PART
WHEREIN ARE
CONSIDERED SOME EVIDENCES OF ORIGINAL SIN FROM FACTS AND EVENTS, AS FOUNDED BY
OBSERVATION AND EXPERIENCE, TOGETHER WITH REPRESENTATIONS AND TESTIMONIES OF
HOLY SCRIPTURE, AND THE CONFESSION AND ASSERTION OF OPPOSERS
CHAPTER
I
(Sections 1-9)
THE EVIDENCE OF
ORIGINAL SIN FROM WHAT APPEARS IN FACT OF THE SINFULNESS OF MANKIND
SECTION I
All mankind constantly, in all ages,
without fail in any one instance, run into that moral evil, which is in effect
their own utter and eternal perdition in a total privation of GOD’s favor, and
suffering of his vengeance and wrath.
BY Original
Sin as the phrase has been most commonly used by divines, is meant the innate
sinful depravity of the heart. But yet when the doctrine of original sin is
spoken of, it is vulgarly understood in that latitude, which includes not only
the depravity of nature, but the imputation of Adam’s first sin;
or, in other words, the liableness or exposedness of Adam’s posterity, in the
divine judgment, to partake of the punishment of that sin. So far as I know,
most of those who have held one of these, have maintained the other; and most of
those who have opposed one, have opposed the other: both are opposed by the
Author chiefly attended to in the following discourse, in his book against
original sin: And it may perhaps appear in our future consideration of the
subject, that they are closely connected; that the arguments which prove the one
establish the other, and that there are no more difficulties attending the
allowing of one, than the other.
I shall in the first place,
consider this doctrine more specially with regard to the corruption of nature;
and as we treat of this the other will naturally come into consideration, in the
prosecution of the discourse, as connected with it. As all moral qualities, all
principles either of virtue or vice, lie in the disposition of the heart, I
shall consider whether we have any evidence that the heart of man is naturally
of a corrupt and evil disposition. This is strenuously denied by many late
writers who are enemies to the doctrine of original sin; and particularly by Dr.
Taylor.
The way we come by the idea
of any such thing as disposition or tendency is by observing what is
constant or general in event; especially under a great variety of
circumstances; and above all, when the effect or event continues the same
through great and various opposition, much and manifold force and means used to
the contrary not prevailing to hinder the effect. I do not know that such a
prevalence of effects is denied to be an evidence of prevailing tendency in
causes and agents; or that it is expressly denied by the opposers of the
doctrine of original sin, that if, in the course of events, it universally or
generally proves that mankind are actually corrupt, this would be an evidence of
a prior corrupt propensity in the world of mankind; whatever may be said by
some, which, if taken with its plain consequences, may seem to imply a denial of
this, which may be considered afterwards. But by many the fact is denied; that
is, it is denied, that corruption and moral evil are commonly prevalent in the
world: on the contrary, it is insisted on, that good preponderates, and that
virtue has the ascendant.
To this purpose, Dr.
Turnbull says, [Moral Philos. p. 289, 290] “With regard to the prevalence of
vice in the world, men are apt to let their imagination run out upon all the
robberies, piracies, murders, perjuries, frauds, massacres, assassinations they
have either heard of, or read in history; thence concluding all mankind to be
very wicked. As if a court of justice were a proper place to make an estimate of
the morals of mankind, or an hospital of the healthfulness of a climate. But
ought they not to consider that the number of honest citizens and farmers far
surpasses that of all sorts of criminals in any state, and that the innocent and
kind actions of even criminals themselves surpass their crimes in numbers; that
it is the rarity of crimes in comparison of innocent or good actions, which
engages our attention to them and makes them to be recorded in history, while
honest, generous domestic actions are overlooked only because they are so
common? as one great danger, or one month’s sickness shall become a frequently
repeated story during a long life of health and safety. — Let not the vices of
mankind be multiplied or magnified. Let us make a fair estimate of human life,
and set over against the shocking, the astonishing instances of barbarity and
wickedness that have been perpetrated in any age, not only the exceeding
generous and brave actions with which history shines, but the prevailing
innocence, good-nature, industry, felicity, and cheerfulness of the greater part
of mankind at all times; and we shall not find reason to cry out, as objectors
against providence do on this occasion, that all men are vastly corrupt and that
there is hardly any such thing as virtue in the world. Upon a fair computation
the fact does indeed come out, that very great villanies have been very uncommon
in all ages and looked upon as monstrous; so general is the sense and esteem of
virtue.” — It seems to be with a like view that Dr. Taylor says, “We must
not take the measure of our health and enjoyments from a lazar-house, nor of our
understanding from Bedlam, nor of our morals from a jail.” (p. 77. S)
With respect to the
propriety and pertinence of such a representation of things, and its force as to
the consequence designed, I hope we shall be better able to judge, and in some
measure to determine whether the natural disposition of the hearts of mankind be
corrupt or not, when the things which follow have been considered. But for the
greater clearness, it may be proper here to premise one consideration that is of
great importance in this controversy, and is very much overlooked by the
opposers of the doctrine of original sin in their disputing against it.
That it is to be looked upon
as the true tendency of the innate disposition of man’s heart, which
appears to be its tendency, when we consider things as they are in themselves,
or in their own nature, without the interposition of divine grace. —
Thus, that state of man’s nature, that disposition of the mind, is to be
looked upon as evil and pernicious, which, as it is in itself, tends to
extremely pernicious consequences, and would certainly end therein, were it not
that the free mercy and kindness of God interposes to prevent that issue. It
would be very strange if any should argue that there is no evil tendency in the
case, because the mere favor and compassion of the Most High may step in and
oppose the tendency and prevent the sad effect. Particularly, if there be
anything in the nature of man whereby he has an universal unfailing tendency to
that moral evil which, according to the real nature and true demerit of things
as they are in themselves, implies his utter ruin, that must be looked upon as
an evil tendency or propensity; however divine grace may interpose to save him
from deserved ruin, and to overrule things to an issue contrary to that which
they tend to of themselves. Grace is sovereign, exercised according to the good
pleasure of God, bringing good out of evil. The effect of it belongs not to the
nature of things themselves, that otherwise have an ill tendency, any more than
the remedy belongs to the disease; but is something altogether independent on
it, introduced to oppose the natural tendency, and reverse the course of things.
But the event to which things tend, according to their own demerit, and
according to divine justice, is the event to which they tend in their own
nature; as Dr. T.’s own words fully imply (Pref to. Par. on Rom. p.
131), “God alone (says he) can declare whether he will pardon or punish the
ungodliness and unrighteousness of mankind, which is in its own nature
punishable.” Nothing is more precisely according to the truth of things than
divine justice: it weighs things in an even balance; it views and estimates
things no otherwise than they are truly in their own nature. Therefore
undoubtedly that which implies a tendency to ruin, according to the estimate of
divine justice, does indeed imply such a tendency in its own nature.
And then it must be
remembered, that it is a moral depravity we are speaking of; and
therefore when we are considering whether such depravity do not appear by a
tendency to a bad effect or issue, it is a moral tendency to such an
issue that is the thing to be taken into the account. A moral tendency or
influence is by desert. Then may it be said man’s nature or state is
attended with a pernicious or destructive tendency in a moral sense, when
it tends to that which deserves misery and destruction. And therefore it equally
shows the moral depravity of the nature of mankind in their present state,
whether that nature be universally attended with an effectual tendency to
destructive vengeance actually executed, or to their deserving misery
and ruin, or their just exposedness to destruction, however that fatal
consequence may be prevented by grace, or whatever the actual event be.
One thing more is to be
observed here, that the topic mainly insisted on by the opposers of the doctrine
of original sin, is the justice of God; both in their objections against
the imputation of Adam’s sin, and also against its being so
ordered, that men should come into the world with a corrupt and ruined
nature, without having merited the displeasure of their Creator by any personal
fault. But the latter is not repugnant to God’s justice, if men actually
are born into the world with a tendency to sin, and to misery and ruin for
their sin, which actually will be the consequence unless mere grace steps
in and prevents it. If this be allowed, the argument from justice is
given up: for it is to suppose, that their liableness to misery and ruin comes
in a way of justice; otherwise there would be no need of the interposition of
divine grace to save them. Justice alone would be sufficient security, if
exercised, without grace. It is all one in this dispute about what is just and
righteous, whether men are born in a miserable state by a tendency to ruin which
actually follows, and that justly; or whether they are born in
such a state as tends to a desert of ruin, which might justly
follow, and would actually follow did not grace prevent. For the
controversy is not what grace will do, but what justice might do.
I have been the more
particular on this head, because it enervates many of the reasonings and
conclusions by which Dr. T. makes out his scheme; in which he argues from that
state which mankind are in by divine grace, yea, which he himself
supposes to be by divine grace; and yet not making any allowance for this, he
from hence draws conclusions against what others suppose of the deplorable and
ruined state mankind are in by the fall. Some of his arguments and conclusions
to this effect, in order to be made good, must depend on such a supposition as
this; — that God’s dispensations of grace, are rectifications or amendments
of his foregoing constitutions and proceedings, which were merely legal; as
though the dispensations of grace, which succeed those of mere law, implied an
acknowledgment, that the preceding legal constitution would be unjust, if left
as it was, or at least very hard dealing with mankind; and that the other were
of the nature of a satisfaction to his creatures, for former injuries, or hard
treatment. So that, put together the injury with the satisfaction, the legal and
injurious dispensation, taken with the following good dispensation, which our
author calls grace, and the unfairness or improper severity of the former,
amended by the goodness of the latter, both together made up one righteous
dispensation.
The reader is desired to
bear in mind what I have said concerning the interposition of divine grace not
altering the nature of things, as they are in themselves. Accordingly, when I
speak of such and such an evil tendency of things, belonging to the
present nature and state of mankind, understand me to mean their tendency as
they are in themselves, abstracted from any consideration of that remedy the
sovereign and infinite grace of God has provided. — Having promised these
things, I now assert, that mankind are all naturally in such a state, as is
attended, without fail, with this consequence or issue; that THEY UNIVERSALLY
RUN THEMSELVES INTO THAT WHICH IS, IN EFFECT, THEIR OWN UTTER ETERNAL PERDITION,
as being finally accursed of God, and the subjects of his remediless wrath
through sin. — From which I infer, that the natural state of the mind of man
is attended with a propensity of nature, which is prevalent and
effectual, to such an issue; and that therefore their nature is corrupt and
depraved with a moral depravity, that amounts to and implies their utter
undoing.
Here I would first consider
the truth of the proposition; and then would show the certainty of the consequences
which I infer from it. If both can be clearly and certainly proved, then I
trust, none will deny but that the doctrine of original depravity is evident,
and so the falseness of Dr. T.’s scheme demonstrated; the greatest part of
whose book, called the Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin, etc. Is
against the doctrine of innate depravity. In p. 107.S. he speaks of the
conveyance of a corrupt and sinful nature to Adam’s posterity as the
grand point to be proved by the maintainers of the doctrine of original sin.
In order to demonstrate what
is asserted in the proposition laid down, there is need only that these two
things should be made manifest: one is this fact, that all mankind come
into the world in such a state, as without fail comes to this issue, namely, the
universal commission of sin; or that everyone who comes to act in the world as a
moral agent, is, in a greater or less degree, guilty of sin. The other
is, that all sin deserves and exposes to utter and eternal destruction, unto
God’s wrath and curse; and would end in it, were it not for the interposition
of divine grace to prevent the effect. Both which can be abundantly demonstrated
to be agreeable to the Word of God, and to Dr. T.’s own doctrine.
That everyone of mankind, at
least such as are capable of acting as moral agents, are guilty of sin (not now
taking it for granted that they come guilty into the world), is most clearly and
abundantly evident from the Holy Scriptures: 1 Kin. 8:46, “If any man sin
against thee; for there is no man that sinneth not.” Ecc. 7:20, “There is
not a just man upon earth that doeth good, and sinneth not.” Job 9:2, 3, “I
know it is so of a truth (i.e. as Bildad had just before said, that God
would not cast away a perfect man, etc. But how should man be just with God? If
he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.” To the like
purpose, Psa. 143:2, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy
sight shall no man living be justified.” So the words of the apostle (in which
he has apparent reference to those of the Psalmist), Rom. 3:19, 20, “That
every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God.
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his
sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” So, Gal. 2:16; 1 John 1:7-10,
“If we walk in the light, the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. If we
say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse
us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a
lair, and his word is not in us.” In this and innumerable other places,
confession and repentance of sin are spoken of as duties proper for ALL; as also
prayer to God for pardon of sin; also forgiveness of those that injure us, from
that motive, that we hope to be forgiven of God. Universal guilty of sin
might also be demonstrated from the appointment, and the declared use and end of
the ancient sacrifices; and also from the ransom, which everyone that was
numbered in Israel, was directed to pay, to make atonement for his soul.
Exo. 30:11-16. All are represented, not only as being sinful, but as having
great and manifold iniquity. Job 9:2, 3; Jam. 3:1, 2.
There are many scriptures
which both declare the universal sinfulness of mankind, and also that all
sin deserves and justly exposes to everlasting destruction, under
the wrath and curse of God; and so demonstrate both parts of the proposition I
have laid down. To which purpose that passage in Gal. 3:10 is exceeding full:
“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is
written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written
in the book of the law, to do them.” How manifestly is it implied in the
apostle’s meaning here, that there is no man but what fails in some instances
of doing all things that are written in the book of the law, and therefore as
many as have their dependence on their fulfilling the law, are under that curse
which is pronounced on them that fail of it! And hence the apostle infers in the
next verse: “that no man is justified by the law in the sight of
God:” as he had said before in preceding chapter, verse 16: “By the works of
the law shall no flesh be justified.” The apostle shows us he understands,
that by this place which he cites from Deuteronomy, “the Scripture hath
concluded, or shut up, all under sin.” Gal. 3:22. So that here we are plainly
taught, both that everyone of mankind is a sinner, and that every sinner
is under the curse of God.
To the like purpose is Rom.
4:14, also 2 Cor. 3:6, 7, 9; where the law is called “the letter that kills,
the ministration of death, and the ministration of condemnation.” The wrath,
condemnation, and death, which is threatened in the law to all its
transgressors, is final perdition, the second death, eternal ruin; as is very
plain, and indeed is confessed. And this punishment which the law threatens for
every sin, is a just punishment; being what every sin truly deserves;
God’s law being a righteous law, and the sentence of it a righteous sentence.
All these things are what
Dr. Taylor himself confesses and asserts. He says, that the law of God requires perfect
obedience (Note on Rom. 7:6, p.308), “God can never require imperfect
obedience, or by his holy law allow us to be guilty of any one sin, how small
soever. And if the law, as a rule of duty, were in any respect abolished, then
we might in some respects transgress the law, and yet not be guilty of sin. The
moral law, or law of nature, is the truth, everlasting, unchangeable; and
therefore, as such, can never be abrogated. On the contrary, our Lord Jesus
Christ has promulgated it anew under the gospel, fuller and clearer than it was
in the mosaical constitution, or anywhere else: — having added to its precepts
the sanction of his own divine authority.” And many things which he says
imply, that all mankind do in some degree transgress the Law. In p. 228,
speaking of what may be gathered from Rom. 7 and 8, he says, “We are very apt,
in a world full of temptation, to be deceived, and drawn into sin by bodily
appetites, etc. And the case of those who are under a law threatening death to
every sin, must be quite deplorable, if they have no relief from the mercy of
the lawgiver.”
But this is very fully
declared in what he says in his note on Rom. 5:20, p. 297. His words are as
follows: “Indeed, as a rule of action prescribing our duty, it (the Law)
always was and always must be a rule ordained for obtaining life; but not as a
rule of justification, not as it subjects to death for every transgression. For
if it COULD in its utmost rigor have given us life, then, as the apostle argues,
it would have been against the promises of God. For if there had been a law, in
the strict and rigorous sense of law, WHICH COULD HAVE MADE US LIFE, verily
justification should have been by the law. But he supposes, no such law was ever
given: and therefore there is need and room enough for the promises of grace; or
as he argues, Gal. 2:21; it would have frustrated, or rendered useless, the
grace of God. For if justification came by the law, then truly Christ is dead in
vain, then he died to accomplish what was, or MIGHT HAVE BEEN, EFFECTED by law
itself without his death. Certainly the law was not brought in among the Jews
to be a rule of justification, or to recover them out of a state of death,
and to procure life by their sinless obedience to it: for in this, as well as in
another respect, it was WEAK; not in itself, but through the WEAKNESS of our
flesh, Rom. 8:3. The law, I conceive, is not a dispensation suitable to the
infirmity of the human nature in our present state; or it doth not seem
congruous to the goodness of God to afford us no other way of salvation, but by
LAW; WHICH IF WE ONCE TRANSGRESS, WE ARE RUINED FOR EVER. FOR WHO THEN, FROM THE
BEGINNING OF THE WORLD, COULD BE SAVED?” How clear and express are these
things, that no one of mankind, from the beginning of the world, can ever be
justified by the law, because everyone transgresses it!
And here also we see, Dr. T.
declares, that by the law men are sentenced to everlasting ruin for one
transgression. To the like purpose he often expresses himself. So p. 207. “The
law requireth the most extensive obedience, discovering sin in all its branches.
— It gives sin a deadly force, subjecting every transgression to the penalty
of death; and yet supplieth neither help nor hope to the sinner, but leaving him
under the power of sin and sentence of death.” In p. 213, he speaks of the law
as extending to lust and irregular desires, and to every branch and principle
of sin; and even to its latent principles, and minutest branches; again (Note
on Rom. 7:6, p. 308). To every sin, how small soever. And when he speaks
of the law subjecting every transgression to the penalty of death, he means
eternal death, as he from time to time explains the matter. In p. 212, he speaks
of the law in the condemning power of it, as binding us in everlasting
chains. In p. 120 S. he says, that death which is the wages of sin, is the second
death; and this, p. 78, he explains of final perdition. In his Key,
p. 107. § 296, he says, “The curse of the law subjected men for every
transgression to eternal death.” So in Note on Rom. 5:20, p.
291: “The law of Moses subjected those who were under it to death,
meaning by death, eternal death.” These are his words.
He also supposes, that this
sentence of the law, thus subjecting men for every, even the least,
sin, and every minutest branch and latent principle of sin, to
so dreadful a punishment, is just and righteous, agreeable to truth and
the nature of things, or to the natural and proper demerits of
sin. In this he is very full. Thus in p. 186 P: “It was sin (says he)
which subjected us to death by the law, JUSTLY threatening sin with death. Which
law was given us, that sin might appear; might be set forth IN ITS PROPER
COLOURS; when we saw it subjected us to death by a law PERFECTLY HOLY, JUST and
GOOD; that sin by the commandment, by the law, might be represented WHAT IT
REALLY IS, an exceeding great and deadly evil.” So in note on Rom. 5:20, p.
299: “The law or ministration of death, as it subject to death for every
transgression, is still of use to show the NATURAL AND PROPER DEMERIT OF SIN.”
Ibid. p. 292: “The language of the law, dying thou shalt die, is to be
understood of the demerit of the transgression, that which it deserves.”
Ibid. p. 298: “The law was added, saith Mr. Locke on the place, because
the Israelites, the posterity of Abraham, were transgressors as well as other
men, to show them their sins, and the punishment and death, which in STRICT
JUSTICE they incurred by them. And this appears to be a true comment on Rom.
7:13. — Sin, by virtue of the law, subjected you to death for this end, that
sin, working death in us, by that which is holy, just, and good, PERFECTLY
CONSONANT TO EVERLASTING TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS. — Consequently every sin is in
strict justice deserving of wrath and punishment; and the law in its rigor
was given to the Jews, to set home this awful truth upon their
consciences, to show them the evil and pernicious NATURE of sin; and that being
conscious they had broke the law of God, this might convince them of the great
need they had of the FAVOUR of the lawgiver, and oblige them, by faith in his
GOODNESS, to fly to his MERCY, for pardon and salvation.”
If the law be holy, just,
and good, a constitution perfectly agreeable to God’s holiness, justice, and
goodness; then he might have put it exactly in execution, agreeably to all these
his perfections. Our author himself says, p. 133.S: “How that constitution,
which establishes a law, the making of which is inconsistent with the justice
and goodness of God, and the executing of it inconsistent with his holiness, can
be a righteous constitution, I confess, is quite beyond my comprehension.”
SECTION II
It follows from the
proposition proved in the foregoing section, that all mankind are under the
influence of a prevailing effectual tendency in their nature, to that sin and
wickedness, which implies their utter and eternal ruin.
THE
proposition laid down being proved, the consequence of it remains to be
made out, viz. That the mind of man has a natural tendency or propensity
to that even, which has been show universally and infallibly to take place; and
that this is a corrupt or depraved propensity. — I shall here
consider the former part of this consequence, namely, whether such an universal,
constant, infallible event is truly a proof of any tendency or
propensity to that event; leaving the evil and corrupt nature of
such a propensity to be considered afterwards.
If any should say,
they do not think that its being a thing universal and infallible in event,
that mankind commit some sin, is a proof of a prevailing tendency to sin;
because they do good, and perhaps more good than evil: Let them remember, that
the question at present is not, How much sin there is a tendency to; but
whether there be a prevailing propensity to that issue, which it is allowed all
men do actually come to — that all fail of keeping the law perfectly —
whether there be not a tendency to such imperfection of obedience, as always
without fail comes to pass; to that degree of sinfulness, at least, which all
fall into; and so to that utter ruin, which that sinfulness implies and infers.
Whether an effectual propensity to this be worth the name of depravity, because
the good that may be supposed to balance it, shall be considered by and by. If
all mankind in all nations and ages, were at least one day in their lives
deprived of the use of their reason, and raving mad; or that all, even every
individual person, once cut their own throats, or put out their own eyes; it
might be an evidence of some tendency in the nature or natural state of mankind
to such an event; though they might exercise reason many more days than they
were distracted, and were kind to and tender of themselves oftener than they
mortally and cruelly wounded themselves.
To determine
whether the unfailing constancy of the above-named event be an evidence of
tendency, let it be considered, What can be meant by tendency, but a
prevailing liableness or exposedness to such or such an event? Wherein consists
the notion of any such thing, but some stated prevalence or preponderation in
the nature or state of causes or occasions, that is followed by, and so
proves to be effectual to, a stated prevalence or commonness of any
particular kind of effect? Or something in the permanent state of things,
concerned in bringing a certain sort of event to pass, which is a foundation for
the constancy, or strongly prevailing probability, of such an event? If we mean
this by tendency (and I know not what else can be meant by it, but this, or
something like), then it is manifest, that where we see a stated prevalence of
any effect there is a tendency to that effect in the nature and state of its
causes. A common and steady effect shows, that there is somewhere a
preponderation, a prevailing exposedness or liableness in the state of things,
to what comes so steadily to pass. The natural dictate of reason shows, that
where there is an effect, there is a cause, and a cause sufficient for the
effect; because, if it were not sufficient, it would not be effectual; and that
therefore, where there is a stated prevalence of the effect, there is a stated
prevalence in the cause. A steady effect argues a steady cause. We obtain a
notion of tendency no other way than by observation: and we can observe nothing
but events: and it is the commonness or constancy of events, that gives us a
notion of tendency in all cases. Thus we judge of tendencies in the natural
world. Thus we judge of the tendencies or propensities of nature in minerals,
vegetables, animals, rational and irrational creatures. A notion of a stated
tendency, or fixed propensity, is not obtained by observing only a single event.
A stated preponderation in the cause or occasion, is argues only by a stated
prevalence of the effect. If a die be once thrown, and it falls on a particular
side, we do not argue from hence, that that side is the heaviest; but if
it be thrown without skill or care, many thousands or millions of times, and it
constantly falls on the same side, we have not the least doubt in our minds, but
that there is something of propensity in the case, by superior weight of that
side, or in some other respect. How ridiculous would he make himself, who should
earnestly dispute against any tendency in the state of things to cold in the
winter, or heat in the summer; or should stand to it, that although it often
happened that water quenched fire, yet there was no tendency in it to such an
effect!
In the case we are
upon, human nature, as existing in such an immense diversity of persons and
circumstances, and never failing in any one instance of coming to that issue —
that sinfulness, which implies extreme misery and eternal ruin — is as the die
often cast. For it alters not the case in the least, as to the evidence of
tendency, whether the subject of the constant event be an individual, or a
nature and kind. Thus, if there be a succession of trees of the same sort,
proceeding one from another, from the beginning of the world, growing in all
countries, soils, and climates, all bearing ill fruit; it as much proves the
nature and tendency of the kind, as if it were only one individual tree,
that had remained from the beginning of the world, often transplanted into
different soils, and had continued to bear only bad fruit. So, if there were a
particular family, which, from generation to generation, and through every
remove to innumerable different countries, and places of abode, all died of
consumption, or all run distracted, or all murdered themselves, it would be as
much an evidence of the tendency of something in the nature or
constitution of that race, as it would be of the tendency of something in
the nature or state of an individual, if some one person had lived all that
time, and some remarkable event had often appeared in him, which he had been the
agent or subject of from year to year, and from age to age, continually and
without fail.
Thus a propensity,
attending the present nature or natural state of mankind, eternally to ruin
themselves by sin, may certainly be inferred from apparent and acknowledged
fact. — And I would now observe further, that not only does this follow from
facts acknowledged by Dr. T. but the things he asserts, and the
expressions which he uses, plainly imply that all mankind have such a
propensity; yea, one of the highest kind, a propensity that is invincible,
or a tendency which really amounts to a fixed, constant, unfailing necessity.
There is a plain confession of a propensity or proneness to sin, p. 143: —
“Man, who drinketh in iniquity like water; who is attended with so many
sensual appetites, and so APT to indulge them.” — And again, p. 228: “WE
ARE VERY APT, in a world full of temptation, to be deceived, and drawn into sin
by bodily appetites.” If we are very apt or prone to be drawn into sin
by bodily appetites, and sinfully to indulge them, and very apt or prone to
yield to temptation to sin, then we are prone to sin; for to yield to
temptation to sin is sinful. — In the same page he shows, that on this
account, and its consequences, the case of those who are under a law,
threatening death for every sin, must be quite deplorable, if they have no
relief from the mercy of the lawgiver. Which implies, that their case is
hopeless, as to an escape from death, the punishment of sin, by any other means
than God’s mercy. And that implies such an aptness to yield to
temptation, as renders it hopeless that any of mankind should wholly avoid it.
But he speaks of it elsewhere, over and over, as truly impossible, or
what cannot be; as in the words before cited in the last section,
from his note on Rom. 5:20, where he repeatedly speaks of the law, which
subjects us to death for every transgression, as what CANNOT GIVE LIFE; and
states, that if God offered us no other way of salvation, no man from the
beginning of the world COULD be saved. In the same place he cites with
approbation Mr. Locke’s words, in which, speaking of the Israelites, he
says, “All endeavors after righteousness was LOST LABOUR, since any one
slip forfeited life, and it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to expect ought but
death.” Our author speaks of it as impossible for the law requiring sinless
obedience to give life, not that the law was weak in itself, but through the
weakness of our flesh. Therefore he says, he conceives the law not to be
a dispensation suitable to the infirmity of the human nature in its present
state. These things amount to a full confession, that the proneness in
men to sin, and to a demerit of and just exposedness to eternal ruin, is
universally invincible; or, which is the same thing, amounts to invincible
necessity; which surely is the highest kind of tendency, or propensity: and that
not the less, for his laying this propensity to our infirmity or
weakness, which may seem to intimate some defect, rather than anything positive:
and it is agreeable to the sentiments of the best divines, that all
sin originally comes from a DEFECTIVE or PRIVATIVE cause. But sin does not
cease to be sin, justly exposing to eternal ruin (as implied in Dr. T.’s own
words), for arising from infirmity or defect; nor does an invincible propensity
to sin cease to be a propensity to such demerit of eternal ruin, because the
proneness arises from such a cause.
It is manifest,
that this tendency, which has been proved, does not consist in any particular external
circumstances that persons are in, peculiarly influencing their minds; but
is inherent, and is seated in that nature which is common to all
mankind, which they carry with them wherever they go, and still remains the
same, however circumstances may differ. For it is implied in what has been
proved, and shown to be confessed, that the same event comes to pass in all
circumstances. In God’s sight no man living can be justified; but all
are sinners, and exposed to condemnation. This is true of persons of all
constitutions, capacities, conditions, manners, opinions, and educations; in all
countries, climates, nations, and ages; and through all the mighty changes and
revolutions, which have come to pass in the habitable world.
We have the same
evidence, that the propensity in this case lies in the nature of the
subject — and does not arise from any particular circumstances — as
we have in any case whatsoever; which is only by the effects appearing to
be the same in all changes of time and place, and under all varieties of
circumstances. It is in this way only we judge, that any propensities, which we
observe in mankind, are seated in their nature, in all other cases. It is thus
we judge of the mutual propensity betwixt the sexes, or of the dispositions
which are exercised in any of the natural passions or appetites, that they truly
belong to the nature of man; because they are observed in mankind in general,
through all countries, nations, and ages, and in all conditions.
If any should say,
Though it be evident that there is a tendency in the states of things to this
general event — that all mankind should fail of perfect obedience, and should
sin, and incur a demerit of eternal ruin; and also that this tendency does not
lie in any distinguishing circumstances of any particular people, person, or age
— yet it may not lie in man’s nature, but in the general
constitution and frame of this world. Though the nature of man
may be good, without any evil propensity inherent in it; yet the nature and
universal state of this world may be full of so many and strong temptations, and
of such powerful influence on such a creature as man, dwelling in so infirm a
body, etc. That the result of the whole may be a strong and infallible tendency in
such a state of things, to the sin and eternal ruin of everyone of mankind.
To this I would
reply, that such an evasion will not at all avail to the purpose of those whom I
oppose in this controversy. It alters not the case as to this question, Whether
man, in his present state is depraved and ruined by propensities to sin. If any
creature be of such a nature that it proves evil in its proper place, or in the
situation which God has assigned it in the universe, it is of any evil nature.
That part of the system is not good, which is not good in its place in the
system; and those inherent qualities of that part of the system, which are not
good, but corrupt, in that place, are justly looked upon as evil
inherent qualities. That propensity is truly esteemed to belong to the nature
of any being, or to be inherent in it, that is the necessary consequence of its
nature, considered together with its proper situation in the universal system of
existence, whether that propensity be good or bad. It is the nature of a
stone to be heavy; but yet, if it were placed, as it might be, at a distance
from this world, it would have no such quality. But being a stone, is of such a
nature, that it will have this quality or tendency, in its proper place, in this
world, where God has made it, it is properly looked upon as a propensity
belonging to its nature. And if it be a good propensity here, in its proper
place, then it is a good quality of its nature; but if it be contrariwise, it is
an evil natural quality. So, if mankind are of such a nature, that they have an
universal effectual tendency to sin and ruin in this world, where God has made
and placed them, this is to be looked upon as a pernicious tendency
belonging to their nature. There is, perhaps, scarce any such thing, in beings
not independent and self-existent, as any power or tendency, but what has some
dependence on other beings, with which they stand connected in the universal
system of existence. Propensities are no propensities, any otherwise, than as
taken with their objects. Thus it is with the tendencies observed in natural
bodies, such as gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc. And thus it is with the
propensities observed in the various kinds of animals; and thus it is with most
of the propensities in created spirits.
It may further be
observed, that it is exactly the same thing, as to the controversy concerning an
agreeableness with God’s moral perfections of such a disposal of things —
that man should come into the world in a depraved and ruined state, by a
propensity to sin and ruin — whether God has so ordered it, that this
propensity should lie in his nature considered alone, or with relation to
its situation in the universe, and its connection with other parts of the
system to which the Creator has united it; which is as much of God’s ordering,
as man’s nature itself, most simply considered.
Dr. T. (p. 188,
189) speaking of the attempt of some to solve the difficulty of God being the
author of our nature, and yet that our nature is polluted, by supposing that God
makes the soul pure, but unites it to a polluted body (or a body so made, as
tends to pollute the soul), he cries out of it as weak and insufficient, and too
gross to be admitted: For, says he, who infused the soul into the body?
And if it is polluted by being infused into the body, who is the author and
cause of its pollution? And who created the body? etc. — But is not the
case just the same, as to those who suppose that God made the soul pure, and
places it in a polluted world, or a world tending, by its natural state in which
it is made, to pollute the soul, or to have such an influence upon it, that it
shall without fail be polluted with sin, and eternally ruined? Here may
not I also cry out, on as good
grounds as Dr. T. — Who placed the soul here in this world? And if the world
be polluted, or so constituted as naturally and infallibly to pollute the soul
with sin, who is the cause of this pollution? And, who created the world?
Though in the place
now cited, Dr. T. so insists upon it, that God must be answerable for the
pollution of the soul, if he has infused or put the soul into a body that tends
to pollute it; yet this is the very thing which he himself supposes to be fact,
with respect to the soul being created by God, in such a body, and in such a
world; where he says, “We are apt, in a world full of temptation, to be
drawn into sin by bodily appetites.” And if so, according to his way of
reasoning, God must be the author and cause of this aptness to be drawn into
sin. Again, p. 143, we have these words, “Who drinketh in iniquity like
water? Who is attended with so many sensual appetites, and so apt to indulge
them?” In these words our author in effect says the individual things that
he exclaims against as so gross, viz. The tendency of the body, as God
has made it, to pollute the soul, which he has infused into it. These sensual
appetites, which incline the soul, or make it apt, to a sinful indulgence,
are either from the body which God hath made, or otherwise a proneness to
sinful indulgence is immediately and originally seated in the soul itself, which
will not mend the matter.
SECTION III
That propensity, which has
been proved to be in the nature of all mankind, must be a very evil, depraved,
and pernicious propensity; making it manifest, that the soul of man, as it is by
nature, is in a corrupt, fallen, and ruined state; which is the other part of
the consequence, drawn from the proposition laid down in the first section.
THE
question to be considered, in order to determine whether man’s nature be depraved
and ruined, is not, Whether he is inclined to perform as many good deeds
as bad ones? But, to which of these two he preponderates, in the frame of
his heart, and the state of his nature, a state of innocence and
righteousness, and favor with God; or a state of sin, guiltiness, and abhorrence
in the sight of God? — Persevering sinless righteousness, or else the
guilt of sin, is the alternative, on the decision of which depends — according
to the nature and truth of things, as they are in themselves, and according to
the rule of right, and of perfect justice — man being approved and accepted of
his Maker and eternally blessed as good; or his being rejected, and cursed as
bad. And therefore the determination of the tendency of man’s heart and
nature, with respect to these terms, is that which is to be looked at, in order
to determine whether his nature is good or evil, pure or corrupt, sound or
ruined. If such be man’s nature, and the state of his heart, that he has an
infallibly effectual propensity to the latter of those terms; then it is wholly
impertinent to talk of the innocent and kind actions, even of criminals
themselves, surpassing their crimes in numbers, and of the prevailing innocence,
good nature, industry, felicity, and cheerfulness of the greater part of
mankind. Let never so many thousands or millions of acts of honesty, good
nature, etc. Be supposed; yet, by the supposition, there is an unfailing
propensity to such moral evil, as in its dreadful consequences infinitely
outweighs all effects or consequences of any supposed good. Surely that
tendency, which, in effect, is an infallible tendency to eternal destruction, is
an infinitely dreadful and pernicious tendency: and that nature and frame of
mind, which implies such a tendency, must be an infinitely dreadful and
pernicious frame of mind. It would be much more absurd to suppose, that such a
state of nature is not bad, under a notion of men doing more honest and kind
things than evil ones; than to say, the state of that ship is good, for
crossing the Atlantic ocean, though such as cannot hold together through
the voyage, but will infallibly founder and sink, under a notion that it may
probably go great part of the way before it sinks, or that
it will proceed and sail above water more hours than it will be in sinking: or,
to pronounce that road a good road to go to such a place, the greater part of
which is plain and safe, though some parts of it are dangerous, and certainly
fatal, to them that travel in it; or to call that a good propensity; which is an
inflexible inclination to travel in such a way.
A propensity to
that sin which brings God’s eternal wrath and curse (which has been proved to
belong to the nature of man) is evil, not only as it is calamitous and sorrowful,
ending in great natural evil; but as it is odious and detestable;
for by the supposition, it tends to that moral evil, by which the subject
becomes odious in the sight of God, and liable, as such, to be condemned, and
utterly rejected, and cursed by him. This also makes it evident, that the state
which it has been proved mankind are in, is a corrupt state in a moral
sense, that it is inconsistent with the fulfillment of the law of God, which
is the rule of moral rectitude and goodness. That tendency, which is opposite to
what the moral law requires, and prone to that which the moral law utterly
forbids, and eternally condemns, is doubtless a corrupt tendency, in a moral
sense.
So that this
depravity is both odious, and also pernicious, fatal and
destructive, in the highest sense; as inevitably tending to that which implies
man’s eternal ruin. It shows, that man, as he is by nature, is in a deplorable
state, in the highest sense. And this proves that men do not come into the world
perfectly innocent in the sight of God, and without any just exposedness
to his displeasure. For the being by nature in a lost and ruined
state, in the highest sense, is not consistent with being by nature in a state
of favor with God.
But if any should
still insist on a notion of men’s good deeds exceeding their bad ones, and
that, seeing the good more than countervails the evil, they cannot be properly
denominated evil; all persons and things being most properly denominated from
that which prevails, and has the ascendant in them; I would say further, That if
there is in man’s nature a tendency to guilt and ill desert, in a vast
overbalance to virtue and merit; or a propensity to sin, the demerit of which is
so great, that the value and merit of all the virtuous acts that ever he
performs, are as nothing to it; then truly the nature of man may be said to be
corrupt and evil.
That this is the
true case, may be demonstrated by what is evident of the infinite heinousness of
sin against God, from the nature of things. The heinousness of this must rise in
some proportion to the obligation we are under to regard the Divine Being; and
that must be in some proportion to his worthiness of regard; which doubtless is
infinitely beyond the worthiness of any of our fellow creatures. But the merit
of our respect or obedience to God is not infinite. The merit of respect to any
being does not increase, but is rather diminished, in proportion to the
obligations we are under in strict justice to pay him that respect. There is no
great merit in paying a debt we owe, and by the highest possible obligations in
strict justice and obliged to pay; but there is great demerit in refusing to pay
it. That on such accounts as these, there is an infinite demerit in all sin
against God, which must therefore immensely outweigh all the merit which can be
supposed to be in our virtue, I think, is capable of full demonstration; and
that the futility of the objections which some have made against the argument,
might most plainly be demonstrated. But I shall omit a particular consideration
of the evidence of this matter from the nature of things, as I study brevity,
and lest any should cry out, metaphysics! As the manner of some is, when
any argument is handled against a tenet they are fond of, with a close and exact
consideration of the nature of things. And this is not so necessary in the
present case, inasmuch as the point asserted — that he who commits any one
sin, has guilt and ill desert so great, that the value and merit of all the good
which it is possible he should do in his whole life, is as nothing to it — is
not only evident by metaphysics, but is plainly demonstrated by what has
been shown to be fact, with respect to God’s own constitutions and
dispensations towards mankind. Thus, whatever acts of virtue and obedience a man
performs, yet if he trespasses in one point, is guilty of any the least sin, he
— according to the law of God, and so according to the exact truth of things,
and the proper demerit of sin — is exposed to be wholly cast out of favor with
God, and subjected to his curse, to be utterly and eternally destroyed. This has
been proved; and shown to be the doctrine which Dr. T. abundantly teaches.
But how can it be
agreeable to the nature of things, and exactly consonant to everlasting truth
and righteousness, thus to deal with a creature for the least sinful act, though
he should perform ever so many thousands of honest and virtuous acts, to
countervail the evil of that sin? Or how can it be agreeable to the exact truth
and real demerit of things, thus wholly to cast off the deficient creature,
without any regard to the merit of all his good deeds, unless that be in truth
the case, that the value and merit of all those good actions, bear no proportion
to the heinousness of the least sin? If it were not so, one would think, that
however the offending person might have some proper punishment, yet seeing there
is so much virtue of lay in the balance against the guilt, it would be agreeable
to the nature of things, that he should find some favor, and not be altogether
rejected, and made the subject of perfect and eternal destruction; and thus no
account at all be made of his virtue, so much as to procure him the least relief
or hope. How can such a constitution represent sin in its proper colors, and
according to its true nature and desert (as Dr. T. says it does), unless
this be its true nature, that it is so bad, that even in the least instance it
perfectly swallows up all the value of the sinner’s supposed good deeds, let
them be ever so many. So that this matter is not left to our metaphysics, or
philosophy; the great lawgiver, and infallible judge of the universe, has
clearly decided it, in the revelation he has made of what is agreeable to exact
truth, justice, and the nature of things, in his revealed law, or rule of
righteousness.
He that in any
respect or degree is a transgressor of God’s law, is a wicked man, yea, wholly
wicked in the eye of the law; all his goodness being esteemed nothing, having no
account made of it, when taken together with his wickedness. And therefore,
without any regard to his righteousness, he is, by the sentence of the law, and
so by the voice of truth and justice, to be treated as worthy to be rejected,
abhorred, and cursed forever; and must be so, unless grace interpose, to
cover his transgression. But men are really, in themselves, what they are in the
eye of the law, and by the voice of strict equity and justice; however they may
be looked upon, and treated by infinite and unmerited mercy.
So that, on the
whole, it appears, all mankind have an infallibly
effectual propensity to that moral evil, which infinitely outweighs the value of
all the good that can be in them; and have such a disposition of heart, that the
certain consequence of it is, their being, in the eye of perfect truth and
righteousness, wicked men. And I leave all to judge, whether such a disposition
be not in the eye of truth a depraved disposition?
Agreeable to these
things, the Scripture represents all mankind, not only as having guilt, but
immense guilt, which they can have no merit or worthiness to countervail. Such
is the representation we have in Mat. 18:21, to the end. There, on Peter’s
inquiring, How often his brother should trespass against him, and he forgive
him, whether until seven times? Christ replies, I say not unto thee,
until seven times, but until seventy times seven; apparently meaning, that
he should esteem no number of offenses too many, and no degree of injury it is
possible our neighbor should be guilty of towards us too great, to be forgiven.
For which this reason is given in the parable following, that if ever we obtain
forgiveness and favor with God, he must pardon that guilt and injury towards his
majesty, which is immensely greater than the greatest injuries that ever men are
guilty of one towards another, yea, than the sum of all their injuries put
together, let them be ever so many, and ever so great; so that the latter would
be but as an hundred pence to ten thousand talents, which immense
debt we owe to God, and have nothing to pay; which implies, that we have no
merit to countervail any part of our guilt. And this must be, because if all
that may be called virtue in us, be compared with our ill desert, it is in the
sight of God as nothing to it. The parable is not to represent Peter’s case in
particular, but that of all who then were, or ever should be, Christ’s
disciples; as appears by the conclusion of the discourse, verse 35, “So
likewise shall my heavenly Father do, if ye, from your hearts, forgive not every
one his brother their trespasses.”
Therefore how
absurd must it be for Christians to object, against the depravity of man’s
nature, a greater number of innocent and kind actions, than of crimes; and to
talk of a prevailing innocence, good nature, industry, and cheerfulness of the
greater part of mankind! Infinitely more absurd, than it would be to insist,
that the domestic of a prince was not a bad servant, because though sometimes he
contemned and affronted his master to a great degree, yet he did not spit in his
master’s face so often as he performed acts of service. More absurd, than it
would be to affirm, that his spouse was a good wife to him, because, although
she committed adultery, and that with the slaves and scoundrels sometimes, yet
she did not do this so often as she did the duties of a wife. These notions
would be absurd, because the crimes are too heinous to be atoned for, by many
honest actions of the servant or spouse of the prince; there being a vast
disproportion between the merit of the one, and the ill desert of the other: but
infinitely less, than that between the demerit of our offenses against God, and
the value of our acts of obedience.
Thus I have gone
through with my first argument; having shown the evidence of the truth of the
proposition laid down at first, and proved its consequence. But there are many
other things, that manifest a very corrupt tendency or disposition in man’s
nature, in his present state, which I shall take notice of in the following sections.
SECTION IV
The depravity of nature appears by a propensity in all to sin
immediately, as soon as they are capable of it, and to sin continually and
progressively; and also by the remains of sin in the best of men.
THE
great depravity of man’s nature appears, not only in that they universally
commit sin, who spend any long time in the world; but in that men are naturally
so prone to sin, that none ever fail of immediately transgressing God’s
law, and so of bringing infinite guilt on themselves, and exposing themselves to
eternal perdition, as soon as they are capable of it.
The Scriptures are
so very express upon it, that all mankind, all flesh, all the world, every
man living, are guilty of sin; that it must at least be understood,
everyone capable of active duty to God, or of sin against him. There are
multitudes in the world, who have but very lately begun to exert their
faculties, as moral agents; and so have but just entered on their state trial,
as acting for themselves: many thousands constantly, who have not lived
one month, or week, or day, since they have arrived at any period that can be
assigned (for the commencement of their agency) from their birth to twenty years
of age. Now — if there be not a strong propensity in men’s nature to
sin, that should, as it were, hurry them on to speedy transgression, and if they
have no guilt previous to their personal sinning — what should hinder, but
that there might always be a great number, who have hitherto kept
themselves free from sin, and have perfectly obeyed God’s law, and so are
righteous in his sight, with the righteousness of the law? And who, if they
should be called out of the world without any longer trial, as great numbers die
at all periods of life, would be justified by the deeds of the law? And how then
can it be true, that in God’s sight no man living can be justified, that
no man can be just with God, and that by the deeds of the law no flesh
can be justified, because by the law is the knowledge of sin? And what
should hinder but there may always be many in the world — who are
capable subjects of instruction and counsel, and of prayer to God — for whom
the calls of God’s Word to repentance, to seek pardon through
the blood of Christ, and to forgive others their injuries because they
need that God should forgive them, would not be proper; and for whom the
Lord’s prayer is not suitable, wherein Christ directs all his followers
to pray, that God would forgive their sins, as they forgive those that
trespass against them?
If there are any
in the world — though but lately become capable of acting for themselves, as
subjects of God’s law — who are perfectly free from sin; such are most
likely to be found among the children of Christian parents, who give them the
most pious education, and set them the best examples. And therefore, such would
never be so likely to be found in any part or age of the world, as in the
primitive Christian church, in the first age of Christianity (the age of the
church’s greatest purity), so long after Christianity had been established,
that there had been time for great numbers of children to be born, and educated
by those primitive Christians. It was in that age, and in such a part of that
age, that the apostle John wrote his first epistle to the Christians. But
if there was then a number of them come to understanding, who were perfectly
free from sin, why should he write as he does? 1 John 1:8, 9, 10: “If we say
that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse
us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a
liar, and the truth is not in us.”
Again, the reality
and greatness of the depravity of man’s nature appears in this, That he has a
prevailing propensity to be continually sinning against God. What has
been observed above, will clearly prove this. That same disposition of nature,
which is an effectual propensity to immediate sin, amounts to a
propensity to continual sin. For a being prone to continual sinning,
is nothing but a proneness to immediate sin continued. Such appears to be
the tendency of nature to sin, that as soon as ever man is capable, it causes
him immediately to sin, without suffering any considerable time to pass without
sin. And therefore, if the same propensity be continued undiminished, there will
be an equal tendency to immediate sinning again, without any considerable time
passing. And so the same will always be a disposition still immediately to sin,
with as little time passing without sin afterwards, as at first. The only reason
that can be given why sinning must be immediate at first, is that the
disposition is so great, that it will not suffer any considerable time to pass
without sin: and therefore the same disposition being continued in equal degree,
without some new restraint, or contrary tendency, it will still equally tend to
the same effect. And though it is true, the propensity may be diminished, or
have restraints laid upon it, by the gracious disposals of providence, or the
merciful influences of God’s Spirit; yet this is not owing to nature. That
strong propensity of nature, by which men are so prone to immediate sinning at
first, has no tendency in itself to a diminution; but rather to an increase;
as the continued exercise of an evil disposition, in repeated actual sins, tends
to strengthen it more and more: agreeable to that observation of Dr. T.’s p.
228: “We are apt to be drawn into sin by bodily appetites, and when once we
are under the government of these appetites, it is at least exceeding difficult,
if not impracticable, to recover ourselves, by the mere force of reason.” The
increase of strength of disposition in such a case, is as in a falling body, the
strength of its tendency to descend is continually increased, so long as its
motion is continued. Not only a constant commission of sin, but a constant
increase in the habits and practice of wickedness, is the true tendency of
man’s depraved nature, if unrestrained by divine grace; as the true tendency
of the nature of a heavy body, if obstacles are removed, is not only to fall
with a continual motion, but with a constantly increasing motion. And we see,
that increasing iniquity is actually to consequence of natural depravity, in
most men, notwithstanding all the restraints they have. Dispositions to evil are
commonly much stronger in adult persons, than in children, when they first begin
to act in the world as rational creatures.
If sin be such a
thing as Dr. T. himself represents it, p. 69: “a thing of an odious and
destructive nature, the corruption and ruin of our nature, and infinitely
hateful to God;” then such a propensity to continual and increasing sin, must
be a very evil disposition. And if we may judge of the perniciousness of an
inclination of nature, by the evil of the effect it naturally tends to, the
propensity of man’s nature must be evil indeed: for the soul being immortal,
as Dr. T. acknowledges, p. 94 S. it will follow from what has been observed
above, that man has a natural disposition to one of these two things; either to
an increase of wickedness without end, or till wickedness comes to be so great,
that the capacity of his nature will not allow it to be greater. This being what
his wickedness will come to by its natural tendency, if divine grace does not
prevent, it may as truly be said to be the effect which man’s natural
corruption tends to, as that an acorn in a proper soil, truly tends by its
nature to become a great tree.
Again, that sin
which is remaining in the hearts of the best men on earth, makes it
evident, that man’s nature is corrupt, as he comes into the world. A remaining
depravity of heart in the greatest saints, may be argued from the sins of most
of those who are set forth in Scripture as the most eminent instances and
examples of virtue and piety: and is also manifest from this, that the Scripture
represents all God’s children as standing in need of chastisement. Heb. 12:6,
7, 8, “For whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth; and scourgeth every son whom
he receiveth. — What son is he, whom the father chasteneth not? — If ye are
without chastisement, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” But this is
directly and fully asserted in some places; as in Ecc. 7:20, “There is not a
just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” Which is as much as to
say, there is no man on earth, that is so just, as to have attained to such a
degree of righteousness, as not to commit any sin. Yea, the apostle James speaks
of all Christians as often sinning, or committing many sins; even in that
primitive age of the Christian church, an age distinguished from all others by
eminent attainments in holiness: Jam. 3:2, “In many things we all offend.”
And that there is pollution in the hearts of all antecedent to all means for
purification, is very plainly declared in Pro. 20:9, “Who can say, I have made
my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?”
According to Dr. T.
men come into the world wholly free from sinful propensities. And if so, it
appears from what has been already said, there would be nothing to hinder, but
that many, without being better than they are by nature, might perfectly avoid
the commission of sin. But much more might this be the case with men after they
had, by care, diligence, and good practice, attained those positive habits of
virtue, whereby they are at a much greater distance from sin, than they were
naturally: — which this writer supposes to be the case with many good men. But
since the Scriptures teaches us, that the best men in the world do often commit
sin, and have remaining pollution of heart, this makes it abundantly evident,
that men, when they are no otherwise than they were by nature, without any of
those virtuous attainments, have a sinful depravity; yea, must have great
corruption of nature.
SECTION V
The depravity of nature
appears, in that the general consequence of the state and tendency of man’s
nature is a much greater degree of sin, than righteousness; not only with
respect to value and demerit, but matter and quantity.
I
HAVE before shown, that there is a propensity in man’s nature to that
sin, which in heinousness and ill desert immensely outweighs all the value and
merit of any supposed good, that may be in him, or that he can do. I now proceed
to say further, that such is man’s nature, in his present state, that it tends
to this lamentable effect, that there should at all times, through the course of
his life, be at least much more sin, than righteousness; not only as to weight
and value, but as to matter and measure; more disagreement
of heart and practice from the law of God, and from the law of nature and
reason, than agreement and conformity. The law of God is the rule of right, as
Dr. T. often calls it: It is the measure of virtue and sin: so much agreement as
there is with this rule, so much is there of rectitude, righteousness, or true
virtue, and no more; and so much disagreement as there is with this rule, so
much sin is there. Having premised this, the following things may be here
observed.
I. The degree of
disagreement from this rule of right is to be determined, not only by the degree
of distance from it in excess, but also in defect; or in other
words, not only in positive transgression, or doing what is forbidden,
but also in withholding what is required. The divine Lawgiver does as
much prohibit the one as the other, and does as much charge the latter as a
sinful breach of his law, exposing to his eternal wrath and curse, as the
former. Thus at the day of judgment, as described in Mat. 25. The wicked are
condemned as cursed, to everlasting fire, for their sin in defect
and omission: I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat, etc. And the
case is thus, not only when the defect is in word or behavior, but in the inward
temper and exercise of the mind. 1 Cor. 16:22, “If any man love not the Lord
Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” Dr. T. speaking of the sentence
and punishment of the wicked (Mat. 25:41, 46), says, p. 159: “It was
manifestly for WANT to benevolence, love and compassion to their
fellow-creatures, that they were condemned.” And elsewhere, as was observed
before, he says, that the law of God extends to the latent principles of
sin to forbid them, and to condemn to external destruction for them. And
if so, it doubtless also extends to the inward principles of holiness, to require
them, and in like manner to condemn for the want of them.
II. The sum of our
duty to God, required in his law, is LOVE; taking love in a large sense, for the
true regard of our hearts to GOD, implying esteem, honor, benevolence,
gratitude, complacence, etc. This is not only very plain by the Scripture, but
it is evident in itself. The sum of what the law of God requires, is doubtless
obedience to that law: no law can require more than that it be obeyed. But it is
manifest, that obedience is nothing, any otherwise than as a testimony of the
respect of our hearts to God: without the heart, man’s external acts are no
more than the motions of the limbs of a wooden image; have no more of the nature
of either sin or righteousness. It must therefore needs be, that love to God,
the respect of the heart, must be the sum of the duty required in his law.
III. It therefore
appears from the premises, that whosoever withholds more of that love or respect
of heart from God, which his law requires, than he affords, has more sin than
righteousness. Not only he that has less divine love, than passions and
affections which are opposite; but also he that does not love God half so much
as he ought, or has reason to do, has justly more wrong than right imputed to
him, according to the law of God, and the law of reason; he has more irregularly
than rectitude, with regard to the law of love. The sinful disrespect of his
heart towards God, is greater than his respect to him.
But what
considerate person is there, even among the more virtuous part of mankind, but
would be ashamed to say, and profess before God or men, that he loves God half
so much as he ought to do; or that he exercises one half of that esteem, honor,
and gratitude towards God, which would be altogether becoming him; considering
what God is, and what great manifestations he has made of his transcendent
excellency and goodness, and what benefits he receives from him? And if few or
none of the best of men can with reason and truth make even such a profession,
how far from it must the generality of mankind be?
The chief and most
fundamental of all the commands of the moral law, requires us to love the
Lord our God with all our hearts, and with all our souls, with all our strength,
and all our mind: that is, plainly, with all that is within us, or to the
utmost capacity of our nature. God is in himself worthy of infinitely
greater love, than any creature can exercise towards him; love equal to his
perfections, which are infinite. God loves himself with no greater love than he
is worthy of, when he loves himself infinitely; but we can give God no
more love than we have. Therefore, if we give him so much, if we
love him to the utmost extent of the faculties of our nature, we are
excused. But when what is proposed, is only that we should love him as much
as our capacity will allow, all excuse of want of capacity ceases,
and obligation takes hold of us; and we are doubtless obliged to love God
to the utmost of what is possible for us, with such faculties, and
such opportunities and advantages to know God, as we have. And it is evidently
implied in this great commandment of the law, that our love to God should be so
great, as to have the most absolute possession of all the soul, and the perfect
government of all the principals and springs of action that are in our nature.
Though it is not
easy, precisely to fix the limits of man’s capacity, as to love to God; yet in
general we may determine, that his capacity of love is coextended with his
capacity of knowledge: the exercise of the understanding opens the way for the
exercise of the other faculty. Now, though we cannot have any proper positive
understanding of God’s infinite excellency; yet the capacity of the human
understanding is very great, and may be extended far. It is needless to dispute,
how far man’s knowledge may be said to be strictly comprehensive of things
that are very great, as of the extent of the expanse of the heavens, etc. The
word comprehensive, seems to be ambiguous. But doubtless we are capable
of some proper positive understanding of the greatness of these things,
in comparison of other things that we know. We are capable of some clear
understanding of the greatness or considerableness of a whole nation; or of the
whole world of mankind, as vastly exceeding that of a particular person or
family. We can positively understand, that the whole globe of the earth, that
the latter is as it were nothing to it. So the human faculties are capable of a
real and clear understanding of the greatness, glory, and goodness of God, and
of our dependence upon him, from the manifestations which God has made of
himself to mankind, as being beyond all expression above that of the most
excellent human friend, or earthly object. And so we are capable of esteem and love
to God, which shall be proportionable, much exceeding that which we have to any
creature.
These things may
help us to form some judgment, how vastly the generality of mankind fall below
their duty, with respect to love to God; yea, how far they are from coming half
way to that height of love, which is agreeable to the rule of right. Surely if
our esteem of God, desires after him, and delight in him, were such as become
us, considering the things forementioned, they would exceed our regard to other
things, as the heavens are high above the earth, and would swallow up all other
affections like a deluge. But how far, how exceeding far, are the generality of
the world from any appearance of being influenced and governed by such a degree
of divine love as this!
If we consider the
love of God, with respect to one exercise of it, gratitude, how far
indeed do the generality of mankind come short of the rule of right and reason
in this! If we consider how various, innumerable, and vast the benefits we
receive from God, how infinitely great and wonderful that grace, which is
revealed and offered to them who live under the gospel — in that eternal
salvation which is procured by God giving his only-begotten Son to die for
sinners — and also how unworthy we are all, deserving (as Dr. T. confesses)
eternal perdition under God’s wrath and curse — how great is the gratitude
that would become us, who are the subjects of so many and great benefits! What
grace is this towards poor sinful lost mankind, set before us in so affecting a
manner, as in the extreme sufferings of the Son of God; who was carried through
those pains by a love stronger than death, a love that conquered those mighty
agonies, a love whose length and breadth, and depth and height, passes
knowledge? But oh! What poor returns! — How little gratitude! How low, how
cold and inconstant, the affection in the best, compared with the obligation!
And what then shall be said of the gratitude of the generality? Or rather, who
can express the ingratitude?
If the greater part
of them who are called Christians, were no enemies to Christ in heart and
practice, were not governed by principles opposite to him and his gospel, but
had some real love and gratitude; yet if their love falls vastly short of the
obligation, or occasion given, they are guilty of shameful and odious
ingratitude. As, when a man has been the subject of some instance of
transcendent generosity, whereby he has been relieved from the most extreme
calamity, and brought into very opulent, honorable, and happy circumstances, by
a benefactor of excellent character; and yet expresses no more gratitude on such
an occasion, than would be requisite for some kindness comparatively infinitely
small, he may justly fall under the imputation of vile unthankfulness, and of
much more ingratitude than gratitude; though he may have no ill will to his
benefactor, or no positive affection of mind contrary to thankfulness and
benevolence. What is odious in him is his defect, whereby he falls so
vastly below his duty.
Dr. Turnbull
abundantly insists, that the forces of the affections naturally in man are well
proportioned; and often puts a question to this purpose, — How man’s nature
could have been better constituted in this respect? How the affections of his
heart could have been better proportioned? — I will now mention one instance,
out of many that might be mentioned. Man, if his heart were not depraved, might
have had a disposition to gratitude to God for his goodness, in
proportion to his disposition to anger towards men for their injuries.
When I say, in proportion, I mean considering the greatness and number of favors
and injuries, and the degree in which the one and the other are unmerited, and
the benefit received by the former, and the damage sustained by the latter. Is
there not an apparent and vast difference and inequality in the dispositions to
these two kinds of affection, in the generality of both old and young adult
persons and little children? How ready is resentment for injuries received from
men! And how easily is it raised in most, at least to an equality with the
desert! And is it so with respect to gratitude for benefits received from God,
in any degree of comparison? Dr. Turnbull pleads for the natural disposition to
anger for injuries, as being good and useful: but surely gratitude to God, if we
were inclined to it, would be at least as good and useful as the other.
How far the
generality of mankind are from their duty, with respect to love to God, will
appear further, if we consider that we are obliged not only to love him with a
love of gratitude for benefits received; but true love to God primarily consists
in a supreme regard to him for what he is in himself. The tendency of
true virtue is to treat everything as it is, and according to its nature. And if
we regard the Most High according to the infinite dignity and glory of his
nature, we shall esteem and love him with all our heart and soul, and to the
utmost of the capacity of our nature, on this account; and not primarily because
he has promoted our interest. If God be infinitely excellent in himself, then he
is infinitely lovely on that account; or in other words, infinitely worthy to be
loved. And doubtless, if he be worthy to be loved for this, then he ought
to be loved for it. And it is manifest, there can be no true love to
him, if he be not loved for what he is in himself. For if we love him not
for his own sake, but for something else, then our love is not terminated on him,
but one something else, as its ultimate object. That is no true value for
infinite worth, which implies no value for that worthiness in itself considered,
but only on the account of something foreign. Our esteem of God is fundamentally
defective, if it be not primarily for the excellency of his nature, which is the
foundation of all this is valuable in him in any respect. If we love not God
because he is what he is, but only because he is profitable to us, in
truth we love him not at all: if we seem to love him, our love is not to him,
but to something else.
And now I must
leave it to everyone to judge for himself, from his own opportunities of
observation and information concerning mankind, how little there is of this
disinterested love to God, this pure divine affection, in the world. How very
little indeed in comparison of other affections altogether diverse, which
perpetually urge, actuate, and govern mankind, and keep the world, through all
nations and ages, in a continual agitation and commotion! This is an evidence of
a horrid contempt of God. It would justly be esteemed a great instance of
disrespect and contempt of a prince, if one of his subjects, when he came into
his house, should set him below his meanest slave. But in setting the infinite
JEHOVAH below earthly objects and enjoyments, men degrade him below those
things, between which and him there is an infinitely greater distance, than
between the highest earthly potentate and the most abject of mortals. Such a
conduct as the generality of men are guilty of towards God, continually and
through all ages, in innumerable respects, would be accounted the most vile
contemptuous treatment of a fellow creature, of distinguished dignity.
Particularly men’s treatment of the offers God makes of himself to them as
their friend, their father, their God, and everlasting portion; their treatment
of the exhibitions he has made of his unmeasurable love, and the boundless
riches of his grace in Christ, attended with earnest repeated calls, counsels,
expostulations, and entreaties; as also of the most dreadful threatenings of his
eternal displeasure and vengeance.
Before I finish
this section, it may be proper to say something in reply to an objection,
some may be ready to make, against the force of this argument — that
men do not come half-way to that degree of love to God, which becomes them, and
is their duty. The objection is this: That the argument seems to prove
too much, in that it will prove, that even good men themselves have more sin
than holiness; which also has been supposed. But if this were true, it would
follow, that sin is the prevalent principle even in good men, and that it is the
principle which has the predominancy in the heart and practice of the truly
pious; which is plainly contrary to the Word of God.
I answer, If it be
indeed so, that there is more sin, consisting in defect of required holiness,
than there is of holiness, in good men in this world, yet it will not follow,
that sin has the chief government of their heart and practice, for two reasons.
1. They may love
God more than other things, and yet there may not be so much love, as there is
want of due love; or in other words, they may love God more than the world, and
therefore the love of God may be predominant, and yet may not love God near half
so much as they ought to do. This need not be esteemed a paradox: A person may
love a father, or some great friend and benefactor, of a very excellent
character, more than some other object, a thousand times less worthy of his
esteem and affection, and yet love him ten times less than he ought; and so be
chargeable, all things considered, with a deficiency in respect and gratitude,
that is very unbecoming and hateful. If love to God prevails above the love of
other things, then virtue will prevail above evil affections, or positive
principles of sin; by which principles it is, that sin has a positive power and
influence. For evil affections radically consist in inordinate love to other
things besides God: and therefore, virtue prevailing beyond these, will have the
governing influence. The predominance of the love of God in the hearts of
good men, is more from the nature of the object loved, and the nature of
the principle of true love, than the degree of the principle. The object
is one of supreme loveliness; immensely above all other objects in worthiness of
regard; and it is by such a transcendent excellency, that he is God, and worthy
to be regarded and adored as God: and he that truly loves God, loves him as
God. True love acknowledges him to be divinely and supremely excellent; and must
arise from some knowledge, sense, and conviction of his worthiness of supreme
respect: and though the sense and view of it may be very imperfect, and the love
that arises from it in like manner imperfect; yet if there be any realizing view
of such divine excellency, it must cause the heart to respect God above all.
2. Another reason,
why a principle of holiness maintains the dominion in the hearts of good men, is
the nature of the covenant of grace, and the promises of that covenant, on which
true Christian virtue relies, and which engage God’s strength and assistance
to be on its side, and to help it against its enemy, that it may not be
overcome. The just live by faith. Holiness in the Christian, or his spiritual
life, is maintained, as it has respect by faith to its author and finisher, and
derives strength and efficacy from the divine fountain, and by this means
overcomes. For, as the apostle says, This is the victory that overcomes the
world, even our faith. It is our faith in him who has promised never to
leave nor forsake his people; not to forsake the works of his own hands, nor
suffer his people to be tempted above their ability; that his grace shall be
sufficient for them, his strength be made perfect in weakness; and that where he
has begun a good work he will carry it on to the day of Christ.
SECTION VI
The corruption of man’s
nature appears by its tendency, in its present state, to an extreme degree of
folly and stupidity in matters of religion.
IT
appears, that man’s nature is greatly depraved, by an apparent proneness to an
exceeding stupidity and sottishness in those things wherein his duty and
main interest are chiefly concerned. I shall instance in two things, viz.
Men’s proneness to idolatry; and a general, great disregard of
eternal things, in them who live under the light of the gospel.
It is manifest, in
the first instance, that man’s nature in its present state is attended
with a great propensity to forsake the acknowledgment and worship of the true
God, and to fall into the most stupid idolatry. This has been
sufficiently proved by known fact, on abundant trial: insomuch as the world of
mankind in general (excepting one small people, miraculously delivered and
preserved) through all nations, in all parts of the world, ages after ages,
continued without the knowledge and worship of the true God, and overwhelmed in
gross idolatry, without the least appearance or prospect of its recovering
itself from so great blindness, or returning from its brutish principles and
customs, till delivered by divine grace.
In order to the
most just arguing from face, concerning the tendency of man’s nature, as that
is in itself, it should be inquired what the event has been, where nature has
been left to itself, to operate according to its own tendency, with least
opposition made to it by anything supernatural; rather than in exempt places,
where the infinite power and grace of God have interposed, and extraordinary
means have been used to stem the current, and bring men to true religion and
virtue. As to the means by which God’s people of old, in the line of Abraham,
were delivered and preserved from idolatry, they were miraculous, and of mere
grace. Notwithstanding which, they were often relapsing into the notions and
ways of the heathen; and when they had backslidden, never were recovered, but by
divine gracious interposition. And as to the means by which many gentile nations
have been delivered since the days of the gospel, they are such as have been
wholly owing to the most wonderful, miraculous, and infinite grace. God was
under no obligation to bestow on the heathen world greater advantages than they
had in the ages of their gross darkness; as appears by the fact, that God
actually did not, for so long a time, bestow greater advantages.
Dr. T. himself
observes (Key, p. 1), That in about four hundred years after the
flood, the generality of mankind were fallen into idolatry. And thus it was
everywhere through the world, excepting among that people that was saved and
preserved by a constant series of miracles, through a variety of countries,
nations, and climates, great enough — and through successive changes,
revolutions, and ages, numerous enough — to be a sufficient trial of
what mankind are prone to, if there be any such thing as a sufficient trial.
That men should
forsake the true God for idols, is an evidence of the most astonishing folly and
stupidity, by God’s own testimony, Jer. 2:12, 13, “Be astonished, O ye
heavens, at this, and be ye horribly afraid, be ye very desolate, saith the
Lord: for my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the
fountain of living waters, and have hewed out to themselves cisterns, broken
cisterns, that can hold no water.” And that mankind in general did thus, so
soon after the flood, was from the evil propensity of their hearts, and because
they did not like to retain God in their knowledge; as is evident by Rom.
1:28. And the universality of the effect shows that the cause was universal, and
not anything belonging to the particular circumstances of one, or only some
nations or ages, but something belonging to that nature, which is common to all
nations, and which remains the same through all ages. And what other cause could
this great effect possibly arise from, but a depraved disposition, natural to
all mankind? It could not arise from want of a sufficient capacity or means of
knowledge. This is in effect confessed on all hands. Dr. Turnbull (Chris.
Phil. p. 21) says: “The existence of one infinitely powerful, wise, and
good mind, the Author, Creator, Upholder, and Governor of all things, is a truth
that lies plain and obvious to all that will but think.” And (ibid. p. 245),
“Moral knowledge, which is the most important of all knowledge, may easily be
acquired by all men.” And again (ibid. p. 292), “Every man by himself, if he
would duly employ his mind in the contemplation of the works of God about him,
or in the examination of his own frame, — might make very great progress in
the knowledge of the wisdom and goodness of God. This all men, generally
speaking, might do, with very little assistance; for they have all sufficient
abilities for thus employing their minds, and have all sufficient time for
it.” Mr. Locke say (Human Understanding p. 4, chap. 4, p. 242. edit
11), “Our own existence, and the sensible parts of the universe, offer the
proofs of a Deity so clearly and cogently to our thoughts, that I deem it
impossible for a considerate man to withstand them. For I judge it as certain
and clear a truth, as can anywhere be delivered, that the invisible things of
God are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead.” And Dr. T. himself
(in p. 78) says, “The light given to all ages and nations of the world, is
sufficient for the knowledge and practice of their duty.” And (p. 111, 112)
Citing those words of the apostle, Rom. 2:14, 15; he says, “This clearly
supposes that the Gentiles, who were then in the world, might have done the
things contained in the law by nature, or their natural power.” And in one of
the next sentences he says, “The apostle, in Rom. 1:19, 20, 21 affirms that
the Gentiles had light sufficient to have seen God’s eternal power and
godhead, in the works of creation; and that the reason why they did not glorify
him as God, was because they became vain in their imaginations, and had darkened
their foolish heart; so that they were without excuse. And in his paraphrase on
those verses in the 1st of Rom. He speaks of the very heathens, that were
without a written revelation, as having that clear and evident discovery of
God’s being and perfections, that they are inexcusable in not glorifying him
suitably to his excellent nature, and as the author of their being and
enjoyments.” And (p. 146. S), he says, “God affords every man sufficient
light to know his duty.” If all ages and nations of the world have sufficient
light for the knowledge of God, and their duty to him, then even such nations
and ages, in which the most brutish ignorance and barbarity prevailed, had
sufficient light, if they had but a disposition to improve it; and then much
more those of the heathen, which were more knowing and polished, and in ages
wherein arts and learning had made greatest advances. But even in such nations
and ages, there was no advance made towards true religion; and Dr. Winder
observes (History Of Knowledge, vol. 2, p. 336) in the following words;
“The pagan religion degenerated into greater absurdity, the further it
proceeded; and it prevailed in all its height of absurdity, when the pagan
nations were polished to the height. Though they set out with the talents of
reason, and had solid foundations of information to build upon, it in fact
proved, that with all their strengthened faculties, and growing powers of
reason, the edifice of religion rose in the most absurd deformities and
disproportioned, incongruous systems, of which the most easy dictates of reason
would have demonstrated the absurdity. They were contrary to all just
calculations in moral mathematics.” He observes, “that their grossest
abominations first began in Egypt, where was an ostentation of the greatest
progress in learning and science: and they never renounced clearly any of their
abominations, or openly returned to the worship of the one true God, the Creator
of all things, and to the original, genuine sentiments of the highest and most
venerable antiquity. The pagan religion continued in this deep corruption to the
last. The pagan philosophers, and inquisitive men, made great improvements in
many sciences, and even in morality itself; yet the inveterate absurdities of
pagan idolatry remained without remedy. Every temple smoked with incense to the
sun and moon, and other inanimate material luminaries, and earthly elements, to
Jupiter, Juno, Mars and Venus, etc. the patrons and examples of almost every
vice. Hecatombs bled on the altars of a thousand gods; as mad superstition
inspired. And this was not the disgrace of our ignorant untaught northern
countries only; but even at Athens itself, the infamy reigned, and circulated
through all Greece; and finally prevailed, amidst all their learning and
politeness, under the Ptolemies in Egypt, and the Caesars at Rome. Now if the
knowledge of the pagan world, in religion, proceeded no further than this; if
they retained all their deities, even the most absurd of them all, their deified
beasts, and deified men, even to the last breath of pagan power: we may justly
ascribe the great improvements in the world, on the subject of religion, to
divine revelation, either vouchsafed in the beginning, when this knowledge was
competently clear and copious; or at the death of paganism, when this light
shone forth in its consummate luster at the coming of Christ.”
Dr. T. often speaks
of the idolatry of the heathen world, as great wickedness, in which they
were wholly inexcusable; and yet often speaks of their case as remediless, and
of them as being dead in sin, and unable to recover themselves. If so, and yet,
according to his own doctrine, every age, every nation, and every man, had
sufficient light afforded, to know God, and their whole duty to him; then their
inability to deliver themselves must be a moral inability, consisting in a
desperate depravity, and most evil disposition of heart.
And if there had
not been sufficient trial of the propensity of the hearts of mankind, through
all those ages that passed from Abraham to Christ, the trial has been continued
down to this day, in all those vast regions of the face of the earth, that have
remained without any effects of the light of the gospel; and the dismal effect
continues everywhere unvaried. How was it with that multitude of nations
inhabiting South and North America? What appearance was there, when the
Europeans first came hither, of their being recovered, or recovering, in any
degree, from the grossest ignorance, delusions, and most stupid paganism? And
how is it at this day, in those parts of Africa and Asia, into which the light
of the gospel has not penetrated?
This strong and
universally prevalent disposition of mankind to idolatry, of which there has
been such great trial, and so notorious and vast proof, in fact, is a most
glaring evidence of the exceeding depravity of the human nature; as it is a
propensity, in the utmost degree, contrary to the highest end, the main
business, and chief happiness of mankind — consisting in the knowledge,
service, and enjoyment of the living God, the Creator and Governor of the world
— in the highest degree contrary to that for which mainly God gave mankind
more understanding than the beasts of the earth, and made them wiser than the
fowls of heaven; which was, that they might be capable of the knowledge of God.
It is also in the highest degree contrary to the first and greatest commandment
of the moral law, That we should have no other gods before JEHOVAH, and
that we should love and adore him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.
The Scriptures are abundant in representing the idolatry of the heathen world,
as their exceeding wickedness, and their most brutish stupidity. They who
worship and trust in idols, are said themselves to be like the lifeless statues
they worship, like mere senseless stocks and stones (Psa. 115:4-8 and
135:15-18).
A second
instance of the natural stupidity of mankind, is the great disregard
of their own eternal interest, which appears so remarkably, so generally
among them who live under the gospel.
Mr. Locke observes
(Hum. Und. Vol. 1, p. 207) “Were the will determined by the views of
good, as it appears in contemplation, greater or less to the understanding, it
could never get loose from the infinite eternal joys of heaven, once proposed,
and considered as possible; the eternal condition of a future state infinitely
outweighing the expectation of riches or honour, or any other worldly pleasure,
which we can propose to ourselves; though we should grant these the more
probable to be obtained.” Again (p. 228, 229) “He that will not be so far a
rational creature, as to reflect seriously upon infinite happiness and misery,
must needs condemn himself, as not making that use of his understanding he
should. The rewards and punishments of another life, which the Almighty has
established, as the enforcements of his laws, are of weight enough to determine
the choice, against whatsoever pleasure or pain this life can show. When the
eternal state is considered but in its bare possibility, which nobody can make
any doubt of, he that will allow exquisite and endless happiness to be but the
possible consequence of a good life here, and the contrary state the possible
reward of a bad one, must own himself to judge very much amiss, if he does not
conclude that a virtuous life, with the certain expectation of everlasting
bliss, which may come, is to be preferred to a vicious one, with the fear of
that dreadful state of misery, which it is very possible may overtake the
guilty, or at least the terrible uncertain hope of annihilation. This is
evidently so; though the virtuous life here had nothing but pain, and the
vicious continual pleasure; which yet is for the most part quite otherwise, and
wicked men have not much the odds to brag of, even in their present possession:
nay, all things rightly considered, have I think even the worst part here. But
when infinite happiness is put in one scale, against infinite misery in the
other; if the worst that comes to the pious man, if he be in the right; who can,
without madness, run the venture? Who in his wits would choose to come within a
possibility of infinite misery? Which if he miss, there is yet nothing to be got
by that hazard: whereas, on the other side, the sober man ventures nothing,
against infinite happiness to be got, if his expectation comes to pass.”
That disposition of
mind which is a propensity to act contrary to reason, is a depraved disposition.
It is not because the faculty of reason, which God has given to mankind, is not
sufficient fully to discover to them, that forty, sixty, or an hundred years, is
as nothing in comparison of eternity — infinitely less than a second of time
to an hundred years — that the greatest worldly prosperity is not treated with
the most perfect disregard, in all cases where there is any degree of
competition of earthly things, with salvation from exquisite, eternal misery,
and the enjoyment of everlasting glory and felicity. But is it a matter of
controversy, whether men in general show a strong disposition to act far
otherwise, from their infancy, till death sensibly approaches? In things that
concern their temporal interest, they easily discern the difference between
things of a long and short continuance. It is no hard matter to convince men of
the difference between things of a long and short continuance. It is no hard
matter to convince men of the difference between being admitted to the
accommodations and entertainments of a convenient, beautiful, well-furnished
habitation, and to partake of the provisions and produce of a plentiful estate
for a day, or a night; and having all given them, and settled upon them, as
their own, to possess as long as they live, and to be theirs and their heirs’
forever. There would be no need of preaching sermons, and spending strength and
life, to convince them of the difference. Men know how to adjust things in their
dealings and contracts one with another, according to the length of time in
which anything agreed for is to be used or enjoyed. In temporal affairs, they
are sensible, that it concerns them to provide for future time, as well
as for the present. Thus common prudence teaches them to take care in
summer to lay up for winter; yea, to provide a fund, or an estate, whence they
may be supplied for a long time to come. And not only so, but they are forward
to spend and be spent, in order to provide for their children after they are
dead; though it be quite uncertain, who shall enjoy what they lay up, after they
have left the world. And if their children should have the comfort of it,
as they desire, they will not partake with them in that comfort, or have any
portion in anything under the sun. In things which relate to men’s temporal
interest, they seem very sensible of the uncertainty of life, especially in the
lives of others; and to make answerable provision for the security of their
worldly interest, that no considerable part of it may rest only on so uncertain
a foundation, as the life of a neighbor or friend. Common discretion leads them
to take good care, that their outward possessions be well secured, by a good and
firm title. In worldly concerns, men discern their opportunities, and are
careful to improve them before they are past. The husbandman is careful to plow
his ground, and sow his seed, in the proper season; otherwise he knows he cannot
expect a crop: and when the harvest is come, he will not sleep away the time;
for he knows, if he does so, the crop will soon be lost. How careful and
eagle-eyes is the merchant to improve opportunities to enrich himself! How apt
are men to be alarmed at the appearance of danger to their world estate, or
anything that remarkably threatens great damage to their outward interest! And
how will they bestir themselves in such a case, if possible, to avoid the
threatened calamity! In things purely secular, and not of a moral or spiritual
nature, they easily receive conviction by past experience, when anything, on
repeated trial, proves unprofitable or prejudicial; and are ready to take
warning by what they have found themselves, and also by the experience of their
neighbors and forefathers.
But if we consider
how men generally conduct themselves in things on which their well-being
infinitely more depends, how vast is the diversity! In these things how cold,
lifeless, and dilatory! With what difficulty are a few, out of multitudes,
excited to any tolerable degree of care and diligence, by the innumerable means
used, in order to make them wise for themselves! And when some vigilance and
activity is excited, how apt is it to die away, like a mere force against a
natural tendency! What need of a constant repetition of admonitions and
counsels, to keep the heart from falling asleep! How many objections are made!
How are difficulties magnified! And how soon is the mind discouraged! How many
arguments, often renewed, variously and elaborately enforced, do men stand in
need of, to convince them of things that are almost self-evident! As that things
which are external, are infinitely more important than things temporal, and the
like. And after all, how very few are convinced effectually, or in such a manner
as to induce them to a practical preference of eternal things! How senseless are
men of the necessity of improving their time, as to their spiritual interest,
and their welfare in another world! Though it be an endless futurity, and
though it be their own personal, infinitely important good, that is to be
cared for. Though men are so sensible of he uncertainty of their neighbors’
lives, when any considerable part of their own estates depends on the
continuance of them; how stupidly senseless do they seem to be of the
uncertainty of their own lives, when their preservation from immensely great,
remediless, and endless misery, is risked by a present delay, through a
dependence on future opportunity! What a dreadful venture will men carelessly
and boldly run, repeat, and multiply, with regard to their eternal salvation;
who yet are very careful to have everything in a deed or bond, firm, and without
a flaw! How negligent are they of their special advantages and opportunities for
their soul’s good! How hardly awakened by the most evident and imminent
dangers, threatening eternal destruction, yea, though put in mind of them, and
much pains taken to point them forth, show them plainly, and fully to represent
them, if possible to engage their attention! How are they like the horse, that
boldly rushes into the battle! How hardly are men convinced by their own
frequent and abundant experience, of the unsatisfactory nature of earthly
things, and the instability of their own hearts in their good frames and
intentions! And how hardly convinced by their own observation, and the
experience of all past generations, of the uncertainty of life and its
enjoyments! Psa. 49:11, etc.: “Their inward thought is, that their houses
shall continue for ever. — Nevertheless, man being in honour, abideth not; he
is like the beasts that perish. This their way is their folly; yet their
posterity approve their sayings. Like sheep are they laid in the grave.”
In these things,
men who are prudent for their temporal interest, act as if they were bereft of
reason: “The have eyes, and see not; ears, and hear not; neither do they
understand: they are like the horse and mule, that have no understanding.” —
Jer. 8:7, “The stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the
turtle, and the crane, and the swallow, observe the time of their coming: but my
people know not the judgment of the Lord.”
These things are often mentioned in Scripture, as evidences of extreme folly and stupidity, wherein men act as great enemies to themselves, as though they loved their own ruin, Pro. 8:36. Laying wait for their own blood, Pro. 1:18. And how can these things be accounted for, but by supposing a most wretched depravity of nature? Why otherwise should not men be as wise for themselves in spiritual and eternal things, as in temporal? All Christians will confess, that man’s faculty of reason was given him chiefly to enable him to understand the former, wherein his main interest and true happiness consist. This faculty would therefore undoubtedly be every way as fit for understanding them, as the latter, if not depraved. The reason why these are understood, and not the other, is not that such things as have been mentioned, belonging to men’s spiritual and eternal interest, are more obscure and abstruse in their own nature. For instance, the difference between long and short, the need of providing for futurity, the importance of improving proper opportunities, and of having good security, and a sure foundation, in affairs wherein our interest is greatly concerned, etc. These things are as plain in themselves in religious, as in other matters. And we have far greater means to assist us to be wise for ourselves in eternal than in temporal things. We have the abundant instruction of perfect and infinite wisdom itself, to lead and conduct us in the paths of righteousness, so th