Rabbi Hakkadosch which there is an account of in the Talmud. From what time dees concupiscence rule over man? From (he very moment of his frst formation, or from his nativity f-Anfw. From his formation.” Pool’s Synops. in Loc.
On these things 1 observe, there is the greatest reason to suppose that these old Rabbies of the Jewish nation, who gave such heed to the Tradition oj the Elders, would never have received this doctrine of Original Sin had it not been delivered down to them from iht’ir forefathers. For it is a doctrine very disagreeable to those practical principles and notions wherein the religion of the unbelieving Jews most fundamentally difets from the religion maintained among Christians; particularly their notion oi justifiation by their own righteousness and privileges as the children of Abraham, &c. without standing in need of any satisfaction by the sufferings of the Messiah. On which account the modern Jews do now uuivcisally reject the doctrine of Original Sin, and corruption of nature, as Stapferus observes. And it is not at all likely that the ancient Jews, if no such doctrine had been received by tradition from the fathers, would have taken it up from the Christians, whom they had in such great contempt and enmity; especially as it is a doctrine so peculiarly agreeable to the Christian notion of the spiritual salvation of Jesus and so contrary tb their carnal notions of the Messiah, and of his salvation aad kingdom, ad
But if after all, Christ did not speak of this doctrine often enough to suit Dr. Taylor, he might be asked, Why he supposes Christ did no oftcner and no nxove/ilainly teach some of /lis (Dr. Taylor’s) doctrines, which lie so much insists on? As, That temporal death comes on all mankind by Adam; and, That it comes on them by him, not as a punishment or
so contrary to their opinion of themselves, and a doctrine, which men in general are so apt to be prejudiced against. And besides, these Rablics do expressly refer to the opinion of tht’w forefathers; as R. Manassek says, “According to the opinidti of the ancients, none are subject to death, but those v/h’ich have sinned: For where there is nosing there is no death.”. ...Stzpier, Tom. iii. p. 37, 38.
But we have more direct evidence, that the doctrine of Original Sin ww truly a received doctrine among the ancient Jews, even before the coming of Christ. This appears by ancient Jewish writings, which were written before Christ; as, in the apocrypha, a Esdras, iii 2j. V For the first Adam, bearing a wicked heart, transgressed, and was overcome;; and so be all thty that arc horn of him. Thlxi infirmity was made permanent; and the law also in the heart of the people, with the malignity of the root; so that the good departed away, and the evil abode still:”. ...2 Esdras iv. 30. ♦’ For the grain of evil seed hath been sown in the heart of Adam, from the beginning; and how much ungodliness hath it brought up unto this time? And how much shall it yet bring forth, till the time of threshing shall coaie?” And chap. rii. 46. “It had been better, not to have given the earth unto Adam; or else, when it was given him, to have restrained him from sinning; for what, profit is it, for men now in this present time, to live in heaviness, and after death, to look for punishment? O thou Adam, what hast thou done! For though it was thou that sinned, thou art not fallen alone, but we all that come efthee.” And we K3d, Eccl. XXV. 24. “Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her ice all die.*’
As this doctrine of original corruption was constantly maintained in the church of God from the beginning; so from thence, in all probability, as well as from the evidence of it in universal experience, it was, that the wiser //Mi/;<;?j maintained the like doctrine Particularly Plato, that great philosopher, so distinguished for his veneration of ancien traditions, and diligent inquiries after them. Gale, in his Court of the Gentiles, observes si follows:” Plato says (Gorg. fol. 493.) / have heard from the wise men, that we are now dead, and that the body is but our sepulchre. And in his Timceas Locrus (fol. 1C3) he says, The cause of vitiosity is from our parents, and frst principles, rather than from ourselves. So that we never relinquish those actions, which lead us to follow tiuse primitive blemishes of our first parents. P/a/o mentions the corrup, tioA 9f the will, and seems to disown ^nyfru will to true good j albeit he al-
calamity, but as a great /ator, being made a rich benefit, and Z fruit of God’s abundant grace, by Christ’s redemfition, who came into the world as a second Adam for this end. Surely, if this were so, it was of vast imfiortance, that it should be <known to the church of God in all ages, who saw death reigning over infants, as well as others. If infants were indeed perfectly zVznocenr, was it not ne-dllil, that the c/m-n of that which was such a melancholy and awful dispensation towards 30 many millions of innocent creatures, stiouid be known, in order to prevent the worst thoughts of God from arising in the minds of the constant spectators of so mysterious and gloomy a dispensation? But why then such a total silence about it, for four thousand years together, and not one word of it in all the Old Testament; nor one wofd of it in all the four gosfiels; and indeed not one word of it in the whole Bi” hie, but only as forced and wrung out by Dr. Taylor’s arts of criticism and deduction, against the plainest and strongest evidence!
As to the arguments, made use of by many late writers, from the universal moral sense, and the reasons they offer from experience, and observation of the nature of mankind, to shew that we are born into the world with principles of vir*
lows some tvtpvia,^ or natural disposlfeons, to civil good, in some great heroes. Socrates asserted the corruption of human nature, or uttKov efrtyroir. Grotiui afHrms, that the philosophers acknowledged, it was connatural to men,
tO«rt.”
Seneca (Benef. v. 14) says, “Wickedness has not its first beginning io VI xzVcd. practice: though by that it is first exercised and made manifest.” And Plutarch (de Sera vindicta) says, “Man does not first become wicked, when he first manijests hints e!J so: Buc he hath wickedness/rom the beginning; and he skews it as so m as he finds opportunity and ability. As men rightly judge, that the sting is not first engendered in scorpions w-hen they strike, or the poison in vipers when they bite”. ...Poors Synops. on Gen. viii. »i.
To which may be subjoined what Juvenal says,
....Ad mores miuTi recurrit
Damnatos.Jixa et maluri nescia.”
Englished thus, in prose;
Nature, a thing fixed and not knowing how to change, rcturrj to it« vickcd manners, Watti’s Ruin and Recovery, tue; vritha natural prevailing: relish, approbation, and love of ulghteousncss, truth, and poodness, and of whatever tends to the pub’ic welfare; with a prevailing natural disposition to dislike, to resent and condemn what is selfish, unjust and immoral; and a native bent in mankind to mutual benevolence, tender compassion, &c. those who have had such objections flgainst the doctrine of Original Sin, thrown in their way, and desire to see them particularly considered, I ask leave ta refer them to a Treatise on the Miture of true Virtue lying by me prepared for the press, which may ere long be exhibited to public view.