part of mankind, cannot consistently be accounted for from the
immortal glory at God's right hand. Surely if it were not for an extreme corruption of the heart of men, such an example would have that strong influence on the heart, that would as it were swallow up the power of all the evil and hateful examples of a generation of vipers.
3. The influence of bad example, without corruption of nature, will not account for children's universally committing sin as soon as capable of it; which, I think, is a fact that has been made evident by the Scripture. It will not account for this, in the children of eminently pious parents; the first examples, that are set in their view, being very good; which, as has been observed, was especially the case of many children in Christian families in the apostles' days, when the apostle John supposes that every individual person had sin to repent of, and confess to God.
4. What Dr. Taylor supposes to have been fact with respect to a great part of mankind, cannot consistently be accounted for from the influence of bad example, viz. the state of the heathen world, which he supposes, considered as a collective body, was helpless, dead in sin, and unable to recover itself. Not evil example alone, no nor as united with evil instruction, can be supposed a sufficient reason why every new generation that arose among them, should not be able to emerge from the idolatry and wickedness of their ancestors, in any consistence with his scheme. The ill example of ancestors could have no power to oblige them to sin, any other way than as a strong temptation. But Dr. Taylor himself says (p. 348), "To suppose men's temptations to be superior to their powers, will impeach the goodness and justice of God, who appoints every man's trial." And as to bad instructions, as was observed before, he supposes that they all, yea every individual person, had light sufficient to know God, and do their whole duty. And if each one could do this for himself, then
surely they might all be agreed in it through the power of free will, as well as the whole world be agreed in corruption by the same power.
Evasion IV. Some modern opposers of the doctrine of original sin do thus account for the general prevalence of wickedness, viz., that in a course of nature our senses grow up first, and the animal passions get the start of reason. So Dr. Turnbull says, "Sensitive objects first affect us, and inasmuch as reason is a principle, which, in the nature of things, must be advanced to strength and vigor, by gradual cultivation, and these objects are continually assailing and soliciting us; so that, unless a very happy education prevents, our sensitive appetites must have become very strong, before reason can have force enough to call them to an account, and assume authority over them." From hence Dr. Turnbull supposes it comes to pass,7 "That though some few may, through the influence of virtuous example, be said to be sanctified from the womb, so liberal, so generous, so virtuous, so truly noble is their cast of mind; yet, generally speaking, the whole world lieth in such wickedness, that, with respect to the far greater part of mankind, the study of virtue is beginning to reform, and is a severe struggle against bad habits, early contracted, and deeply rooted; it is therefore putting off an old inveterate corrupt nature, and putting on a new form and temper; it is moulding ourselves anew; it is a being born again, and becoming as children.… And how few are there in the world, who escape its pollutions, so as not to be early in that class, or to be among the righteous that need no repentance?"
Dr. Taylor, though he is not so explicit, seems to hint at the same thing (p. 192), " 'Tis by slow degrees," says he, "that children come to the use of understanding; the animal passions being for some years the governing part of their constitution. And therefore, though they may be froward and apt to displease us, yet how far this is sin in
them, we are not capable of judging. But it may suffice to say, that 'tis the will of God that children should have appetites and passions to regulate and restrain, that he hath given parents instructions and commands to discipline and inform their minds, that if parents first learned true wisdom for themselves, and then endeavored to bring up their children in the way of virtue, there would be less wickedness in the world."
Concerning these things I would observe, that such a scheme is attended with the very same difficulties, which they that advance it would avoid by it; liable to the same objections, which they make against God's ordering it so that men should be brought into being with a prevailing propensity to sin. For this scheme supposes, the Author of nature has so ordered things, that men should come into being as moral agents, that is, should first have existence in a state and capacity of moral agency, under a prevailing propensity to sin. For that strength, which sensitive appetites and animal passions come to by their habitual exercise, before persons come to the exercise of their rational powers, amounts to a strong propensity to sin, when they first come to the exercise of those rational powers, by the supposition: because this is given as a reason why the scale is turned for sin among mankind, and why "generally speaking, the whole world lies in wickedness, and … the study of virtue … is a severe struggle against bad habits, early contracted, and deeply rooted." These deeply rooted habits must imply a tendency to sin; otherwise they could not account for that which they are brought to account for, namely, prevailing wickedness in the world: for that cause can't account for an effect, which is supposed to have no tendency to that effect. And this tendency which is supposed, is altogether equivalent to a natural tendency: 'tis as necessary to the subject. For it is supposed to be brought on the person who is the subject of it, when he has no power to withstand or oppose it: the
habit, as Dr. Turnbull says, becoming very strong, before reason can have force enough to call the passions to account, or assume authority over them. And 'tis supposed, that this necessity, by which men become subject to this propensity to sin, is from the ordering and disposal of the Author of nature; and therefore must be as much from his hand, and as much without the hand of the person himself, as if he were first brought into being with such a propensity. Moreover, it is supposed that the effect, which the tendency is to, is truly wickedness. For 'tis alleged as a cause or reason why the whole world lies in wickedness, and why all but a very few are first in the class of the wicked, and not among the righteous that need no repentance. If they need repentance, what they are guilty of is truly and properly wickedness, or moral evil; for certainly men need no repentance for that which is no sin, or blameable evil. If it be so, that as a consequence of this propensity, the world lies in wickedness, and the far greater part are of a wicked character, without doubt, the far greater part go to eternal perdition: for death don't pick and choose, only for men of a righteous character. And certainly that is an evil corrupt state of things, which naturally tends to, and issues in that consequence, that as it were the whole world lies and lives in wickedness, and dies in wickedness, and perishes eternally. And this by the supposition is a state of things wholly of the ordering of the Author of nature, before mankind are capable of having any hand in the affair. And is this any relief to the difficulties, which these writers object against the doctrine of natural depravity?
And I might here also observe, that this way of accounting for the wickedness of the world, amounts to just the same thing with that solution of man's depravity, which was mentioned before, that Dr. Taylor cries out of as too gross to be admitted (pp. 188, 189), viz. God's creating the soul pure, and putting it into such a body, as naturally tends to pollute it. For this scheme supposes, that God
creates the soul pure, and puts it into a body, and into such a state in that body, that the natural consequence is a strong propensity to sin, as soon as the soul is capable of sinning.
Dr. Turnbull seems to suppose, that the matter could not have been ordered otherwise, consistent with the nature of things, than that animal passions should be so aforehand with reason, as that the consequence should be that which has been mentioned; because reason is a faculty of such a nature, that it can have strength and vigor no otherwise than by exercise and culture. But can there be any force in this? Is there anything in nature, to make it impossible, but that the superior principles of man's nature should be so proportioned to the inferior, as to prevent such a dreadful consequence, as the moral and natural ruin, and eternal perdition of the far greater part of mankind? Could not those superior principles be in vastly greater strength at first, and yet be capable of endless improvement? And what should hinder its being so ordered by the Creator, that they should improve by vastly swifter degrees than they do? If we are Christians, we must be forced to allow it to be possible in the nature of things, that the principles of human nature should be so balanced, that the consequence should be no propensity to sin, in the first beginning of a capacity of moral agency; because we must own, that it was so in fact in Adam, when first created, and also in the man Christ Jesus; though the faculties of the latter were such as grew by culture and improvement, so that he increased in wisdom, as he grew in stature.
Evasion V. Seeing men in this world are in a state of trial, it is fit that their virtue should meet with trials, and consequently that it should have opposition and temptation to overcome; not only from without, but from within, in the animal passions and appetites we have to struggle with; that by the conflict and victory our virtue may be
refined and established. Agreeable to this Dr. Taylor (p. 253) says, "Without a right use and application of our powers, were they naturally ever so perfect, we could not be judged fit to enter into the kingdom of God.… This gives a good reason why we are now in a state of trial and temptation, viz. to prove and discipline our minds, to season our virtue, and to fit us for the kingdom of God; for which, in the judgment of infinite wisdom, we cannot be qualified, but by overcoming our present temptations." And in p. 354 he says, "We are upon trial, and it is the will of our father that our constitution should be attended with various passions and appetites, as well as our outward condition with various temptations." He says the like in several other places. To the same purpose very often Dr. Turnbull: (particularly, Chris. Phil. p. 310), "What merit," says he, "except from combat? What virtue without the encounter of such enemies, such temptations as arise both from within, and from abroad? To be virtuous, is to prefer the pleasures of virtue, to those which come into competition with it, and vice holds forth to tempt us; and to dare to adhere to truth and goodness, whatever pains and hardships it may cost. There must therefore, in order to the formation and trial, in order to the very being of virtue, be pleasures of a certain kind to make temptations to vice."
In reply to these things I would say, either the state of temptation which is supposed to be ordered for men's trials, amounts on the whole to a prevailing tendency to that state of general wickedness and ruin, which has been proved to take place, or it does not. If it does not amount to a tendency to such an effect, then how does it account for it? When it is inquired, by what cause such an effect should come to pass, is it not absurd to allege a cause, which is owned at the same time to have no tendency to such an effect? Which is as much as to confess, that it will not account for it. I think it has been demonstrated that this effect must be owing to some prevailing
tendency. If the other part of the dilemma be taken, and it be said, that this state of things does imply a prevailing tendency to that effect which has been proved, viz. that all mankind, without the exception of so much as one, sin against God, to their own deserved and just eternal ruin; and not only so, but sin thus immediately, as soon as capable of it, and sin continually, and have more sin than virtue, and have guilt that infinitely outweighs the value of all the goodness any ever have, and that the generality of the world in all ages are extremely stupid and foolish, and of a wicked character, and actually perish forever; I say, if the state of temptation implies a natural tendency to such an effect as this, it is a very evil, corrupt and dreadful state of things, as has been already largely shewn.
Besides, such a state has a tendency to defeat its own supposed end, which is to refine, ripen and perfect virtue in mankind, and so to fit men for the greater eternal happiness and glory: whereas, the effect it tends to, is the reverse of this, viz. general, eternal infamy and ruin, in all generations. 'Tis supposed, that men's virtue must have passions and appetites to struggle with, in order to have the glory and reward of victory: but the consequence is, a prevailing, continual, and generally effectual tendency, not to men's victory over evil appetites and passions, and the glorious reward of that victory, but to the victory of evil appetites and lusts over men, and utterly and eternally destroying them. If a trial of virtue be requisite, yet the question is, whence comes so general a failing in the trial, if there be no depravity of nature? If conflict and war be necessary, yet surely there is no necessity that there should be more cowards than good soldiers; unless it be necessary that men should be overcome and destroyed: especially is it not necessary that the whole world as it were should lie in wickedness, and so lie and die in cowardice.
I might also here observe, that Dr. Turnbull is not very consistent, in supposing that combat with temptation is requisite to the very being of virtue. For I think it clearly follows from his own notion of virtue, that virtue must have a being prior to any virtuous or praiseworthy combat with temptation. For by his principles, all virtue lies in good affection, and no actions can be virtuous, but what proceed from good affection. Therefore, surely the combat itself can have no virtue in it, unless it proceeds from virtuous affection: and therefore virtue must have an existence before the combat, and be the cause of it.
CHAPTER II
UNIVERSAL MORTALITY PROVES ORIGINAL SIN; PARTICULARLY THE
DEATH OF INFANTS, WITH ITS
VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
THE universal reign of death, over persons of all ages indiscriminately, with the awful circumstances and attendants of death, proves that men come sinful into the world.
It is needless here particularly to inquire, whether God has not a sovereign right to set bounds to the lives of his own creatures, be they sinful or not; and as he gives life, so to take it away when he pleases. Or how far God has a right to bring extreme suffering and calamity on an innocent moral agent. For death, with the pains and agonies with which it is usually brought on, is not merely a limiting of existence, but is a most terrible calamity; and to such a creature as man, capable of conceiving of immortality, and made with so earnest a desire after it, and capable of foresight and of reflection on
approaching death, and that has such an extreme dread of it, is a calamity above all others terrible, to such as are able to reflect upon it. I say, 'tis needless, elaborately to consider, whether God may not, consistent with his perfections, by absolute sovereignty, bring so great a calamity on mankind when perfectly innocent. It is sufficient, if we have good evidence from Scripture, that 'tis not agreeable to God's manner of dealing with mankind, so to do.
'Tis manifest, that mankind were not originally subjected to this calamity: God brought it on them afterwards, on occasion of man's sin, at a time of the manifestation of God's great displeasure for sin, and by a denunciation and sentence pronounced by him, as acting the part of a Judge; as Dr. Taylor often confesses. Sin entered into the world, and death by sin, as the Apostle says. Which certainly leads us to suppose, that this affair was ordered of God, not merely by the sovereignty of a Creator, but by the righteousness of a Judge. And the Scripture everywhere speaks of all great afflictions and calamities, which God in his providence brings on mankind, as testimonies of his displeasure for sin, in the subject of those calamities; excepting those sufferings which are to atone for the sins of others. He ever taught his people to look on such calamities as his rod, the rod of his anger, his frowns, the hidings of his face in displeasure. Hence such calamities are in Scripture so often called by the name of judgments, being what God brings on men as a Judge, executing a righteous sentence for transgression: yea, they are often called by the name of wrath, especially calamities consisting or issuing in death. And hence also is that which Dr. Taylor would have us take so much notice of, that sometimes in the Scripture, calamity and suffering is called by such names as sin, iniquity, being guilty, etc., which is evidently by a metonymy of the cause for the effect. 'Tis not likely, that in the language in use of old among God's people, calamity or suffering would have been called even by the names of
sin and guilt, if it had been so far from having any connection with sin, that even death itself, which is always spoken of as the most terrible of calamities, is not so much as any sign of the sinfulness of the subject, or any testimony of God's displeasure for any guilt of his, as Dr. Taylor supposes.
Death is spoken of in Scripture as the chief of calamities, the most extreme and terrible of all those natural evils, which come on mankind in this world. Deadly destruction is spoken of as "the most terrible destruction" (1 Sam. 5:11). Deadly sorrow, as "the most extreme sorrow" (Is. 17:11; Matt. 26:38), and deadly enemies, as "the most bitter and terrible enemies" (Ps. 17:9). The extremity of Christ's sufferings is represented by his suffering unto death (Phil. 2:8 and other places). Hence the greatest testimonies of God's anger for the sins of men in this world, have been by inflicting death: as on the sinners of the old world, on the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, on Onan, Pharaoh and the Egyptians, Nadab and Abihu, Korah and his company, and the rest of the rebels in the wilderness, on the wicked inhabitants of Canaan, on Hophni and Phineas, Ananias and Sapphira, the unbelieving Jews, upon whom wrath came to the uttermost in the time of the last destruction of Jerusalem. This calamity is often spoken of as in a peculiar manner the fruit of the guilt of sin. (Ex. 28:43), "That they bear not iniquity and die." (Lev. 22:9), "Lest they bear sin for it and die." So Num. 18:22 compared with Lev. 10:1–2. The very light of nature, or tradition from ancient revelation, led the heathen to conceive of death as in a peculiar manner an evidence of divine vengeance. Thus we have an account (Acts 28:4) that when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on Paul's hand, they said among themselves, "No doubt this man is a murderer, whom though he hath escaped the seas, yet vengeance suffereth not to live."
Calamities that are very small in comparison of the universal temporal destruction of the whole world of mankind by death, are spoken of as manifest indications of God's great displeasure for the sinfulness of the subject; such as the destruction of particular cities, countries or numbers of men, by war or pestilence. (Deut. 29:24), "All nations shall say, wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger?" Here compare Deut. 32:30, 1 Kings 9:8, and Jer. 22:8–9. These calamities, thus spoken of as plain testimonies of God's great anger, consisted only in hastening on that death, which otherwise, by God's disposal, would most certainly come in a short time. Now the taking off of 30 or 40 years from 70 or 80 (if we should suppose it to be so much, one with another, in the time of these extraordinary judgments) is but a small matter, in comparison of God's first making man mortal, cutting off his hoped-for immortality, subjecting him to inevitable death, which his nature so exceedingly dreads; and afterwards shortening his life further, by cutting off more than 800 years of it: so bringing it to be less than a twelfth part of what it was in the first ages of the world. Besides that, innumerable multitudes in the common course of things, without any extraordinary judgment, die in youth, in childhood and infancy. Therefore how inconsiderable a thing is the additional or hastened destruction, that is sometimes brought on a particular city or country by war, compared with that universal havoc which death makes of the whole race of mankind, from generation to generation, without distinction of sex, age, quality or condition, with all the infinitely various dismal circumstances, torments and agonies which attend the death of old and young, adult persons and little infants? If those particular and comparatively trivial calamities, extending perhaps not to more than a thousandth part of the men of one generation, are clear evidences of God's great anger; certainly this universal vast destruction, by which the whole world in all generations is swallowed up, as by a flood, that nothing can resist,
must be a most glaring manifestation of God's anger for the sinfulness of mankind. Yea, the Scripture is express in it, that it is so. (Ps. 90:3, etc.), "Thou turnest man to destruction, and sayest Return, ye children of men.… Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as asleep; in the morning they are like grass, which groweth up; in the morning it flourisheth and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth. For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled. Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance. For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend our years as a tale that is told. The days of our years are three-score years and ten: and if by reason of strength they be four-score years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Who knoweth the power of thine anger? Even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath. So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom." How plain and full is this testimony, that the general mortality of mankind is an evidence of God's anger for the sin of those who are the subjects of such a dispensation?
Abimelech speaks of it as a thing which he had reason to conclude from God's nature and perfection, that he would not slay a righteous nation (Gen. 20:4). By righteous, evidently meaning innocent. And if so, much less will God slay a righteous world (consisting of so many nations—repeating the great slaughter in every generation) or subject the whole world of mankind to death, when they are considered as innocent, as Dr. Taylor supposes. We have from time to time in Scripture such phrases as "worthy of death" and "guilty of death": but certainly the righteous Judge of all the earth won't bring death on thousands of millions, not only that are not worthy of death, but are worthy of no punishment at all.
Dr. Taylor from time to time speaks of affliction and death as a great benefit, as they increase the vanity of all earthly things, and tend to excite sober reflections, and to induce us to be moderate in gratifying the appetites of the body, and to mortify pride and ambition, etc. To this I would say,
1. 'Tis not denied but God may see it needful for mankind in their present state, that they should be mortal, and subject to outward afflictions, to restrain their lusts, and mortify their pride and ambition, etc. But then is it not an evidence of man's depravity, that it is so? Is it not an evidence of distemper of mind, yea, strong disease, when man stands in need of such sharp medicines, such severe and terrible means to restrain his lusts, keep down his pride, and make him willing to be obedient to God? It must be because of a corrupt and ungrateful heart, if the riches of God's bounty, in bestowing life and prosperity, and things comfortable and pleasant, won't engage the heart to God, and to virtue and child-like love and obedience, but that he must always have the rod held over him, and be often chastised, and held under the apprehensions of death, to keep him from running wild, in pride, contempt and rebellion, ungratefully using the blessings dealt forth from his hand, in sinning against him, and serving his enemies. If man has no natural disingenuity of heart, it must be a mysterious thing indeed, that the sweet blessings of God's bounty have not as powerful an influence to restrain him from sinning against God, as terrible afflictions. If anything can be proof of a perverse and vile disposition, this must be a proof of it, that men should be most apt to forget and despise God, when his providence is most kind; and that they should need to have God chastise them with great severity, and even to kill them, to keep them in order. If we were as much disposed to gratitude to God for his benefits, as we are to anger at our fellow creatures for injuries, as we must be (so far as I can see) if we are not of a depraved heart, the
sweetness of the divine bounty, if continued in life, and the height of every enjoyment that is pleasant to innocent human nature, would be as powerful incentives to a proper regard to God, tending as much to promote religion and virtue, as to have the world filled with calamity, and to have God (to use the language of Hezekiah, Is. 38:13, describing death and its agonies) "as a lion, breaking all our bones, and from day even to night, making an end of us."
Dr. Taylor himself (p. 252) says, "That our first parents before the fall were placed in a condition proper to engage their gratitude, love and obedience." Which is as much as to say, proper to engage them to the exercise and practice of all religion. And if the paradisiacal state was proper to engage to all religion and duty, and men still come into the world with hearts as good as the two first of the species, why is it not proper to engage 'em to it still? What need of so vastly changing man's state, depriving him of all those blessings, and instead of them allotting to him a world full of briars and thorns, affliction, calamity and death, to engage him to it? The taking away of life, and all those pleasant enjoyments man had at first, by a permanent constitution, would be no stated benefit to mankind, unless there were a stated disposition in them to abuse such blessings. The taking them away is supposed to be a benefit under the notion of their being things that tend to lead men to sin: but they would have no such tendency, at least in a stated manner, unless there were in men a fixed tendency to make that unreasonable improvement of 'em. Such a temper of mind as amounts to a disposition to make such an improvement of blessings of that kind, is often spoken of in Scripture, as most astonishingly vile and perverse. So concerning Israel's abusing the blessings of Canaan, that land flowing with milk and honey; their ingratitude in it is spoken of by the prophets, as enough to astonish all heaven and earth, and as more than brutish stupidity and vileness. (Jer. 2:7), "I brought you