Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

dead. Thus I think I have vindicated the righteousness of God, and the doctrine of St. Paul, from the unjust reflections caft upon both.

If it should be yet farther objected, admitting that there is no fuch thing as imputing the guilt of one perfon's actions to another, who is no way acceffory to his crimes; yet there is that which is equivalent to it, viz. Adam fo polluted bimfelf, and human nature (in him) by his tranfgreffion, that he hath propagated a finful nature (or a natural inclination to fin) to his children, and they to their children, and so on to all generations, Chrift only excepted. Now this finful nature, or natural inclination to fin, makes all thofe to be criminal, or guilty of fin, to whom it cleaves, and expofes them to the wrath of God, tho they do never actually tranfgrefs: and therefore, tho Adam's fin is not imputed to his posterity, yet his pofterity, may in a lefs proper fenfe, be faid to fin in him, inafmuch as they receive a finful nature from him, which makes them finners, according as it is written in Job xiv. 4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Pfalm li. 5. Bekold I was shapen in iniquity, and in fin did my mother conceive me. Ifaiah xlviii.8. I knew that thou wouldeft deal very treacherously, and waft called a tranfgreffor from the womb. Eph. ii. 3. And were by nature the children of wrath. Anfwer, I have already fhewn what fin is, viz. that it is an irregular, diforderly, or wicked act, either of the mind fingly, or of the mind and practice in conjunction, by which a perfon chufes to do what in reason and justice he ought not, or chufes to avoid what in reason and justice he ought to do; confequently, no one can be guilty of fin, till they do actually chufe to do, or avoid doing as aforefaid: and therefore whatever weakness or diforder Adam brought upon himself, and his pofterity, by his tranfgreffion, which makes them lefs able to withstand temptations, and ftrongly inclines them to comply with thofe temptations, when under them, fuch a diforder is indeed mankind's misfortune, but it cannot, in the nature of the thing, be their crime; because it is not the tranfgreffion of a law, but only a great difadvantage to those who are obliged to be governed by a law, and are liable to fuffer for the breach of it. Thus, for example, fuppofe a man to be of a very cholerick difpofition in his nature, which very strongly difpofes him to finful anger, when provoked, this cholerick difpofition is lodged in his conftitution, and is what he cannot prevent or remove, and therefore in itself can be no crime; but if when he is provoked, he doth not bridle and reftrain this difpofition, but suffers himself to be hurried into finful anger by it, then indeed he becomes criminal. It is not his cholerick difpofition, but his tranfgreffing of a law, which that difpofition contributed to, which is finful and therefore tho that difpofition is his great misfortune, yet it is not his crime. The cafe is the fame in all thofe difpofitions and inclinations which mankind may be fuppofed to receive from Adam, and to be labouring under; they are fo many impediments in the way of our duty, but they are fo far from being criminal in themselves, that on the contrary they do rather, in reason and equity, leffen and extenuate that crime, which they are the occafion of betraying us into; fuch fins being called fins of infirmity: and God is fo far from taking an advantage against us for it, or imputing it to us as a crime, that on the con

[ocr errors]

trary

trary he in pity to us, on this account, gave us fuch an high priest as was touch'd with the feeling of our infirmities, who was in all points tempted as we are, and yet without fin, as in Heb. iv. 15. He appointed that his Son, or our high priest, fhould take upon him our flesh, and become man, that in experiencing in himself the weakness and frailty of human nature, and how much bodily appetites and fuffering do tempt and difpofe to fin, he might be the better difpofed to commiferate, pity, and help all in thofe circumftances; and fo might be, as well a merciful as a faithful high as a faithful high priest, in things pertaining to God, as in chap. ii. 17. Befides, when men talk of receiving from Adam an inclination to fin, it looks as if they did not at all confider what they talk about; because if we receive fuch an inclination, this must be an inclination at all times; for otherwife, as it it would not be natural, if it was only upon some occafions in us, fo if there were fome times when we are free from this inclination, we should certainly be free in the time of infancy, and confequently no one would be a finner, till this inclination did actually take place in him.

Again, As this inclination must be at all times, fo it must be to only one particular fin, or elfe it must be to all kind of fin in general. If to only one particular fin, then it must be to that particular fin which Adam was guilty of, viz. the gratifying his appetite against law; but that all mankind have a perpetual inclination to gratify their appetites against law, is falfe in fact; for a diforder in our bodies oftentimes takes away all appetite to eating and drinking, and we are so far from having in us an inclination to gratify our appetite against law, that on the contrary our inclination is against the gratifying our appetite at all. If this inclination is to all fin in general, this is impoffible; because fome fins are fo contrary to others in their nature, that we cannot have an inclination to one, but we must have an averfion to the other. Thus the man who is inclined to the fin of covetousness, is averfe to the fin of profufeness. The case is the fame with refpect to many other fins. That there is in men an inclination to gratify their appetites and affections, and that this inclination is natural, I readily grant; but that this inclination is finful, this I deny; because as it is natural, fo it is the work of God in us: for as God planted in our nature thofe appetites and affections, fo it was he that planted in us the inclination to gratify them; and this took place in Adam, antecedent to his tranfgreffion, or elfe he had never tranfgreffed; for if he had not had in himself an inclination to eat that which did appear to be good for food, he had never eaten of the forbidden fruit; nay, he had not eaten at all.

Here it may not be amifs to obferve the weakness human nature was under when in its original flate, as appears from Adam, who was drawn into fin upon fo flight a temptation. Men are apt to make a wide difference between Adam's ftate before he had eaten the forbidden fruit, and after he had eaten it, with refpect to his inclination to fin; but if this matter was carefully confidered, it would appear that the difference was not fo great as it is usually reprefented to be; because he could fcarce be drawn into fin with a weaker temptation after it, than he was before it. And even now, men must be grown old in wickedness, before they commit fin without a temptation. Upon

the

[ocr errors]

the whole, I think it abundantly evident, that no perfon is a finner, till he actually and perfonally tranfgreffes, either with the mind fingly, or with the mind and practice in conjunction. And as to thofe places of fcripture, which the objection refers to, when they are examined, it will appear, that they are far from proving what they are produced for.

As to Job xiv. 4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. To this I anfwer, that this text is quite befide the objectors purpose. The words confidered barely by themselves (without any relation to the subject Joh was treating of) are a general affertion, viz. that a clean thing cannot be brought out of an unclean; which is the fame as to fay, the ftream cannot be more pure than its fountain. Now this, as a general affertion, is true; but when this is ufed metaphorically, and is applied to other fubjects, then it must be brought under fuch limitations as the fubject it is applied to doth require. Thus our Lord faith, Every tree is known by its fruit, a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit; this our Lord applies to the false prophets, and tells his difciples, by their fruits they should know them, as in Matt. vii. 15-20. Here the tree is as the fountain, and the fruit is as the stream; but if the metaphor be strictly applied, this is not true: for a good tree does fometimes bring forth evil fruit, tho not generally fo. The cafe is the fame with men and their actions, which are as the fountain to the ftream. David was a good man, and yet he brought forth fome bad fruit or actions: and Ahab was a bad man, and yet he brought forth fome good actions, viz. he humbled himself at the divine threat, and God fpared him from the deftruction threatened for its fake, as in 1 Kings xxi. 29. Thus we fee that when the aforefaid affertion, is metaphorically applied to other fubjects, then it must not be taken ftrictly, but under fuch limitations as the fubject requires. But if we should apply this to a man and his feed, it is not at all true; for a very bad man may have very good children, and a very good man may have bad ones. very Thus Jeroboam, whofe character is that he made Ifrael to fin, had a good fon, even Abijah; for in his youth there was found in bim fome good thing towards the Lord God of Ifrael, in the house of Jeroboam, as in Kings xiv. 13. Here we fee the ftream was more pure than its fountain, a clean thing came out of an unclean (if it were juft to apply the metapher in this cafe) and therefore it is to no purpose to urge the general affertion of fob, in a cafe which, when applied, is not true. Sin is not propagated by generation, and therefore if Adam was never fo great a finner, it does not follow that all his pofterity must be fuch. Sin is a moral and not a natural evil; and therefore, though natural evils may be propagated by generation, yet moral evils cannot, because they have a dependence upon the will of him to whom they cleave. Upon the whole, I fay, though we cannot difcern to what end Job urged this affertion, nor how he applied it to the fubject he was treating of, which was the fhortness and frailty of man's life; yet we are fure he could not apply it to a man and his iffue, except it was to prove, that an immortal fon could not be produced by a mortal father; in this cafe the metaphor was just and true, and the reafon he urges in the next verfe is wholly

P

ap

applicable to it. Verfe 5. Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass. But for Job to apply this to the propagation of fin, as it was wholly foreign to his purpofe, fo it was not true, when thus applied.

As to Pfalm li. 5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in fin did my mother conceive me to this I answer, it is one thing to be conceived in fin, and another to be conceived a finner: the first of these refers to the fin of the parent, which is the plain and exprefs words of the text; the latter refers to the fin of the child, which is only a falfe interpretation put upon it: and therefore, I fay, that this text is urged in this cafe without any appearance of strength.

If it fhould be objected, that David was now humbling himself before God, for his great offences of murder and adultery, and therefore the fin of his parents was not a proper ground of humiliation to him upon this occafion; and confequently it was his own fin which he referred to. I answer, If it was his own fin, yet that was no more a proper ground for his humiliation, in this case, than the fin of his parents; because it was what he was no ways accessory to, nor could prevent, he being entirely paffive therein; therefore the one was as proper a ground for his humiliation as the other. But farther, I fay, the true ftate of the cafe I take to be this, David in his devotion brings in every thing that might raife or exprefs the height of his affections, whether it were of joy or forrow; and fo we find him calling upon the fun and moon to praise God, as in Pfalm cxlviii. 3. Here David did not address or petition the fun and moon to be engaged in this work, but he only used thefe expreffions to raise and express his delight and joy in God. So in like manner, when he was humbling himself for his folly, he reprefents himself, not only as a great finner, but alfo (to heighten and aggravate his forrow) that he proceeded from fin-. ful parents. A cafe like this we have in Ifaiah vi. 5. Where the Prophet complains against himself, that he was a man of unclean lips, and to aggravate his debasement, he adds, and I dwell among a people of unclean lips.

As to Ifaiah xlviii. 8. I knew that thou wouldeft deal very treacherously, and waft called a tranfgreffor from the womb. To this I anfwer, fuppofing this to refpect individuals, yet it does not prove them to be tranfgreffors from the womb; because the fcriptures often ufe fuch loftinefs of fpeech as expreffes much more than the fpeaker intends: thus in Pfalm lviii. 3. The wicked are eftranged from the womb, they go aftray as foon as they be born, fpeaking lies. Here the wicked are reprefented as fpeaking lies as foon as they are born, even before they can speak at all. The meaning is, they are finners from their youth upwards; fo that to be tranfgreffors from the womb, is no more than to be tranfgreffors from their youth. But farther, I fay, these words were spoken not to individuals, confidered as fuch, but to the nation of Ifrael, as appears from verfe 1. Hear ye this, O houfe of Jacob, which are called by the name of Ifrael, &c. Now this was true of them, confidered as a nation, whose birth, as fuch, was their coming out of Egypt; for before that time they were at most but a multitude of bondmen. And that they were tranfgreffors from the womb, Mofes has given an abundant proof.

As

As to Eph. ii. 3. And were by nature the children of wrath. To this I anfwer, if St. Paul may be allowed to use the term nature in an improper fenfe, as he does in 1 Cor. xi. 14. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? In this cafe nature, properly fo called, is unconcerned; for fuppofing that it was then, and always had been a cuftom, for both men and women to wear their hair down to their girdles; Would natural reason have taught us that this was unfeemly in the men, and yet decent in the women? no furely, nature hath nothing to fay in this matter. It is custom and usage that makes things feemly, or unfeemly, in the present cafe. It had been a custom for men to have their hair cut, and not to wear it long as the women did, and this was used as a distinction of the fexes; and for men to do otherwise the Apostle faith was a fhame; which is as much as if he had faid, even the common ufage and custom of mankind in this cafe teacheth you, that if a man have long hair, like a woman, it is a fhame unto him, for that is to confound the diftinction of fexes. I fay, if the Apostle may be allowed to ufe the word nature in the fame fenfe as before, then the fenfe of the Apostle will appear to be this, viz. before you believing Ephefians were converted to christianity, your customary and habitual wickedness juftly expofed you to the wrath of God, even as those other Gentiles which are in the like cafe. But if the Apostle used the word nature in a proper fenfe, then I think his meaning is this, viz. among whom alfo we all had our converfation in times past, in the lufts of the flesh, fulfilling the defires of the flesh and of the mind, and as fuch we were naturally expofed to the juft difpleasure and wrath of God, even as the other Gentiles that are in the like wicked and unconverted state.

Thus I have shewn that the texts referred to do not anfwer the purpose for which they were produced, and fo have fully anfwered this objection.

[ocr errors]

*The Apoftle, as he was speaking to the Gentiles, puts himself in the place of a Gentile, and ufes the term

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »