ANSW. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of any
law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.
QUEST. XXV. _Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate
whereinto man fell?_
ANSW. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth
in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness
wherein he was created; and the corruption of his nature, whereby he
is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is
spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that
continually, which is commonly called, Original sin, and from which
do proceed all actual transgressions.
QUEST. XXVI. _How is original sin conveyed from our first parents
unto their posterity?_
ANSW. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their
posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them,
in that way, are conceived and born in sin.
Having considered the fall of our first parents, and all mankind being
so far concerned therein, as that their sin is imputed to them; we are
now led to speak concerning that sin and misery which ensues hereupon.
And,
I. This is not barely called a single act of sin, or one particular
instance of misery, but a state of sin and misery. Man’s being brought
into a state of sin, is sometimes called sin’s reigning, or having
dominion over him; and his being brought into a state of misery, is
called the reign, or dominion of death; so that as, by various steps, we
proceed from one degree of sin unto another, our condemnation is
gradually enhanced thereby. This is the subject matter of the first of
these answers.
II. We have a brief definition of sin, in which there is something
supposed, namely, that there was a law given, and promulgated, as a rule
of obedience, to the reasonable creature, without which there could be
no sin committed, or guilt contracted; as the apostle saith, _Where no
law is, there is no transgression_, Rom. iv. 15. or, _Sin is not
imputed, where there is no law_, chap. v. 13.
And inasmuch as it is observed, that the subjects, bound by this law,
are reasonable creatures; this gives us to understand, that though other
creatures be the effect of God’s power, and the objects of his
providence, yet they are not the subjects of moral government. They
cannot therefore be under a law, inasmuch as they are not capable of
understanding their relation to God, as Sovereign, or their obligation
to obey him, or the meaning of a law, which is the rule thereof.
Moreover, we have in this answer, an account of the formal nature of
sin.
1. It is considered, either in its negative, or rather privative idea,
as containing in it a defect, or want of conformity to the law, a
privation of that rectitude of nature, or righteousness that man had at
first, or our not performing that which we are bound, by the law of God,
to do; and those particular instances of sin, included herein, are
called sins of omission.
2. It is described by its positive idea, and so it is called, a
transgression of the law, or doing that which is forbidden by it. Thus
it is called, by the apostle, _The transgression of the law_, 1 John
iii. 4. This we shall not insist on at present, inasmuch as we shall
have occasion to enlarge on this head, when we consider the sins
forbidden, under each of the ten commandments, and the various
aggravations thereof.[67]
III. We are, in the next answer, led to consider the sinfulness of all
mankind, as fallen in Adam, or original sin, as derived to, and
discovered in us; and this consists more especially in our being guilty
of Adam’s first sin, our wanting that righteousness which he was
possessed of; and also in the corruption of nature, from whence all
actual transgressions proceed.
1. We shall enquire what we are to understand by the guilt of Adam’s
first sin. Having before shewn that his disobedience is imputed to his
posterity, that which is the result thereof, is, that all the world
becomes guilty before God: guilt is an obligation, or liableness to
suffer punishment for an offence committed, in proportion to the
aggravations thereof. Now, since this guilt was not contracted by us,
but imputed to us, we must consider it as the same, in all; or not
admitting of any degrees; nevertheless, there is a very great difference
between that guilt which is the result of sin imputed to, and that which
arises from sin’s being committed by us. They, who do not put a just
difference between these two, give occasion to many prejudices against
this doctrine, and do not sufficiently vindicate the perfections of God,
in his judiciary proceedings in punishing one or the other of them. That
we may avoid this inconvenience, let it be considered, that original and
actual sins differ more especially in two respects.
(1.) The sin of our first parents, how heinous soever it was in them, as
being an actual transgression, attended with the highest aggravations,
yet it cannot be said to be our actual sin, or committed by an act of
our will; therefore, though the imputation thereof to us, as has been
before proved, is righteous, yet it has not those circumstances
attending it, as though it had been committed by us. Therefore,
(2.) The guilt thereof, or the punishment due to it, cannot be so great
as the guilt we contract, or the punishment we are liable to, for actual
sins, which are committed with the approbation and consent of the will,
and as they are against some degree of light and convictions of
conscience, and manifold engagements to the contrary: but this does not
properly belong to Adam’s sin, as imputed to us; nor is the punishment
due to it the same, as though it had been committed by us in our own
persons.
But, that we may not be misunderstood, let it be considered, that we are
not speaking of the corruption of nature inherent in us. We do not deny,
but that the fountain that sends forth all actual sins, or that sin
reigning in the heart, is, in various respects, more aggravated, than
many others that are committed, which we call actual transgressions, as
the corrupt fountain is worse than the streams, or the root than the
branch, or the cause than the effect. But when we consider, as at
present we do Adam’s sin only, as imputed, and as being antecedent to
that corruption of nature, which is the immediate cause of sinful
actions; or when we distinguish between original sin, as imputed and
inherent, we only understand, by the former, that it cannot expose those
who never committed any actual sins, to so great a degree of guilt and
punishment, as the sins committed by them are said to expose them to.
And let it be farther observed, that we do not say that there is no
punishment due to original sin, as imputed to us; for that would be to
suppose that there is no guilt attending it, which is contrary to what
we have already proved; but all our design, at present, is, to put a
just difference between Adam’s sin, imputed to us, and those that are
committed by us. And, indeed, if what we have said under this head, be
not true, the state of infants, dying in infancy, under the guilt of
Adam’s sin, must be equally deplorable with that of the rest of mankind;
therefore, when I find some expressing themselves to this purpose, I
cannot wonder that others, who deny this doctrine are offended at it. It
is one thing to say, that they are exposed to no punishment at all,
which none, that observe the miseries that we are liable to, from our
first appearance in the world, to our leaving it, whether sooner or
later, can well deny; and another thing to say, that they are exposed to
the same punishment for it, as though they had actually committed it;
the former we allow; the latter we must take leave to deny lest we
should give occasion to any to think that the Judge of all does any
thing, which carries in it the least appearance of severity, and
injustice. Thus concerning the guilt of Adam’s first sin, imputed to us;
which leads us to consider the effects thereof. Accordingly,
2. Man is said to want that righteousness which he had at first, which
is generally called, original righteousness. This is styled, the
privative part of original sin, as the corruption of the human nature,
and its propensity to all sin, is the positive part thereof. In
considering the former of these, or man’s want of original
righteousness, we may observe,
(1.) That man has not wholly lost God’s natural image, which he was
possessed of, as an intelligent creature, consisting in his being
endowed as such with an understanding, capable of some degree of the
knowledge of himself and divine things; and a will, in many respects,
free, _viz._ as to what concerns natural things, or some external
branches of religion, or things materially good, and in his having
executive powers, to act agreeably thereunto; though these are miserably
defaced, and come far short of that perfection, which he had in the
state in which he was first created. Some have compared this to an old
decayed building, which has, by the ruins of time, lost its strength and
beauty, though it retains something of the shape and resemblance of what
it was before. Thus the powers and faculties of the soul are weakened,
but not wholly lost, by the fall. They are like the fruits of the earth,
which are shrivelled and withered in winter, and look as though they are
dead; or like a man, who has out-lived himself, and has lost the
vivacity and sprightliness of his parts, as well as the beauty of his
body, which he formerly had.
(2.) Our ability to yield acceptable obedience to God, much more perfect
obedience, is wholly lost, as being destitute of a principle of
spiritual life and grace, which must, if ever we have it, be implanted
in regeneration; so that every one may say with the apostle, _In me_
(_that is, in my flesh_,) _dwelleth no good thing_, Rom. vii. 18.
(3.) We are destitute of a right to the heavenly blessedness, and all
those privileges, that were promised upon condition of our first parents
performing perfect obedience, according to the tenor of the covenant
made with them in their state of innocency.
This want of original righteousness is the immediate consequence of
Adam’s first sin. By original righteousness we understand, either that
freedom from guilt, which man had before he sinned, which exempted him
from any liableness to condemnation, and afforded him a plea before God
for his retaining the blessings he was possessed of; and, had he
persisted longer in his integrity, it would have given him a right to a
greater degree of happiness: His perfect obedience was his
righteousness, in a forensick sense; and the failure thereof, in our
first parents, rendered both them and us destitute of it. But, since
this is the same with what is expressed in the foregoing words, wherein
we are denominated guilty of Adam’s first sin, we must consider
something else, as intended in this expression, when we are said to want
that righteousness wherein he was created.
We have before observed, that, by the fall of our first parents, the
image of God in man was defaced: But now, we are to speak of his
supernatural image, as what was wholly lost, and therefore all mankind
are, by nature, destitute of a principle of grace; upon which account it
may be truly said, as the apostle does, _There is none righteous; no,
not one_, Rom. iii. 10. and elsewhere man is called, _A transgressor
from the womb_, Isa. xlviii. 8. and, by nature, not only _a child of
wrath_, but _dead in trespasses and sins_, Eph. ii. 1. and therefore it
is necessary that we be created again to good works, or that a new
principle of grace be implanted in regeneration, without which there is
no salvation. Our being destitute of this supernatural principle of
grace is distinguished from that propensity to sin, or corruption of
nature, which is spoken of in the following words of this answer; and
therefore, considering it as thus distinguished, and as called, by some,
the _privative_ part of original sin; we are led to speak of man in his
destitute state, deprived of that which was his glory, and tended to his
defence against the assaults of temptation; and of those actual
transgressions which are the consequence thereof. This excellent
endowment man is said to have lost.
Some divines express themselves with a degree of caution, when treating
on this subject; and therefore, though they allow that man has lost this
righteousness, yet they will hardly own that God took it away, though it
were by a judicial act, as supposing that this would argue him to be the
author of sin; and I would not blame the least degree of concern
expressed to fence against such a consequence, did it really ensue on
our asserting it; yet I cannot but conclude, that the holiness of God
may be vindicated, though we should assert, that he deprived him of this
righteousness, as a punishment of his sin, or denied him that power to
perform perfect obedience, which he conferred on him at first; for there
is a vast difference between God’s restoring to him his lost power, to
perform that which is truly and supernaturally good in all its
circumstances; and the infusing habits of sin into his nature: This, we
acknowledge, he could not do, consistently with his holiness, and shall
make it farther appear, under a following head. But the other he might
do, that is, leave man destitute of a power to walk before him in
holiness and righteousness; for, if God had been obliged to have given
him this power, then his bestowing it on fallen man, would be rather a
debt than a grace, which is contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel.
But this leads us to consider the _positive_ part of original sin;
therefore,
3. Man’s sinfulness, as fallen, consists in the corruption of his
nature, or a propensity and inclination to all evil, which, as it is
observed, is commonly called, _original sin_, that is, original sin
inherent, as distinguished from it, as imputed to us, which has been
already considered. That the nature of man is vitiated, corrupted, and
prone to all that is bad, is taken for granted by all; and, indeed, he
that denies it, must either be very much unacquainted with himself, or
hardly retain the common notices which we have of moral good and evil.
This is frequently represented, in scripture, as a plague, defilement,
or deadly evil, with which his heart is affected; upon which account it
is said, that _it is deceitful above all things, and desperately
wicked_, Jer. xvii. 9. that _out of it proceed evil thoughts_, and all
other abominations of the most heinous nature, Matth. xv. 19. unless
prevented by the grace of God.
This propensity of nature to sin discovers itself in the first dawn of
our reason; so that we no sooner appear to be men, but we give ground to
conclude that we are sinners. Accordingly it is said, _The imagination
of man’s heart is only evil_, and that _from his youth_,[68] Gen. vi. 5.
compared with chap. viii. 21. and he is represented as _estranged from
the womb, going astray as soon as he is born, speaking lyes_, Psal.
lvii. 3. which is, notwithstanding, to be understood with this
limitation, that we are prone to sin, as soon as we have any
dispositions, or inclinations, to any thing; for it cannot be supposed
that man is disposed to commit actual sin before he is capable of
acting. Some, indeed, have attempted to prove that the soul of a child
sins as soon as it is united to the body in the womb, and have carried
this indefensible conjecture so far, as that they have maintained, that
actual sin is committed in the womb. But this is not only destitute of
all manner of proof, but it seems so very absurd, that, as few will be
convinced by it, so it needs no confutation.
As for this propensity to sin, (whenever it may be said to take place)
it is certain, that it is not equal in all; and in this it differs from
Adam’s guilt, as imputed to us, and from our want of original
righteousness, as the immediate consequence thereof; for these corrupt
inclinations appear, from universal experience, as well as the
concurrent testimony of scripture, to be of an increasing nature; so
that some are more obstinate and hardened in sin than others; and the
habits thereof, in many, are compared to the tincture of the
_Ethiopian_, or the _leopard’s spots_, Jer. xiii. 23. which no human art
can take away. We are, indeed, naturally prone to sin at first; but
afterwards the leprosy spreads, and the propensity, or inclination to
it, increases by repeated acts, or a course of sin. The Psalmist takes
notice of this, in a beautiful climax, or gradation; _They know not,
neither will they understand, they walk in darkness_, Psal. lxxxii. 5.
We shall now take occasion to speak something concerning the rise or
origin hereof. This is a difficulty which many have attempted to account
for and explain, though with as little success as any thing that comes
within the compass of our enquiries. Some ancient heretics[69] have
thought, that because it could not be from God, who is the author of
nothing but what is good, that therefore there are two first causes; one
of all good, which is God, and the other of all evil. But this is
deservedly exploded, as a most dangerous and absurd notion.
Others seem to assert, that God is the author of it; and, that they may
exculpate themselves from making him the author of sin, which is the
vilest reproach that can be cast upon him, they add, that he does this
in a judicial way, as a punishment for the sin of our first parents, and
that it is no reflection on him to suppose, that, as a Judge, he may put
this propensity to sin into our nature; so that it is, as it were,
concreate with the soul, or derived to us, at the same time that it is
formed in, and united to the body: But we cannot, by any means, conclude
God to be the author hereof, though it be as a Judge; for that would be
to suppose his vindictive justice inconsistent with the spotless purity
of his nature. We read, indeed, of God’s _giving men up to their own
hearts’ lusts_, Psal. lxxxi. 11, 12. as a punishment for other sins; but
never of his producing in them an inclination to sin, though it be under
the notion of a punishment: But this having been proved and illustrated,
under a foregoing answer, when speaking concerning the providence of
God, as conversant about those actions, to which sin is annexed, in a
judicial way, we shall pass it over in this place[70].
The Pelagians, and, after them, the Papists, and some among the
Remonstrants, being sensible, that this propensity of nature to sin
cannot be denied, have taken such a method to account for it, as makes
it a very innocent and harmless thing; and, that it may appear agreeable
to the notion which they maintain of the innocency of man by nature,
they suppose that the first motions, or inclinations of the soul to sin,
or, to use their own expression, the first acts of concupiscence are not
sinful; and, to support this opinion, they maintain, that nothing can be
deemed a sin, but what is committed with the full bent of the will; and
therefore when an unlawful object presents itself, how much soever the
mind may be pleased with it, yet there is no sin till there is an actual
compliance with it; and, for this, they bring that scripture, _When lust
has conceived, it bringeth forth sin_, James i. 15. that is, the second
act of concupiscence, or the compliance with the first suggestions to
sin, are only denominated sin; and, as a consequence from this
supposition, they pretend that these first acts of concupiscence were
not inconsistent with a state of innocency; so that when _Eve saw that
the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a
tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and
did eat_, Gen. iii. 6. She did not sin till she took of the fruit
thereof, and did eat; and, as a farther consequence deduced from this
supposition, they conclude, that that original righteousness, which our
first parents had, did not consist so much in a perfect freedom from all
suggestions to sin, but it was rather a bridle to restrain them from
compliance therewith, which, by not making a right use of, they complied
with the motions of concupiscence, and so sinned. And, according to this
scheme, that propensity of nature to sin, which we have in our
childhood, is an harmless, and innocent thing, and therefore we may
suppose it to be from God, without concluding him to be the author of
sin. But this is a vile and groundless notion, and such as savours more
of Antinomianism, than many doctrines that are so called; and, indeed,
it is to call that no sin, which is, as it were, the root and spring of
all sin, and to make God the author and approver of that, which he
cannot but look on with the utmost detestation, as being contrary to the
holiness of his nature; to which nothing farther need be said, since the
notion carries the black marks of its own infamy in itself.
There are others who oppose the doctrine of original sin, and pretend to
account for the corruption of nature, by supposing that all men sinned
for themselves; which is nothing else but reviving an old opinion taken
from the schools of Plato and Pythagoras, namely, that God created the
souls of all men at first, and before they were united to their bodies,
at least those that now they have, sinned; and, as a punishment of their
crime in that state, they were not only condemned to their respective
bodies, but to suffer all the miseries which they are exposed to
therein; so that the sin, which they committed in these bodies, is
nothing else but the propagation of that, which had its first rise in
the acts of the understanding and will, when they first fell into a
state of sin. This is so chimerical an opinion, that I would not have
mentioned it, had it not been maintained by some, as an expedient, to
account for the corruption of nature, by those who deny original sin,
and affirmed with that assurance, as though it were founded in
scripture; whereas I cannot think it has the least countenance from it.
They first take it for granted without sufficient ground that those
scriptures, that speak of the pre-existence of Christ in his divine
nature, are to be understood concerning the pre-existence of his soul;
and from thence they infer, that it is reasonable to suppose, that the
souls of other men pre-existed likewise. And they also strain the sense
of two or three other scriptures to prove it; as when it is said, that,
when God had _laid the foundation of the earth, the morning stars sang
together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy_, Job xxxviii. 7.
where, by the _morning stars_, they understand, as others do, the
_angels_; and, by the _sons of God_, they suppose, is meant the souls of
men, that were then created, and untainted with sin, and, to give
farther countenance to this, they explain what is said in a following
verse, ver. 12. agreeably thereunto, where, when God had continued the
account which he gives of his having created the world, he says,
_Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born, or because the number of
thy days is great_; they render the words, _Knowest thou that thou wast
then born, and that the number of thy days are many_, or they depend
upon the translation, which the LXX give of the text, _I know that thou
wast then born, for the number of thy days is many_, that is, that thou
wast then existent; for though thou knowest not what thou didst, from
that time, till thou camest into the world, yet the number of thy days
is great, that is, thou hadst an existence many ages before. How easy a
matter it is for persons to strain the sense of some words of scripture,
to serve a purpose, contrary to the general scope and design thereof, if
they attempt to give countenance thereby to any doctrine of their own
invention.
As for those scriptures, which they bring to prove that the Jews were of
this opinion, I will not deny the inference from thence, that some of
them were, as appears from the report that the disciples gave to our
Saviour, when he asked them, _Whom do men say that I am?_ They replied,
_Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others
Jeremias, or one of the prophets_, Matth. xvi. 13, 14. that is, they
judged, according to the Pythagorean hypothesis, that the soul of
_Jeremias_, or _one of the prophets_, dwelt in that body, which he had,
and therefore that he was one of them. And there is another scripture,
in which our Saviour’s disciples, speaking concerning the blind man,
asked him, _Did this man sin, or his parents, that he was born blind?_
John ix. 2. as if he should say: Was it for some sin that this man’s
soul committed, before it entered into the body, to which it is united?
And was his being born blind a punishment thereof? I say, I will not
deny, but that some of the Jews, from hence, may be supposed to have
given into this fabulous notion, agreeably to the sentiments of the
philosophy, which they had been conversant in. But I will not allow that
our Saviour’s not confuting this absurd opinion, is an intimation; (as
the defenders thereof generally conclude it to be) that he reckoned it
just; but I rather think, that he passed it over, as a vulgar error, not
worthy of his confutation. And as for that passage, which they quote,
for this purpose, out of the apocryphal book of _Wisdom_, which is no
proof of this matter from Scripture, when one is represented, as saying
to this effect, that _because he was good, he came into a body
undefiled_; this only proves, that this was the opinion of some of that
trifling generation of men. And, when they speak of it, as what, has
been maintained by some of the Fathers, who received the notion from the
philosophy above-mentioned, this is also as little to the purpose; and,
indeed, all the other arguments that they bring, amount to nothing else
but this; that, if the scripture had not given us ground to establish
the contrary doctrine, there might have been, at least, a possibility of
the truth of this, but to lay this as a foundation, on which they assert
the truth thereof, and that with the design above-mentioned, this is
nothing else, but for men to substitute their own fancies, without
sufficient ground, as matters of faith, and build doctrines upon them,
as though they were contained in scripture. I pass by other
improvements, which they make on this fabulous notion, which still
appear to be more romantic.[71]
There is another attempt to account for the origin of moral evil,
without inferring God to be the author of it, which has formerly been
advanced by those who deny the imputation of Adam’s sin; and these
suppose that the soul is rendered polluted with sin, by reason of its
traduction, or propagation, from the soul of the immediate parent; so
that, in like manner, as the body is subject to hereditary diseases, the
soul is defiled with sin, as both one and the other are the consequence
of their formation, according to the course of nature, in the likeness
of those, from whom they immediately derive their respective beings; and
they suppose that a similitude of passions, and natural dispositions in
parents and children, is an argument to evince the truth hereof.
But this appears so contrary to the light of nature, and all the
principles of philosophy, to suppose, that one spirit can produce
another, in a natural way, and so repugnant to the ideas which we have
of spirits, as simple beings, or not compounded of parts, as bodies are,
that it seems almost to be universally exploded, as being destitute of
any tolerable argument to support it, though it was formerly embraced by
some of the Fathers.[72] And they, who pretend to account for it, by the
similitude of one candle’s lighting another, and yet the flame remaining
the same as it was before, have only made use of an unhappy method of
illustration, which comes far short of a conclusive argument to their
purpose. And as for the likeness of natural dispositions in children to
their parents, that does not, in the least prove it; since this arises
very much from the temperament of the body, or from the prejudices of
education. Therefore this method to account for the origin of moral
evil, being not much defended at present, we may pass it over, as a
groundless conjecture.
As for Arminius, and his followers, they have very much insisted on a
supposition, which they have advanced, that the universal corruption of
human nature arises only from imitation. In answer to which, though I
will not deny but that the progress and increase of sin, in particular
persons, may be very much owing to the pernicious example of others,
with whom they are conversant; yet it seems very absurd to assign this,
as the first reason thereof; for it may easily be observed, that this
corruption of nature, or disposition to sin, is visible in children,
before they are capable of being drawn aside, by the influence of bad
examples; and indeed, their being corrupted thereby, is rather the
effect, than the cause of this first propensity that there is in nature
to sin; and it would soon appear, that, if they never saw any thing but
what is excellent or worthy to be imitated in those, under whose care
they are, they would soon discover themselves, notwithstanding, prone to
the contrary vices. And we may as well suppose, that wisdom, or
holiness, takes its rise from imitation, in a natural way, as that sin,
or folly, does so: But nothing is more common, than for children to be
very degenerate from their parents. And whatever attempts are used to
instil principles of virtue into them, it is nothing else, but striving
against the stream of corrupt nature, unless the grace of God interpose,
and do that which imitation can never be the cause of.
Therefore we must take some other method to account for this corruption
of nature, and at the same time, maintain, that the soul is from God, by
immediate creation, which, though it be not so plainly contained in
scripture, as other articles of faith are, yet scripture seems not to be
wholly silent as to this matter; especially when God says, _Behold, all
souls are mine_, Ezek. xviii. 4. and elsewhere, which is more express to
this purpose, God speaks of the _souls that he made_, or created, Isa.
lvii. 16. and the apostle, for this reason, styles him, _The Father of
spirits_, Heb. xii. 9. and that in such a sense, as is opposed to _the
fathers of the flesh_; therefore, taking this for granted, the
difficulty which will recur upon us, which we are to account for, is,
how can the soul, that comes out of God’s immediate hand, be the subject
of moral evil? To assert, that it is created guilty of Adam’s first sin,
or under an obligation to suffer that degree of punishment, which is due
to it, is not inconsistent with the divine perfections, as will farther
appear, when, under a following head, we consider what this punishment
is: but to suppose that it is created by God impure, or with an
inclination, or propensity to sin, cannot well be reconciled with the
holiness of God.
This is what has been acknowledged by most divines, as one of the
greatest difficulties that occur in the whole scheme of divinity. Some,
with a becoming and religious modesty, have confessed their inability to
account for it, and advise us rather to bewail, and strive against it,
than to be too inquisitive about the origin and cause of it. And,
indeed, this is far better, than either to darken counsel by words,
without knowledge, or to advance what we cannot prove; and I would
rather chuse to acquiesce in this humble ignorance thereof, than to
assert any thing which contains the least insinuation of God’s being the
author of it. It is certain, there are many things which we know to be
true, though we cannot, at the same time, account for the manner of
their being what they are, and are at a loss to determine their first
original, or the natural cause thereof: Thus, though we are sure that
the body is united to the soul, which acts by it, yet it is very hard to
determine by what bands they are united, or how the soul moves the body,
as its instrument in acting. Moreover, we know that the particles of
matter are united to one another; but it is difficult to determine what
is the cause thereof. So if we enquire into the reason of the different
colour, or shape of herbs and plants; or why the grass is green, and not
white or red; no one would be blamed if he should acknowledge himself to
be at a loss to account for these, and other things of the like nature.
The same may be said, if we should confess that we are at a loss to
determine what is the first rise of the propensity of the nature of man
to sin: nevertheless, if we keep within the bounds of modesty in our
enquiries, and advance nothing contrary to the divine perfections, we
may safely, and with some advantage to the doctrine of original sin, say
something as to this matter, that hereby we may remove the objections
that are brought, by some, against it.
Various ways have been taken, as was before observed, to account for the
origin of moral evil, which we cannot acquiesce in, by reason of the
many absurdities that attend them; therefore it may be more excusable
for me to offer my humble thoughts about this matter, in which, I hope,
I shall not much deviate from the sentiments of many, who have
judiciously and happily maintained this doctrine.
There is, indeed, one conjecture, which I meet with, in a learned
judicious divine, which differs very much from any account which we have
of it by any other,[73] namely, that the mother while the child is in
the womb, having a sinful thought, impresses it on its soul, whereby it
becomes polluted, in the same manner as its body is sometimes marked by
the strength of her imagination: but this opinion is so very improbable,
that it will hardly gain any proselytes to it; and it only discovers how
willing some persons are to solve this difficulty though in an uncommon
method, as being apprehensive that others have not sufficiently done it.
But, that we may account for this matter in the most unexceptionable
way, which does not in the least, infer God to be the author of sin nor
overthrow the doctrine of imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, we
must consider this propensity of nature, or inclination that there is in
the souls of men to sin as a corrupt habit, and therefore that it is not
infused by God; and consequently though the soul, in its first creation,
is guilty, that is, liable to suffer the punishment due to it for Adam’s
sin imputed, yet it does not come defiled out of the hands of God; or,
as one well expresses it,[74] “We are not to think that God put original
sin into men’s souls; for how should he punish those souls, which he
himself had corrupted? And he adds, that it is a great wickedness to
believe that God put into the soul an inclination to sin; though it is
true God creates the souls of men destitute of heavenly gifts, and
supernatural light, and that justly because Adam lost those gifts for
himself and his posterity.”
Another judicious divine[75] expresses himself to this purpose; that,
though the soul is created spotless, yet it is destitute of original
righteousness, as a punishment of Adam’s first sin; and accordingly he
distinguishes between a soul’s being pure, so as the soul of Adam was
when it was first created, that is to say, not only sinless, but having
habits, or inclinations in its nature, which inclined it to what was
good; and its being created with a propensity, or inclination to evil,
which he, with good reason denies; and, as a medium between both those
extremes, in which the truth lies, observes, that the soul is created,
by God, destitute of original righteousness, unable to do what is truly
good; and yet, having no positive inclination, or propensity in nature,
to what is evil; this is plainly the sense of his words, which I have
inserted in the margin.
Now if it be enquired, how this corrupt habit, or inclination to sin, is
contracted? the corruption of nature necessarily ensues on the privation
of original righteousness. Some have illustrated this by an apt
similitude, taken from the travellers wandering out of his way, or
taking a wrong path, as occasioned by the darkness of the night, in
which, his want of light is the occasion, though not properly the cause
of his wandering. Thus man is destitute of original righteousness, or
those habits of supernatural grace, which are implanted in regeneration;
and what can be the consequence thereof, but that his first actions, as
soon as he is capable of doing good or evil, must contain in them
nothing less than a sin of omission, or a defect of, and disinclination
to, what is good? and, by this means, the soul becomes defiled, or
inclined to sin; so that we first suppose it indisposed to what is good,
and that this arises from its being destitute of supernatural grace,
which it lost by Adam’s fall, and that God may deny this grace, without
supposing him to be the author of sin; for he was not obliged to
continue that to Adam’s posterity, which he forfeited, and lost for
them. And that which follows, from hence, is, that the heart of man, by
a continuance in sin after it is first tinctured with it, grows worse
and worse, and more inclined to it than before. This I cannot better
illustrate, than by comparing it to a drop of poison, injected into the
veins of a man, which will by degrees corrupt the whole mass of blood.
As to what concerns the body, to which the soul was united, as giving
occasion to these corrupt habits being contracted thereby, some have
compared this to sweet oil’s being infected by a musty vessel, into
which it is put; so the soul, created good, and put into a corrupt body,
receives contagion from thence: and this conjunction of the pure soul
with a corrupt body, is a just punishment of Adam’s sin. Thus a very
learned and excellent divine accounts for this matter;[76] though this
similitude does not indeed illustrate this matter in every circumstance,
inasmuch as that tincture, which is received from a vessel in a physical
way, cannot well agree with the corruption of the soul, which is of a
moral nature; but yet I would make this use of it, as to observe what
daily experience suggests, namely, that the constitution, or temperament
of the body, has a very great influence on the soul, and is an occasion
of various inclinations to sin, in which it acts, in an objective way.
Therefore when we suppose a soul united to a body, that, according to
the frame and constitution of its nature has a tendency to incline it to
sin, and this soul is deprived of those supernatural habits, which would
have fenced it against this contagion; what can ensue from hence, but
that corruption of nature, whereby men are inclined to what is evil?
which inclination increases daily, till men arrive to the most rooted
habits and dispositions to all that is bad, and are, with more
difficulty, reclaimed from it. This leads us to consider,
IV. The conveyance of original sin, from our first parents to their
posterity, by natural generation, or how we are said to be born in sin.
It is not the sin of our immediate parents that is imputed to us, for
they stand in no other relation, but as natural, and not federal heads
of their posterity; therefore the meaning of that answer, in which this
doctrine is contained, is only this, that original sin is conveyed to
us, by our immediate parents, with our being; so that, as we are born
men, we are born sinners. Now, that we may consider this in consistency
with what has been before laid down nothing can be inferred, from hence,
but that the guilt of Adam’s first sin is conveyed to us with our being,
and that habitual inclination that we have, which we call a propensity
of nature to sin, is the consequence hereof; so that what our Saviour
says, is a great truth, _That which is born of the flesh, is flesh_,
John iii. 6. or every one that is born of sinful parents, will, as soon
as he is capable thereof, be prone to sin. And this leads us to
consider,
What is objected against what has been before laid down, in explaining
this doctrine as though it were inconsistent with the sense of several
scriptures, which speak of sin, as derived from our immediate parents.
For the understanding of which, in general, let it be considered, that
no sense of any scripture is true, that casts the least reflection on
the divine perfections. If we could but prove, that our souls were
propagated by our immediate parents, as our bodies are, there would be
no difficulty in allowing the sense the objectors give of several
scriptures, from whence they attempt to account for the corruption of
nature in a different way, since God would not then be the immediate
author thereof. But, supposing the soul to be created by God, we must
take some other method to account for the sense of some scriptures,
which are brought in opposition to the foregoing explication of the
origin of moral evil.
The first scripture, which is generally brought against it, is, in Psal.
li. 5. _Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother
conceive me_; the meaning of which is, I was conceived, and born guilty
of sin, with an inability to do what is good, and in such a state, that
actual sin would necessarily ensue, as soon as I was capable of
committing it, which would bring with it a propensity to all manner of
sin. And that David had a sense of guilt, as well as the pollution of
nature, is plain, from several verses of this Psalm; especially in ver.
9, 14. It is therefore as though he should say, I was a guilty creature,
as soon as I was conceived in the womb; and left of God, and so sin has
the ascendant over me. I was conceived a sinner by imputation, under the
guilt of Adam’s first sin; and to this I have added much more guilt, and
lately that of blood-guiltiness. So that though he is said to have been
_shapen in iniquity_, it does not necessarily follow, that his soul was
created with infused habits of sin. Whatever the parents are the cause
of, with respect to this corruption and pollution, let it be attributed
to them; but far be it from us to say, that God is the cause thereof.
Again, it is said, in Job xiv. 4. _Who can bring a clean thing out of an
unclean? no not one_. It is no strain upon the sense of this text, to
suppose, that by _unclean_, he means guilty; and by _cleanness_,
innocency, as opposed to it; for, in most places of this book, it is so
taken, that is, in a forensick sense; and therefore, why not in this?
And, if so, then it is not at all inconsistent with the above-mentioned
explication of this doctrine. See chap. xi. 4. _I am clean in thine
eyes_, that is, guiltless; otherwise Zophar’s reply to him would not
have been so just, when he saith, _God exacteth of thee less than thine
iniquity deserveth_; and, in chap. xv. 14. _What is man, that he should
be clean? and he, that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?_
where, to be _righteous_, seems to be exegetical of being _clean_; and
both of them, being taken in a forensick sense, it agrees well with what
Job is often reproved for, by his friends, namely, boasting too much of
his righteousness, or cleanness: thus he says, in chap. xxxiii. 9. _I am
clean without transgression, neither is there iniquity in me_; that is,
I am not so guilty, as to deserve such a punishment, as he inflicts: _He
findeth occasions against me_, &c. Surely, _cleanness_ here is the same
with innocence, as opposed to guilt; and, in chap. ix. 30. _If I wash
myself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean_; this plainly
implies, that if he should pretend himself guiltless, yet he could not
answer the charge which God would bring against him, neither could they
_come together in judgment_, ver. 32. Now, if this be so frequently, if
not always, the sense of _clean_, in other places of this book, why may
not we take the sense of these words, _Who can bring a clean thing out
of an unclean_, to be this; that a guilty child is born of a guilty
parent, which will be accompanied with uncleanness, and it will be prone
to sin, as soon as it is capable thereof?
Another scripture, which we bring to prove original sin, is in Gen. vi.
5. _Every imagination of the thoughts of the heart of man, is only evil
continually_. Why may not we understand it thus? The imagination of the
thoughts are evil, as soon as there are imaginations, or thoughts,
though not before. And this rather respects the corruption of nature,
than the first rise of it; and so does that parallel scripture; in Gen.
viii. 21. _The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth_; q. d.
Sin increases with the exercise of reason.
And, in Psal. lviii. 3. _The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go
astray as soon as they be born speaking lies_. This agrees well enough
with what we have said concerning their separation from God, from the
womb, from whence arises actual sin; so that they _speak lies_, as soon
as they are capable of it.
There is also another scripture, usually brought to prove original sin,
which is to be understood in a sense, not much unlike that which we but
now mentioned, _viz._ Isa. xlviii. 8. _Thou wast called a transgressor
from the womb_. This doth not overthrow what we have said; for a person
may be a transgressor, as it were, from the womb, and yet the soul not
have a propensity to sin implanted in it by God, in its first creation.
Again, in Gen. v. 3. _Adam begat a son in his own likeness_, that is, a
fallen creature, involved in guilt, and liable to the curse, like
himself; and that would be like him, in actual sin, when capable of it,
born in _his image_, as having lost the _divine image_.
Again, in John iii. 6. _That which is born of the flesh, is flesh_. We
may understand this, that every one that is born of sinful parents, is a
sinner, destitute of the Spirit of God, which is a great truth. But
surely our Saviour did not design hereby to signify, that any one is
framed by God with a propensity of sin; which is all that we militate
against in this head.[77]
V. The last thing to be considered, is, that all actual transgressions
proceed from original sin. These are like so many streams that flow from
this fountain of corruption; the one discovers to us what we are by
nature; the other, what we are by practice; and both afford us matter
for repentance, and great humiliation, in the sight of God. But since we
shall have occasion to enlarge on that part of this subject, which more
especially relates to actual transgressions, with their respective
aggravations, in some following answers,[78] we pass it over at present;
and shall conclude this head with some practical inferences from what
has been said, concerning the corruption of our nature, as being the
spring of all actual transgressions.
1. We ought to put a due difference between the first discoveries there
are of this corruption of our nature in our infancy, and that which
arises from a course, or progress in sin; the latter has certainly
greater aggravations in it than the former, and is like a spark of fire,
blown up into a flame. Accordingly, it is our duty, as the apostle says,
to _exhort one another daily, while it is called to-day, lest any be
hardened_, that is, lest this corruption of nature be increased,
_through the deceitfulness of sin_, Heb. iii. 13.
2. Let us carefully distinguish between being born innocent, which the
Pelagians affirm, and we deny, and being born defiled with sin, and so
having a propensity of nature to it, as soon as we have a being; or let
us more especially take heed that we do not charge this on God, as
though he were the author thereof, as well as of our being, as though it
were infused by him, and not acquired by us.
3. Since this corruption of nature so early discovers itself, and abides
in us, as long as we are in this world, let us take heed that we do not
use means to increase it, by giving way to presumptuous sins; or
endeavour to excite or draw it forth, either in ourselves, or others;
for this will occasion abundance of actual transgressions.
Thus having considered that guilt which we bring with us into the world,
and that corruption of nature, which discovers itself, as soon as we
appear to be intelligent creatures, or are capable of any disposition to
sin; we proceed to speak concerning the misery and punishment that
ensues hereupon.
Footnote 67:
_See Quest._ cv.-cli.
Footnote 68:
Gen. vi. 5. Is a picture of antideluvian iniquity, it not only proves
that guilt was universal, and all men affected; that it was general,
the greater portion of the actions of men being evil; but that the
depravity of every unsanctified man was total, extending not merely to
his _thoughts_, but to his _imagination_ יצר, the first _frame_ or
_form_ of the thoughts. They were not partially, but _only evil_, and
that not occasionally but _continually_. Yet the race who were
destroyed, must have performed relative duties, parental and filial;
and the tribes seem to have lived as free from war, at least, as those
who have existed since the flood. If crimes before the flood exceeded
in degree and multitude those of modern times, yet if they differed
not in their nature, it will follow, that when the unrenewed in our
days, are kind parents, dutiful children, honest men, and good
citizens, they may be totally depraved; the “_imagination of the
thoughts of their hearts may be only evil continually_.” As we know
not their hearts, are to judge of them by their fruits, and are
charitably to impute their actions to better motives, we may with
propriety commend what God will condemn. He sees the intentions, and
the aversion of heart to him and holiness, and though he may reward
virtuous conduct in this world, to encourage virtue, yet will
eventually judge righteous judgment, and connect every action with its
motives.
This scripture also shews us not only, that the _material goodness_ of
actions will not recommend them to God, but that _conscientiousness_
in the discharge of relative duties, (for this must have existed
before the flood,) will not recommend them where the love of God,
which is peculiar to the renewed mind, is absent.
Footnote 69:
_The Marcionites in the second century, and the Manichees in the
third._
Footnote 70:
_See Page 54-57, ante._
Footnote 71:
_See a book, supposed to be written in defence hereof by Glanvil,
entitled, Lux Orientalis._
Footnote 72:
_Tertullian was of this opinion, [Vid. ejusd. de Anima] and Augustin,
though he sometimes appears to give into the opinion of the traduction
of the soul; yet, at other times, he is in great doubt about it, as
ready to give it up for an indefensible opinion, Vid. Aug. de Orig.
Anim. & in Gen. ad liter lib. 10._
Footnote 73:
_Vid. Pictet. Theol. Chr. Lib. V. cap. 7. Absit ut animam creari
impuram dicamus, cum nihil impurum e Dei manibus prodire possit.—Dum
infans est in utero matris, cum intime ei conjungatur, objecta in ejus
cerebrum easdem impressiones efficiunt, ac in matris cerebrum.—Hoc
patet ex eo quod contingit mulieribus prægnantibus; cum enim avide
inspiciunt aliquid, vel rubro, vel flavo colore, vel pallido tinctum,
contigit sæpissime ut infantes quos in utero gestant, tali colore
tincti nascantur. Ita intime corpus & animam uniri, ut ad motum
corporis, ceriæ oriantur in mente cogationes.—Motus, qui fiunt in
cerebro infantium idem præstare in illis, ac in matribus, nempe eorum
animam recens creatam rebus sensibilibus & carnalibus alligare; unde
videmus infantium animas omnia ad se & ad suum referre corpus._
Footnote 74:
_See Du Moulin’s Anatomy of Armnianism, Chap. X. § 3, 15, 17._
Footnote 75:
_See Turret. Instit. Theol. Elenct. Tom. I. Loc. 9. Q. 12. § 8, 9.
Licet anima sine ulla labe creatur a Deo, non creatur tamen cum
justitia originali, qualis anima Adami, ad imaginem Dei; sed cum ejus
carentia in pœnam primi peccati. Ut hic distinguendum sit inter animam
puram, impuram, & non puram. Illa pura dicitur, quæ ornata est habitu
sanctitatis; impura, quæ contrarium habitum injustitiæ habet; non
pura, quæ licet nullum habeat habitum bonum, nullum tamen habet malum,
sed creatur simpliciter cum facultatibus naturalibus; qualis
supponitur creari a Deo post lapsum, quia imago Dei amissa semel per
peccatum, non potest amplius restitui, nisi regenerationis beneficio
per Spiritum Sanctum. Quamvis autem animæ creantur a Deo destitutæ
justitia originali; non propterea Deus potest censeri author peccati,
quia aliud est impuritatem infundere, aliud puritatem non dare, qua
homo se indignum reddidit in Adamo._
Footnote 76:
_See Perkins on the Creed._
Footnote 77:
The mind of man is as open to the view of God, as our words or actions
are; the intention is ordinarily the seat of guilt; for the merely
physical action of the body deserves neither praise nor blame; the
Lord is able not only to detect, but to punish in every instance such
guilt; his justice therefore requires that he should exercise such
power.
To prefer the creatures to the Creator, is to deny his superior
excellency, and that he is the source from whence we have derived the
good which we possess; it is to give the honour which is due to him,
unto others; it is a robbery committed on him; it is a revolting from
his allegiance, and treason, which ought to be punished.
It is an evidence that we have no love for him, when we desire
communion and acquaintance with other objects on their own account. It
is a proof of enmity against him, for we cannot at the same time fix
our highest affections on sensual pursuits and on holiness; and an
attachment to the former evinces hatred of the latter; and so an
aversion to an holy God. If we are enemies to God, Omnipotence must
and will prevail, nor can he suffer in the universe, his enemies to be
finally prosperous, possessing still their enmity.
Where there exists not the love of God, there is no obedience to his
laws, for this is the principle of obedience; all the good deeds of
such are but a semblance of holiness, and must be rejected by him who
views the motive with the action. Disobedience to his laws is to be
punished with death, the implied penalty of all divine laws; and the
least punishment that the magnitude of an offence against an infinite
Majesty can admit.
Footnote 78:
_See Quest._ cv.-cli.
Quest. XXVII.