« AnteriorContinuar »
outward vice, yet you have vicious tempers: and as long as these have power in your heart, true peace has no place. You are proud; you think too highly of yourself. You are passionate ; often angry without reason. You are self-willed; you would have your own. will, your own way in every thing ; that is plainly, you would rule over God and man; you would be the governor of the world. You are daily liable to unreasonable desires : some things you desire that are no way desirable : others which ought to be avoided, yea, abhorred, at least as they are now circumstanced. And can a proud or a passionate man be happy? Oh no : experience shows it impossible. Can a man be happy, who is full of self-will ? Not unless he can dethrone the Most High. Can a man of unreasonable dea sires be happy? Nay, they “pierce him through with many sorrows."
I have not touched upon envy, malice, revenge, covetousness, and other gross vices. Concerning these it is universally agreed, by all thinking men, Christian or Heathen, that a man can no more be happy, while they lodge in his bosom, than if a vulture were gnawing his liver. It is supposed indeed, that a very small part of mankind, only the vilest of men, are liable to these. I know not that : but certainly this is not the case with regard to pride, anger, self-will, foolish desires. Those who are not accounted bad men, are by no means free from these. And this alone (were they liable to no other pain) would prevent the generality of men, rich and poor, learned and unlearned, from ever knowing what happiness means.
15. You think, however, you could bear yourself pretty well; but you have such a husband, or wife, such parents and children as are intolerable! One has such a tongue, the other so perverse a temper! The language of these, the carriage of those, is so provoking! Otherwise you should be happy enough. True, if both you and they were wise and virtuous. Meanwhile, neither the vices of your family, nor your own will suffer you to rest.
Look out of your own doors : “Is there any evil in the city, and sin hath not done it?” Is there any misfortune or misery to be named, whereof it is not either the direct or remote occasion? Why is it that the friend or relation for whom you are so tenderly concerned, is involved in so many troubles ?
Have not you done your part toward making them happy? Yes, but they will not do their own: one has no management, no frugality, or no industry. Another is too fond of pleasure. If he is not what is called scandalously vicious, he loves wine, women, or gaming. And to what does all this amount ? He might be happy; but sin will not suffer it
Perhaps you will say, nay, he is not in fault, he is both frugal and diligent. But he has fallen into the hands of those, who have imposed upon his good nature. Very well; but still sin is the cause of his misfortunes. Only it is another's, not his own.
If you inquire into the troubles under which your neighbour, your acquaintance, or one you casually talk with, labours, still you will find the far greater part of thein arise, from some fault either of the
'sufferer or of others. So that still sin is at the root of trouble, and it is unholiness which causes unhappiness.
And this holds as well with regard to families, as with regard to individuals. Many fainilies are miserable through want.
They have not the conveniences, if the necessaries of life. Why have they not? Because they will not work: were they diligent, they would want nothing. Or if not idle, they are wasteful: they squander away in a short time, what might have served for many years. Others indeed are diligent and frugal too; but a treacherous friend, or a malicious enemy has ruined them: or they groan under the hand of the oppressor : or the extortioner has entered into their labours. You see then, in all these cases, want (though in various ways) is the effect of sin. But is there no rich man near? None that could relieve these innocent sufferers, without impairing his own fortune? Yes, but he thinks of nothing less. They may rot and perish for him. See, more sin is implied in their suffering.
But is not the family of that rich man himself happy? No; far from it: perhaps farther than his poor neighbours. For they are not content: their 66
eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor their ear with hearing.” Endeavouring to fill their souls with the pleasures of sense and imagination, they are only pouring water into a sieve. Is not this the case with the wealthiest families you know? But it is not the whole case with some of them. There is a debauched, a jealous, or an ill-natured husband : a gaming, passionate, or imperious wife; an undutiful son, or an imprudent daughter, who banishes happiness from the house. And what is all this, but sin in various shapes, with its sure attendant, misery?
In a town, a corporation, a city, a kingdom, is it not the same thing still? From whence comes the complication of all the miseries incitlent to human nature, war? “ Is it not from the tempers which war in the soul ?" When nation rises up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, does it not necessarily imply pride, ambition, coveting what is another's, or envy, or malice, or revenge, on one side, if not on both? Still then sin is the baleful source of affliction. And consequently the flood of miseries, which covers the face of the earth, which overwhelms, not only single persons, but whole families, towns, cities, kingdoms, is a demonstrative proof of the overflowing of un godliness, in every nation under heaven.
The Scriptural Method of accounting for this, defended.
1. 1. The fact then being undeniable, I would ask, How it is to be accounted for? Will you resolve it into the prevalence of custom,
“ Men are guided more by example than reason ?" It is true. They run after one another, like a flock of sheep, (as Seneca re.. marked long ago) Non qua eundum est, sed qua itur : Not where they ought to go, but where others go. But I gain no ground by this : I am equally at a loss to account for this custom. How is it, (seeing men are reasonable creatures, and nothing is so agreeable to reason as virtue,) that the custom of all ages and nations, is not on the side of virtue rather than vice? If you say, This is owing to bad education, which propagates ill customs ; I own, education has an amazing force, far beyond what is commonly imagined. I own too, that as bad education is found among Christians, as ever obtained among the Heathens. But I am no nearer still: I am not advanced a hair's breadth toward the conclusion. For how am I to account for the almost universal prevalence of this bad education? I want to know when this prevailed first, and how it came to prevail ! How came wise and good men, (for such they must have been before bad education commenced,) not to train up their children in wisdom and goodness? In the way wherein they had been brought up themselves? They had then no ill precedent before them : How came they to make such a precedent ? And how came all the wisdom of after ages, never to correct that precedent? You must suppose it to have been of ancient date. Profane history gives us a large account of universal wickedness, that is, universal bad education, for above two thousand years last past. Sacred history adds the account of above two thousand more: in the very beginning of which, (more than four thousand years ago) « all flesh had corrupted their ways before the Lord !" Or, to speak agreeably to this hypothesis, were very corruptly educated. Now bow is this to he accounted for, that in so long a tract of time, no one nation under the sun, has been able, by wholesome laws or by any other method, to remove this grievous evil? So that their children being well educated, the scale might at length,-turn on the side of reason and virtue?
These are questions which I conceive will not easily be answered, to the satisfaction of any impartial inquirer. But to bring the matter to a short issue. The first parents who educated their children in vice and folly, either were wise and virtuous themselves, or were not. If they were not, their vice did not proceed from education. So the supposition falls to the ground : wickedness was antecedent to bad education. If they were wise and virtuous, it cannot be supposed, but they would teach their children to tread in the same steps. In nowise therefore can we account for the present state of mankind from example or education.
2. Let us then have recourse to the Oracles of God. How do they teach us to account for this fact, That “all flesh corrupted their way before God,” even in the antediluvian world? That mankind were little, if at all, less corrupt, from the flood to the giving of the law by Moses : that from that time till Christ came, even God's chosen people were a “faithless and stubborn generation," little better, though certainly not worse than the Heathens who knew not God : that when Christ came, both “ Jews and Gentiles were all under sin ; all the world was guilty before God :" that even after the gospel had been preached in all nations, still the wise and virtuous were “a little flock :" bearing so small a portion to the bulk of mankind, that it might yet be said, “ The whole world lieth in wickedness :" That from that time “the mystery of iniquity” wrought even in the church, till the Christians were little better than the Heathens : And, lastly, That at this day “the whole world,” whether Pagan, Mahometan, or nominally Christian, (little indeed is the flock which is to be excepted !) again "lieth in wickedness ;” doth not 6 know the only true God;" doth not love, doth not worship him as God; hath not's the mind which was in Christ,” neither “walketh as he walked ;" doth not practise justice, mercy, and truth, nor do to others as they would others should do to them: How, I say,
do the Oracles of God teach us to account for this plain fact?
3. They teach us, That “in Adam all die :” That by the first man came” both natural and spiritual “death :"* That by this “ one man sin entered into the world, and death” in consequence of sin: and that from him “death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned.” Rom. v. 12. · But you aver, fThat “no evil but temporal death came upon men in consequence of Adam's sin.”
And this you endeavour to prove by considering the chief scriptures which are supposed to relate thereto.
The first you mention is Gen. ii. 17, “But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” On this
observe: “ Death was to be the consequence of his disobedience. And the death here threatened can be opposed only to that life God gave Adam when he created him.” (Third Edition, p. 7.) True: but how are you assured, that God, when he created him, did not give him spiritual as well as animal life ? Now spiritual death is opposed to spiritual life. And this is more than the death of
“But this is pure conjecture, without a solid foundation. For no other life is spoken of before.” Yes there is. The image of God is spoken of before. This is not therefore pure conjecture; but is grounded upon a solid foundation, upon the plain word of God. Allowing then, that “Adam could understand it of no other life than that which he had newly received :" yet would he naturally understand it of the life of God in his soul, as well as of the life of his body.
In this light therefore the sense of the threatening will stand thus: “ Thou shalt surely die ;" as if he had said, “ I have (p. 8, formed thee of the dust of the ground, and breathed into thy nostrils the breath of lives,” both of animal and spiritual life ; and in both respects thou art become a living soul. “But if thou eatest of the forbidden tree, thou shalt cease to be a living soul. For I will take from thee” the lives I have given, and thou shalt die spiritually, temporally, eternally,
* 1.Cor. xv. 22, compared with Gen. ji. and iii. 1 Dr. Taylor's Doctrine of Original Sin, Part I. to whom I address myself in what follows. What is quoted from him, generally in his owo words, is enclosed in inverted commas
But here is not one word relating to Adam's posterity. Though it be true, if he had died immediately upon his transgression, all his posterity must have been extinct with him.". It is true : yet “not one word” of it is expressed. Therefore other consequences of his sin may be equally implied, though they are no more expressed than this.
4. The second Scripture you cite is Gen. iii. from the 7th to the 24th verse. (p. 9, 10.)
On this you observe, “ Here we have some consequences of our first parents' sin before God judged them : some appointed by his judicial sentence; and some which happened after that sentence was pronounced.” (p. 11.)
« Immediately upon their transgression, they were seized with shame and fear. Guilt will always be attended with shame. And a state of guilt is often in Scripture expressed by being naked. (Exod. xxxi. 25.) Moses saw that the people were naked; for Aaron had made them naked to their shame among their enemies."" Certainly, naked does not mean guilty here ; but either stripped of their ornaments, (ch. xxxii. 5, 6, or of their swords, or their upper garments. (Isa. xlvii. 3.). Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen.' Here also nakedness does not mean guilt; but is to be taken literally, as manifestly appears from the words immediately preceding. (ver. 2.) Make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.' And (Rev. xvi. 15,) • Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.' The plain meaning is, lest he lose the graces he has received, and so be ashamed before men and angels.
“ Their fear is described. (ver. 8.) Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.' They had no such fear while they were innocent: but now they were afraid to stand before their judge.” (p. 13.)
This is all you can discern in the Mosaic account as the consequence of our first parent's sin, before God judged them. Mr. Hervey discerns something more. I make no apology for transcribing some of his words. *
Adam violated the precept, and as the nervous original expresses it, died the death. He before possessed a life incomparably more excellent than that which the beasts enjoy. He possessed a divine life, according to the apostle, in knowledge, in righteousness, and true holiness. This, which was the distinguishing glory of his nature, in The day that he eat the forbidden fruit, was extinct.
• His understanding, originally enlightened with wisdom, was clouded with ignorance. His heart, once warmed with heavenly love, became alienated from God his maker. His passions and appetites, rational and regular before, shook off the government of
* Theron and Aspasio, Dialogue 11.