Chapter VIII: Part 8

(2.) Our ability to yield acceptable obedience to God, much more perfect obedience, is wholly lost, as being destitute of a principle of spiritual life and grace, which must, if ever we have it, be implanted in regeneration; so that every one may say with the apostle, _In me_ (_that is, in my flesh_,) _dwelleth no good thing_, Rom. vii. 18.

(3.) We are destitute of a right to the heavenly blessedness, and all those privileges, that were promised upon condition of our first parents performing perfect obedience, according to the tenor of the covenant made with them in their state of innocency.

This want of original righteousness is the immediate consequence of Adam’s first sin. By original righteousness we understand, either that freedom from guilt, which man had before he sinned, which exempted him from any liableness to condemnation, and afforded him a plea before God for his retaining the blessings he was possessed of; and, had he persisted longer in his integrity, it would have given him a right to a greater degree of happiness: His perfect obedience was his righteousness, in a forensick sense; and the failure thereof, in our first parents, rendered both them and us destitute of it. But, since this is the same with what is expressed in the foregoing words, wherein we are denominated guilty of Adam’s first sin, we must consider something else, as intended in this expression, when we are said to want that righteousness wherein he was created.

We have before observed, that, by the fall of our first parents, the image of God in man was defaced: But now, we are to speak of his supernatural image, as what was wholly lost, and therefore all mankind are, by nature, destitute of a principle of grace; upon which account it may be truly said, as the apostle does, _There is none righteous; no, not one_, Rom. iii. 10. and elsewhere man is called, _A transgressor from the womb_, Isa. xlviii. 8. and, by nature, not only _a child of wrath_, but _dead in trespasses and sins_, Eph. ii. 1. and therefore it is necessary that we be created again to good works, or that a new principle of grace be implanted in regeneration, without which there is no salvation. Our being destitute of this supernatural principle of grace is distinguished from that propensity to sin, or corruption of nature, which is spoken of in the following words of this answer; and therefore, considering it as thus distinguished, and as called, by some, the _privative_ part of original sin; we are led to speak of man in his destitute state, deprived of that which was his glory, and tended to his defence against the assaults of temptation; and of those actual transgressions which are the consequence thereof. This excellent endowment man is said to have lost.

Some divines express themselves with a degree of caution, when treating on this subject; and therefore, though they allow that man has lost this righteousness, yet they will hardly own that God took it away, though it were by a judicial act, as supposing that this would argue him to be the author of sin; and I would not blame the least degree of concern expressed to fence against such a consequence, did it really ensue on our asserting it; yet I cannot but conclude, that the holiness of God may be vindicated, though we should assert, that he deprived him of this righteousness, as a punishment of his sin, or denied him that power to perform perfect obedience, which he conferred on him at first; for there is a vast difference between God’s restoring to him his lost power, to perform that which is truly and supernaturally good in all its circumstances; and the infusing habits of sin into his nature: This, we acknowledge, he could not do, consistently with his holiness, and shall make it farther appear, under a following head. But the other he might do, that is, leave man destitute of a power to walk before him in holiness and righteousness; for, if God had been obliged to have given him this power, then his bestowing it on fallen man, would be rather a debt than a grace, which is contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel. But this leads us to consider the _positive_ part of original sin; therefore,

3. Man’s sinfulness, as fallen, consists in the corruption of his nature, or a propensity and inclination to all evil, which, as it is observed, is commonly called, _original sin_, that is, original sin inherent, as distinguished from it, as imputed to us, which has been already considered. That the nature of man is vitiated, corrupted, and prone to all that is bad, is taken for granted by all; and, indeed, he that denies it, must either be very much unacquainted with himself, or hardly retain the common notices which we have of moral good and evil. This is frequently represented, in scripture, as a plague, defilement, or deadly evil, with which his heart is affected; upon which account it is said, that _it is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked_, Jer. xvii. 9. that _out of it proceed evil thoughts_, and all other abominations of the most heinous nature, Matth. xv. 19. unless prevented by the grace of God.

This propensity of nature to sin discovers itself in the first dawn of our reason; so that we no sooner appear to be men, but we give ground to conclude that we are sinners. Accordingly it is said, _The imagination of man’s heart is only evil_, and that _from his youth_,[68] Gen. vi. 5. compared with chap. viii. 21. and he is represented as _estranged from the womb, going astray as soon as he is born, speaking lyes_, Psal. lvii. 3. which is, notwithstanding, to be understood with this limitation, that we are prone to sin, as soon as we have any dispositions, or inclinations, to any thing; for it cannot be supposed that man is disposed to commit actual sin before he is capable of acting. Some, indeed, have attempted to prove that the soul of a child sins as soon as it is united to the body in the womb, and have carried this indefensible conjecture so far, as that they have maintained, that actual sin is committed in the womb. But this is not only destitute of all manner of proof, but it seems so very absurd, that, as few will be convinced by it, so it needs no confutation.

As for this propensity to sin, (whenever it may be said to take place) it is certain, that it is not equal in all; and in this it differs from Adam’s guilt, as imputed to us, and from our want of original righteousness, as the immediate consequence thereof; for these corrupt inclinations appear, from universal experience, as well as the concurrent testimony of scripture, to be of an increasing nature; so that some are more obstinate and hardened in sin than others; and the habits thereof, in many, are compared to the tincture of the _Ethiopian_, or the _leopard’s spots_, Jer. xiii. 23. which no human art can take away. We are, indeed, naturally prone to sin at first; but afterwards the leprosy spreads, and the propensity, or inclination to it, increases by repeated acts, or a course of sin. The Psalmist takes notice of this, in a beautiful climax, or gradation; _They know not, neither will they understand, they walk in darkness_, Psal. lxxxii. 5.

We shall now take occasion to speak something concerning the rise or origin hereof. This is a difficulty which many have attempted to account for and explain, though with as little success as any thing that comes within the compass of our enquiries. Some ancient heretics[69] have thought, that because it could not be from God, who is the author of nothing but what is good, that therefore there are two first causes; one of all good, which is God, and the other of all evil. But this is deservedly exploded, as a most dangerous and absurd notion.

Others seem to assert, that God is the author of it; and, that they may exculpate themselves from making him the author of sin, which is the vilest reproach that can be cast upon him, they add, that he does this in a judicial way, as a punishment for the sin of our first parents, and that it is no reflection on him to suppose, that, as a Judge, he may put this propensity to sin into our nature; so that it is, as it were, concreate with the soul, or derived to us, at the same time that it is formed in, and united to the body: But we cannot, by any means, conclude God to be the author hereof, though it be as a Judge; for that would be to suppose his vindictive justice inconsistent with the spotless purity of his nature. We read, indeed, of God’s _giving men up to their own hearts’ lusts_, Psal. lxxxi. 11, 12. as a punishment for other sins; but never of his producing in them an inclination to sin, though it be under the notion of a punishment: But this having been proved and illustrated, under a foregoing answer, when speaking concerning the providence of God, as conversant about those actions, to which sin is annexed, in a judicial way, we shall pass it over in this place[70].

The Pelagians, and, after them, the Papists, and some among the Remonstrants, being sensible, that this propensity of nature to sin cannot be denied, have taken such a method to account for it, as makes it a very innocent and harmless thing; and, that it may appear agreeable to the notion which they maintain of the innocency of man by nature, they suppose that the first motions, or inclinations of the soul to sin, or, to use their own expression, the first acts of concupiscence are not sinful; and, to support this opinion, they maintain, that nothing can be deemed a sin, but what is committed with the full bent of the will; and therefore when an unlawful object presents itself, how much soever the mind may be pleased with it, yet there is no sin till there is an actual compliance with it; and, for this, they bring that scripture, _When lust has conceived, it bringeth forth sin_, James i. 15. that is, the second act of concupiscence, or the compliance with the first suggestions to sin, are only denominated sin; and, as a consequence from this supposition, they pretend that these first acts of concupiscence were not inconsistent with a state of innocency; so that when _Eve saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat_, Gen. iii. 6. She did not sin till she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and, as a farther consequence deduced from this supposition, they conclude, that that original righteousness, which our first parents had, did not consist so much in a perfect freedom from all suggestions to sin, but it was rather a bridle to restrain them from compliance therewith, which, by not making a right use of, they complied with the motions of concupiscence, and so sinned. And, according to this scheme, that propensity of nature to sin, which we have in our childhood, is an harmless, and innocent thing, and therefore we may suppose it to be from God, without concluding him to be the author of sin. But this is a vile and groundless notion, and such as savours more of Antinomianism, than many doctrines that are so called; and, indeed, it is to call that no sin, which is, as it were, the root and spring of all sin, and to make God the author and approver of that, which he cannot but look on with the utmost detestation, as being contrary to the holiness of his nature; to which nothing farther need be said, since the notion carries the black marks of its own infamy in itself.

There are others who oppose the doctrine of original sin, and pretend to account for the corruption of nature, by supposing that all men sinned for themselves; which is nothing else but reviving an old opinion taken from the schools of Plato and Pythagoras, namely, that God created the souls of all men at first, and before they were united to their bodies, at least those that now they have, sinned; and, as a punishment of their crime in that state, they were not only condemned to their respective bodies, but to suffer all the miseries which they are exposed to therein; so that the sin, which they committed in these bodies, is nothing else but the propagation of that, which had its first rise in the acts of the understanding and will, when they first fell into a state of sin. This is so chimerical an opinion, that I would not have mentioned it, had it not been maintained by some, as an expedient, to account for the corruption of nature, by those who deny original sin, and affirmed with that assurance, as though it were founded in scripture; whereas I cannot think it has the least countenance from it. They first take it for granted without sufficient ground that those scriptures, that speak of the pre-existence of Christ in his divine nature, are to be understood concerning the pre-existence of his soul; and from thence they infer, that it is reasonable to suppose, that the souls of other men pre-existed likewise. And they also strain the sense of two or three other scriptures to prove it; as when it is said, that, when God had _laid the foundation of the earth, the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy_, Job xxxviii. 7. where, by the _morning stars_, they understand, as others do, the _angels_; and, by the _sons of God_, they suppose, is meant the souls of men, that were then created, and untainted with sin, and, to give farther countenance to this, they explain what is said in a following verse, ver. 12. agreeably thereunto, where, when God had continued the account which he gives of his having created the world, he says, _Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born, or because the number of thy days is great_; they render the words, _Knowest thou that thou wast then born, and that the number of thy days are many_, or they depend upon the translation, which the LXX give of the text, _I know that thou wast then born, for the number of thy days is many_, that is, that thou wast then existent; for though thou knowest not what thou didst, from that time, till thou camest into the world, yet the number of thy days is great, that is, thou hadst an existence many ages before. How easy a matter it is for persons to strain the sense of some words of scripture, to serve a purpose, contrary to the general scope and design thereof, if they attempt to give countenance thereby to any doctrine of their own invention.

As for those scriptures, which they bring to prove that the Jews were of this opinion, I will not deny the inference from thence, that some of them were, as appears from the report that the disciples gave to our Saviour, when he asked them, _Whom do men say that I am?_ They replied, _Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets_, Matth. xvi. 13, 14. that is, they judged, according to the Pythagorean hypothesis, that the soul of _Jeremias_, or _one of the prophets_, dwelt in that body, which he had, and therefore that he was one of them. And there is another scripture, in which our Saviour’s disciples, speaking concerning the blind man, asked him, _Did this man sin, or his parents, that he was born blind?_ John ix. 2. as if he should say: Was it for some sin that this man’s soul committed, before it entered into the body, to which it is united? And was his being born blind a punishment thereof? I say, I will not deny, but that some of the Jews, from hence, may be supposed to have given into this fabulous notion, agreeably to the sentiments of the philosophy, which they had been conversant in. But I will not allow that our Saviour’s not confuting this absurd opinion, is an intimation; (as the defenders thereof generally conclude it to be) that he reckoned it just; but I rather think, that he passed it over, as a vulgar error, not worthy of his confutation. And as for that passage, which they quote, for this purpose, out of the apocryphal book of _Wisdom_, which is no proof of this matter from Scripture, when one is represented, as saying to this effect, that _because he was good, he came into a body undefiled_; this only proves, that this was the opinion of some of that trifling generation of men. And, when they speak of it, as what, has been maintained by some of the Fathers, who received the notion from the philosophy above-mentioned, this is also as little to the purpose; and, indeed, all the other arguments that they bring, amount to nothing else but this; that, if the scripture had not given us ground to establish the contrary doctrine, there might have been, at least, a possibility of the truth of this, but to lay this as a foundation, on which they assert the truth thereof, and that with the design above-mentioned, this is nothing else, but for men to substitute their own fancies, without sufficient ground, as matters of faith, and build doctrines upon them, as though they were contained in scripture. I pass by other improvements, which they make on this fabulous notion, which still appear to be more romantic.[71]

There is another attempt to account for the origin of moral evil, without inferring God to be the author of it, which has formerly been advanced by those who deny the imputation of Adam’s sin; and these suppose that the soul is rendered polluted with sin, by reason of its traduction, or propagation, from the soul of the immediate parent; so that, in like manner, as the body is subject to hereditary diseases, the soul is defiled with sin, as both one and the other are the consequence of their formation, according to the course of nature, in the likeness of those, from whom they immediately derive their respective beings; and they suppose that a similitude of passions, and natural dispositions in parents and children, is an argument to evince the truth hereof.

But this appears so contrary to the light of nature, and all the principles of philosophy, to suppose, that one spirit can produce another, in a natural way, and so repugnant to the ideas which we have of spirits, as simple beings, or not compounded of parts, as bodies are, that it seems almost to be universally exploded, as being destitute of any tolerable argument to support it, though it was formerly embraced by some of the Fathers.[72] And they, who pretend to account for it, by the similitude of one candle’s lighting another, and yet the flame remaining the same as it was before, have only made use of an unhappy method of illustration, which comes far short of a conclusive argument to their purpose. And as for the likeness of natural dispositions in children to their parents, that does not, in the least prove it; since this arises very much from the temperament of the body, or from the prejudices of education. Therefore this method to account for the origin of moral evil, being not much defended at present, we may pass it over, as a groundless conjecture.

As for Arminius, and his followers, they have very much insisted on a supposition, which they have advanced, that the universal corruption of human nature arises only from imitation. In answer to which, though I will not deny but that the progress and increase of sin, in particular persons, may be very much owing to the pernicious example of others, with whom they are conversant; yet it seems very absurd to assign this, as the first reason thereof; for it may easily be observed, that this corruption of nature, or disposition to sin, is visible in children, before they are capable of being drawn aside, by the influence of bad examples; and indeed, their being corrupted thereby, is rather the effect, than the cause of this first propensity that there is in nature to sin; and it would soon appear, that, if they never saw any thing but what is excellent or worthy to be imitated in those, under whose care they are, they would soon discover themselves, notwithstanding, prone to the contrary vices. And we may as well suppose, that wisdom, or holiness, takes its rise from imitation, in a natural way, as that sin, or folly, does so: But nothing is more common, than for children to be very degenerate from their parents. And whatever attempts are used to instil principles of virtue into them, it is nothing else, but striving against the stream of corrupt nature, unless the grace of God interpose, and do that which imitation can never be the cause of.

Therefore we must take some other method to account for this corruption of nature, and at the same time, maintain, that the soul is from God, by immediate creation, which, though it be not so plainly contained in scripture, as other articles of faith are, yet scripture seems not to be wholly silent as to this matter; especially when God says, _Behold, all souls are mine_, Ezek. xviii. 4. and elsewhere, which is more express to this purpose, God speaks of the _souls that he made_, or created, Isa. lvii. 16. and the apostle, for this reason, styles him, _The Father of spirits_, Heb. xii. 9. and that in such a sense, as is opposed to _the fathers of the flesh_; therefore, taking this for granted, the difficulty which will recur upon us, which we are to account for, is, how can the soul, that comes out of God’s immediate hand, be the subject of moral evil? To assert, that it is created guilty of Adam’s first sin, or under an obligation to suffer that degree of punishment, which is due to it, is not inconsistent with the divine perfections, as will farther appear, when, under a following head, we consider what this punishment is: but to suppose that it is created by God impure, or with an inclination, or propensity to sin, cannot well be reconciled with the holiness of God.

This is what has been acknowledged by most divines, as one of the greatest difficulties that occur in the whole scheme of divinity. Some, with a becoming and religious modesty, have confessed their inability to account for it, and advise us rather to bewail, and strive against it, than to be too inquisitive about the origin and cause of it. And, indeed, this is far better, than either to darken counsel by words, without knowledge, or to advance what we cannot prove; and I would rather chuse to acquiesce in this humble ignorance thereof, than to assert any thing which contains the least insinuation of God’s being the author of it. It is certain, there are many things which we know to be true, though we cannot, at the same time, account for the manner of their being what they are, and are at a loss to determine their first original, or the natural cause thereof: Thus, though we are sure that the body is united to the soul, which acts by it, yet it is very hard to determine by what bands they are united, or how the soul moves the body, as its instrument in acting. Moreover, we know that the particles of matter are united to one another; but it is difficult to determine what is the cause thereof. So if we enquire into the reason of the different colour, or shape of herbs and plants; or why the grass is green, and not white or red; no one would be blamed if he should acknowledge himself to be at a loss to account for these, and other things of the like nature. The same may be said, if we should confess that we are at a loss to determine what is the first rise of the propensity of the nature of man to sin: nevertheless, if we keep within the bounds of modesty in our enquiries, and advance nothing contrary to the divine perfections, we may safely, and with some advantage to the doctrine of original sin, say something as to this matter, that hereby we may remove the objections that are brought, by some, against it.

Various ways have been taken, as was before observed, to account for the origin of moral evil, which we cannot acquiesce in, by reason of the many absurdities that attend them; therefore it may be more excusable for me to offer my humble thoughts about this matter, in which, I hope, I shall not much deviate from the sentiments of many, who have judiciously and happily maintained this doctrine.

There is, indeed, one conjecture, which I meet with, in a learned judicious divine, which differs very much from any account which we have of it by any other,[73] namely, that the mother while the child is in the womb, having a sinful thought, impresses it on its soul, whereby it becomes polluted, in the same manner as its body is sometimes marked by the strength of her imagination: but this opinion is so very improbable, that it will hardly gain any proselytes to it; and it only discovers how willing some persons are to solve this difficulty though in an uncommon method, as being apprehensive that others have not sufficiently done it.

But, that we may account for this matter in the most unexceptionable way, which does not in the least, infer God to be the author of sin nor overthrow the doctrine of imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, we must consider this propensity of nature, or inclination that there is in the souls of men to sin as a corrupt habit, and therefore that it is not infused by God; and consequently though the soul, in its first creation, is guilty, that is, liable to suffer the punishment due to it for Adam’s sin imputed, yet it does not come defiled out of the hands of God; or, as one well expresses it,[74] “We are not to think that God put original sin into men’s souls; for how should he punish those souls, which he himself had corrupted? And he adds, that it is a great wickedness to believe that God put into the soul an inclination to sin; though it is true God creates the souls of men destitute of heavenly gifts, and supernatural light, and that justly because Adam lost those gifts for himself and his posterity.”

Another judicious divine[75] expresses himself to this purpose; that, though the soul is created spotless, yet it is destitute of original righteousness, as a punishment of Adam’s first sin; and accordingly he distinguishes between a soul’s being pure, so as the soul of Adam was when it was first created, that is to say, not only sinless, but having habits, or inclinations in its nature, which inclined it to what was good; and its being created with a propensity, or inclination to evil, which he, with good reason denies; and, as a medium between both those extremes, in which the truth lies, observes, that the soul is created, by God, destitute of original righteousness, unable to do what is truly good; and yet, having no positive inclination, or propensity in nature, to what is evil; this is plainly the sense of his words, which I have inserted in the margin.

Now if it be enquired, how this corrupt habit, or inclination to sin, is contracted? the corruption of nature necessarily ensues on the privation of original righteousness. Some have illustrated this by an apt similitude, taken from the travellers wandering out of his way, or taking a wrong path, as occasioned by the darkness of the night, in which, his want of light is the occasion, though not properly the cause of his wandering. Thus man is destitute of original righteousness, or those habits of supernatural grace, which are implanted in regeneration; and what can be the consequence thereof, but that his first actions, as soon as he is capable of doing good or evil, must contain in them nothing less than a sin of omission, or a defect of, and disinclination to, what is good? and, by this means, the soul becomes defiled, or inclined to sin; so that we first suppose it indisposed to what is good, and that this arises from its being destitute of supernatural grace, which it lost by Adam’s fall, and that God may deny this grace, without supposing him to be the author of sin; for he was not obliged to continue that to Adam’s posterity, which he forfeited, and lost for them. And that which follows, from hence, is, that the heart of man, by a continuance in sin after it is first tinctured with it, grows worse and worse, and more inclined to it than before. This I cannot better illustrate, than by comparing it to a drop of poison, injected into the veins of a man, which will by degrees corrupt the whole mass of blood.

As to what concerns the body, to which the soul was united, as giving occasion to these corrupt habits being contracted thereby, some have compared this to sweet oil’s being infected by a musty vessel, into which it is put; so the soul, created good, and put into a corrupt body, receives contagion from thence: and this conjunction of the pure soul with a corrupt body, is a just punishment of Adam’s sin. Thus a very learned and excellent divine accounts for this matter;[76] though this similitude does not indeed illustrate this matter in every circumstance, inasmuch as that tincture, which is received from a vessel in a physical way, cannot well agree with the corruption of the soul, which is of a moral nature; but yet I would make this use of it, as to observe what daily experience suggests, namely, that the constitution, or temperament of the body, has a very great influence on the soul, and is an occasion of various inclinations to sin, in which it acts, in an objective way. Therefore when we suppose a soul united to a body, that, according to the frame and constitution of its nature has a tendency to incline it to sin, and this soul is deprived of those supernatural habits, which would have fenced it against this contagion; what can ensue from hence, but that corruption of nature, whereby men are inclined to what is evil? which inclination increases daily, till men arrive to the most rooted habits and dispositions to all that is bad, and are, with more difficulty, reclaimed from it. This leads us to consider,

IV. The conveyance of original sin, from our first parents to their posterity, by natural generation, or how we are said to be born in sin. It is not the sin of our immediate parents that is imputed to us, for they stand in no other relation, but as natural, and not federal heads of their posterity; therefore the meaning of that answer, in which this doctrine is contained, is only this, that original sin is conveyed to us, by our immediate parents, with our being; so that, as we are born men, we are born sinners. Now, that we may consider this in consistency with what has been before laid down nothing can be inferred, from hence, but that the guilt of Adam’s first sin is conveyed to us with our being, and that habitual inclination that we have, which we call a propensity of nature to sin, is the consequence hereof; so that what our Saviour says, is a great truth, _That which is born of the flesh, is flesh_, John iii. 6. or every one that is born of sinful parents, will, as soon as he is capable thereof, be prone to sin. And this leads us to consider,

What is objected against what has been before laid down, in explaining this doctrine as though it were inconsistent with the sense of several scriptures, which speak of sin, as derived from our immediate parents. For the understanding of which, in general, let it be considered, that no sense of any scripture is true, that casts the least reflection on the divine perfections. If we could but prove, that our souls were propagated by our immediate parents, as our bodies are, there would be no difficulty in allowing the sense the objectors give of several scriptures, from whence they attempt to account for the corruption of nature in a different way, since God would not then be the immediate author thereof. But, supposing the soul to be created by God, we must take some other method to account for the sense of some scriptures, which are brought in opposition to the foregoing explication of the origin of moral evil.

The first scripture, which is generally brought against it, is, in Psal. li. 5. _Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me_; the meaning of which is, I was conceived, and born guilty of sin, with an inability to do what is good, and in such a state, that actual sin would necessarily ensue, as soon as I was capable of committing it, which would bring with it a propensity to all manner of sin. And that David had a sense of guilt, as well as the pollution of nature, is plain, from several verses of this Psalm; especially in ver. 9, 14. It is therefore as though he should say, I was a guilty creature, as soon as I was conceived in the womb; and left of God, and so sin has the ascendant over me. I was conceived a sinner by imputation, under the guilt of Adam’s first sin; and to this I have added much more guilt, and lately that of blood-guiltiness. So that though he is said to have been _shapen in iniquity_, it does not necessarily follow, that his soul was created with infused habits of sin. Whatever the parents are the cause of, with respect to this corruption and pollution, let it be attributed to them; but far be it from us to say, that God is the cause thereof.

Again, it is said, in Job xiv. 4. _Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? no not one_. It is no strain upon the sense of this text, to suppose, that by _unclean_, he means guilty; and by _cleanness_, innocency, as opposed to it; for, in most places of this book, it is so taken, that is, in a forensick sense; and therefore, why not in this? And, if so, then it is not at all inconsistent with the above-mentioned explication of this doctrine. See chap. xi. 4. _I am clean in thine eyes_, that is, guiltless; otherwise Zophar’s reply to him would not have been so just, when he saith, _God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth_; and, in chap. xv. 14. _What is man, that he should be clean? and he, that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?_ where, to be _righteous_, seems to be exegetical of being _clean_; and both of them, being taken in a forensick sense, it agrees well with what Job is often reproved for, by his friends, namely, boasting too much of his righteousness, or cleanness: thus he says, in chap. xxxiii. 9. _I am clean without transgression, neither is there iniquity in me_; that is, I am not so guilty, as to deserve such a punishment, as he inflicts: _He findeth occasions against me_, &c. Surely, _cleanness_ here is the same with innocence, as opposed to guilt; and, in chap. ix. 30. _If I wash myself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean_; this plainly implies, that if he should pretend himself guiltless, yet he could not answer the charge which God would bring against him, neither could they _come together in judgment_, ver. 32. Now, if this be so frequently, if not always, the sense of _clean_, in other places of this book, why may not we take the sense of these words, _Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean_, to be this; that a guilty child is born of a guilty parent, which will be accompanied with uncleanness, and it will be prone to sin, as soon as it is capable thereof?

Another scripture, which we bring to prove original sin, is in Gen. vi. 5. _Every imagination of the thoughts of the heart of man, is only evil continually_. Why may not we understand it thus? The imagination of the thoughts are evil, as soon as there are imaginations, or thoughts, though not before. And this rather respects the corruption of nature, than the first rise of it; and so does that parallel scripture; in Gen. viii. 21. _The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth_; q. d. Sin increases with the exercise of reason.

And, in Psal. lviii. 3. _The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born speaking lies_. This agrees well enough with what we have said concerning their separation from God, from the womb, from whence arises actual sin; so that they _speak lies_, as soon as they are capable of it.

There is also another scripture, usually brought to prove original sin, which is to be understood in a sense, not much unlike that which we but now mentioned, _viz._ Isa. xlviii. 8. _Thou wast called a transgressor from the womb_. This doth not overthrow what we have said; for a person may be a transgressor, as it were, from the womb, and yet the soul not have a propensity to sin implanted in it by God, in its first creation.

Again, in Gen. v. 3. _Adam begat a son in his own likeness_, that is, a fallen creature, involved in guilt, and liable to the curse, like himself; and that would be like him, in actual sin, when capable of it, born in _his image_, as having lost the _divine image_.

Again, in John iii. 6. _That which is born of the flesh, is flesh_. We may understand this, that every one that is born of sinful parents, is a sinner, destitute of the Spirit of God, which is a great truth. But surely our Saviour did not design hereby to signify, that any one is framed by God with a propensity of sin; which is all that we militate against in this head.[77]

V. The last thing to be considered, is, that all actual transgressions proceed from original sin. These are like so many streams that flow from this fountain of corruption; the one discovers to us what we are by nature; the other, what we are by practice; and both afford us matter for repentance, and great humiliation, in the sight of God. But since we shall have occasion to enlarge on that part of this subject, which more especially relates to actual transgressions, with their respective aggravations, in some following answers,[78] we pass it over at present; and shall conclude this head with some practical inferences from what has been said, concerning the corruption of our nature, as being the spring of all actual transgressions.

1. We ought to put a due difference between the first discoveries there are of this corruption of our nature in our infancy, and that which arises from a course, or progress in sin; the latter has certainly greater aggravations in it than the former, and is like a spark of fire, blown up into a flame. Accordingly, it is our duty, as the apostle says, to _exhort one another daily, while it is called to-day, lest any be hardened_, that is, lest this corruption of nature be increased, _through the deceitfulness of sin_, Heb. iii. 13.

2. Let us carefully distinguish between being born innocent, which the Pelagians affirm, and we deny, and being born defiled with sin, and so having a propensity of nature to it, as soon as we have a being; or let us more especially take heed that we do not charge this on God, as though he were the author thereof, as well as of our being, as though it were infused by him, and not acquired by us.

3. Since this corruption of nature so early discovers itself, and abides in us, as long as we are in this world, let us take heed that we do not use means to increase it, by giving way to presumptuous sins; or endeavour to excite or draw it forth, either in ourselves, or others; for this will occasion abundance of actual transgressions.

Thus having considered that guilt which we bring with us into the world, and that corruption of nature, which discovers itself, as soon as we appear to be intelligent creatures, or are capable of any disposition to sin; we proceed to speak concerning the misery and punishment that ensues hereupon.

Footnote 67:

_See Quest._ cv.-cli.

Footnote 68:

Gen. vi. 5. Is a picture of antideluvian iniquity, it not only proves
that guilt was universal, and all men affected; that it was general,
the greater portion of the actions of men being evil; but that the
depravity of every unsanctified man was total, extending not merely to
his _thoughts_, but to his _imagination_ יצר, the first _frame_ or
_form_ of the thoughts. They were not partially, but _only evil_, and
that not occasionally but _continually_. Yet the race who were
destroyed, must have performed relative duties, parental and filial;
and the tribes seem to have lived as free from war, at least, as those
who have existed since the flood. If crimes before the flood exceeded
in degree and multitude those of modern times, yet if they differed
not in their nature, it will follow, that when the unrenewed in our
days, are kind parents, dutiful children, honest men, and good
citizens, they may be totally depraved; the “_imagination of the
thoughts of their hearts may be only evil continually_.” As we know
not their hearts, are to judge of them by their fruits, and are
charitably to impute their actions to better motives, we may with
propriety commend what God will condemn. He sees the intentions, and
the aversion of heart to him and holiness, and though he may reward
virtuous conduct in this world, to encourage virtue, yet will
eventually judge righteous judgment, and connect every action with its
motives.

This scripture also shews us not only, that the _material goodness_ of
actions will not recommend them to God, but that _conscientiousness_
in the discharge of relative duties, (for this must have existed
before the flood,) will not recommend them where the love of God,
which is peculiar to the renewed mind, is absent.

Footnote 69:

_The Marcionites in the second century, and the Manichees in the
third._

Footnote 70:

_See Page 54-57, ante._

Footnote 71:

_See a book, supposed to be written in defence hereof by Glanvil,
entitled, Lux Orientalis._

Footnote 72:

_Tertullian was of this opinion, [Vid. ejusd. de Anima] and Augustin,
though he sometimes appears to give into the opinion of the traduction
of the soul; yet, at other times, he is in great doubt about it, as
ready to give it up for an indefensible opinion, Vid. Aug. de Orig.
Anim. & in Gen. ad liter lib. 10._

Footnote 73:

_Vid. Pictet. Theol. Chr. Lib. V. cap. 7. Absit ut animam creari
impuram dicamus, cum nihil impurum e Dei manibus prodire possit.—Dum
infans est in utero matris, cum intime ei conjungatur, objecta in ejus
cerebrum easdem impressiones efficiunt, ac in matris cerebrum.—Hoc
patet ex eo quod contingit mulieribus prægnantibus; cum enim avide
inspiciunt aliquid, vel rubro, vel flavo colore, vel pallido tinctum,
contigit sæpissime ut infantes quos in utero gestant, tali colore
tincti nascantur. Ita intime corpus & animam uniri, ut ad motum
corporis, ceriæ oriantur in mente cogationes.—Motus, qui fiunt in
cerebro infantium idem præstare in illis, ac in matribus, nempe eorum
animam recens creatam rebus sensibilibus & carnalibus alligare; unde
videmus infantium animas omnia ad se & ad suum referre corpus._

Footnote 74:

_See Du Moulin’s Anatomy of Armnianism, Chap. X. § 3, 15, 17._

Footnote 75:

_See Turret. Instit. Theol. Elenct. Tom. I. Loc. 9. Q. 12. § 8, 9.
Licet anima sine ulla labe creatur a Deo, non creatur tamen cum
justitia originali, qualis anima Adami, ad imaginem Dei; sed cum ejus
carentia in pœnam primi peccati. Ut hic distinguendum sit inter animam
puram, impuram, & non puram. Illa pura dicitur, quæ ornata est habitu
sanctitatis; impura, quæ contrarium habitum injustitiæ habet; non
pura, quæ licet nullum habeat habitum bonum, nullum tamen habet malum,
sed creatur simpliciter cum facultatibus naturalibus; qualis
supponitur creari a Deo post lapsum, quia imago Dei amissa semel per
peccatum, non potest amplius restitui, nisi regenerationis beneficio
per Spiritum Sanctum. Quamvis autem animæ creantur a Deo destitutæ
justitia originali; non propterea Deus potest censeri author peccati,
quia aliud est impuritatem infundere, aliud puritatem non dare, qua
homo se indignum reddidit in Adamo._

Footnote 76:

_See Perkins on the Creed._

Footnote 77:

The mind of man is as open to the view of God, as our words or actions
are; the intention is ordinarily the seat of guilt; for the merely
physical action of the body deserves neither praise nor blame; the
Lord is able not only to detect, but to punish in every instance such
guilt; his justice therefore requires that he should exercise such
power.

To prefer the creatures to the Creator, is to deny his superior
excellency, and that he is the source from whence we have derived the
good which we possess; it is to give the honour which is due to him,
unto others; it is a robbery committed on him; it is a revolting from
his allegiance, and treason, which ought to be punished.

It is an evidence that we have no love for him, when we desire
communion and acquaintance with other objects on their own account. It
is a proof of enmity against him, for we cannot at the same time fix
our highest affections on sensual pursuits and on holiness; and an
attachment to the former evinces hatred of the latter; and so an
aversion to an holy God. If we are enemies to God, Omnipotence must
and will prevail, nor can he suffer in the universe, his enemies to be
finally prosperous, possessing still their enmity.

Where there exists not the love of God, there is no obedience to his
laws, for this is the principle of obedience; all the good deeds of
such are but a semblance of holiness, and must be rejected by him who
views the motive with the action. Disobedience to his laws is to be
punished with death, the implied penalty of all divine laws; and the
least punishment that the magnitude of an offence against an infinite
Majesty can admit.

Footnote 78:

_See Quest._ cv.-cli.

Quest. XXVII.

QUEST. XXVII. _What misery did the fall bring upon mankind?_

ANSW. The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God,
his displeasure and curse, so as we are, by nature, children of
wrath, bond-slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments in
this world, and that which is to come.

Having considered the doctrine of original sin, as imputed to, and inherent in us, we are now led to speak concerning the miseries that are consequent hereupon, or the punishment that is due to it. And, inasmuch as the former of these is equal in all; and the latter increases, in proportion to that degree of obstinacy, and hardness of heart, which discovers itself in all ages, and conditions of life, and it is attended with greater guilt, as it is more deeply rooted in us, and gains very great strength by actual sin; it is necessary for us to consider the punishment due to original sin, as such, and how it differs from a greater degree thereof, which is due to its increasing guilt. The former of these is not distinguished from the latter, by many who treat on this subject; which gives occasion to some, who deny original sin, to represent it in the most terrible view, as though there were no difference between the wrath of God, that infants are exposed to, and that which is inflicted on the most obdurate sinner: but, that we may remove prejudices against this doctrine, and set it in a just light, we shall consider the punishment due to original sin, in both these respects.

I. The punishment due to original sin, as such, namely, in those who are charged with no other guilt, but that of Adam’s first sin. This more especially respects those that die in their infancy, before they are capable of making any addition to it. Concerning these, I cannot but conclude with Augustin, in his defence of original sin against the Pelagians, that the punishment thereof is the most mild of any, and cannot be reckoned so great, as that it might be said of them, that _it had been better for them not to have been born_.[79]

That this may farther appear, let it be considered, that the punishment due to actual sin, or the corruption of nature increased thereby, is attended with accusations of conscience, inasmuch as the guilt, that is contracted by it, arises from the opposition of the will to God; and the alienation of the affections from him, is oftentimes attended with rebellion, against a great degree of light, and many other aggravations, taken from the engagements which we are under to the contrary, and is persisted in with obstinacy, against all those checks of conscience, and means used to prevent it; and, in proportion to the degree thereof, they, who contract this guilt, are said, as our Saviour speaks of the scribes and Pharisees, to be liable to the _greater damnation_, Matt. xxiii. 14. and the prophet Jeremiah speaks of some of the greatest opposers of his message, as those who should be destroyed with _double destruction_, Jer. xvii. 18. This is certainly a greater degree of punishment, than that which is due to original sin, as such; and, with respect to these, there are oftentimes many sad instances of the wrath of God breaking in upon the conscience, as he says by the Psalmist, that he would _reprove them, and set their iniquities in order before their eyes_, Psal. l. 21. and what our Saviour says elsewhere, concerning the _worm that dieth not_, Mark ix. 44. is to be applied to them. But this punishment does not belong to those who have no other guilt, but that of Adam’s sin, imputed to them.

If this can be made appear, as, I hope, we shall be able to do, it may have a tendency to remove some prejudices, which many entertain against the doctrine of original sin, who express themselves with such an air of insult, as though they were opposing a doctrine which is contrary to the dictates of human nature, as well as represents God, as exercising the greatest severity against those who are chargeable with no other sin than this; and they generally lay hold on some unwary expressions, contributing very little to the defence of this doctrine, which might as well have been spared; for they are no less exceptionable, though prefaced with an apology, for the want of pity, which such like unguarded expressions seem to contain in them, when they say, that their milder thoughts, concerning this matter, will do those infants, who are tormented in hell, no good, as their severer ones can do them no prejudice. We may therefore be allowed to make a farther enquiry into this matter, especially when we consider, that those, who die in infancy, will appear, at the last day, to have been a very considerable part of mankind. And some tender parents have had a due concern of spirit about their future state, and would be very glad, were it possible for them, to have some hopes concerning the happiness thereof.

Various have been the conjectures of divines about it. The Pelagians, and those who verge towards their scheme, have concluded, that they are all saved, as supposing that they are innocent, and not, in the least concerned in Adam’s sin: but this is to set aside the doctrine we are maintaining; and therefore, I cannot think their reasoning, in this respect very conclusive.