Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

such a phrase is used in such a manner. A poetical sentence out of Virgil's Eneids, has here been produced, and made much of by some, as parallel with this, in what Dido says to Eneas in these lines:

Nec tibi diva parens, generis nec Dardanus auctor,
Perfide: Sed duris genuit te cautibus horrens
Caucasus, byrcanæque admorunt ubera tygres.

In which she tells Eneas, that not a goddess was his mother, nor Anchises his father; but that he had been brought forth by a horrid, rocky mountain, and nursed at the dugs of ty gers, to represent the greatness of his cruelty to her. But how unlike and unparallel is this? Nothing could be more natural than for a woman, overpowered with the passion of love, and distracted with raging jealousy and disappointment, thinking herself treated with brutish perfidy and cruelty, by a lover, whose highest fame had been his being the son of a goddess, to aggravate his inhumanity and hardheartedness with this, that his behavior was not worthy the son of a goddess, nor becoming one whose father was an illustrious prince; and that he acted more as if he had been brought forth by hard, unrelenting rocks, and had sucked the dugs of tygers. But what is there in the case of David parallel, or at all in like manner leading him to speak of himself as born in sin, in any such sense? He is not speaking himself, nor any one else speaking to him, of any excellent and divine father and mother, that he was born of; nor is there any appear. ance of his aggravating his sin by its being unworthy of his high birth. There is nothing else visible in David's case, to lead him to take notice of his being born in sin, but only his having such experience of the continuance and power of indwelling sin, after so long a time, and so many great means to engage him to holiness; which shewed that sin was inbred, and in his very nature.

Dr. Taylor often objects to these and other texts, brought by divines to prove Original Sin, that there is no mention made in them of Adam, nor of his sin. He cries out, "Here

is not the least mention or intimation of Adam, or any ill effects of his sin upon us.....Here is not one word, nor the least hint of Adam, or any consequences of his sin, &c. &c.* He says, "If Job and his friends had known and believed the doctrine of a corrupt nature, derived from Adam's sin only, they ought in reason and truth to have given this as the true and only reason of the human imperfection and uncleanness they mention." But these objections and exclamations are made no less impertinently, than they are frequently. It is no more a proof, that corruption of nature did not come by Adam's sin, because many times when it is mentioned, Adam's sin is not expressly mentioned as the cause of it, than that death did not come by Adam's sin (as Dr. Taylor says it did) because though death, as incident to mankind, is mentioned so often in the Old Testament, and by our Saviour in his discourses, yet Adam's sin is not once expressly mentioned, after the three first chapters of Genesis, any where in all the Old Testament, or the four evangelists, as the occasion of it.

What Christian has there ever been, that believed the moral corruption of the nature of mankind, who ever doubted that it came that way, which the apostle speaks of, when he says, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin"? Nor indeed have they any more reason to doubt of it, than to doubt of the whole history of our first parents, because Adam's name is so rarely mentioned, on any occasion in scripture, after that first account of him, and Eve's never at all; and because we have no more any express mention of the particular manner, in which mankind were first brought into being, either with respect to the creation of Adam or Eve. It is sufficient, that the abiding, most visible effects of these things, remain in the view of mankind in all ages, and are often spoken of in scripture; and that the particular manner of their being introduced, is once plainly set forth in the beginning of the Bible, in that history which gives us an ac

*Page 5, 64, 96, 97. 98, 108, 108, 118, 118, 120, 122, 197, 188, 136, 142, 143, 149, 158, 155, 229. † 142.

[blocks in formation]

count of the origin of all things. And doubtless it was expected, by the great author of the Bible, that the account in the three first chapters of Genesis should be taken as a plain account of the introduction of both natural and moral evil into the world, as it has been shewn to be so indeed.

The histo ry of Adam's sin, with its circumstances, God's threatening, and the sentence pronounced upon him after his transgression, and the immediate consequences, consisting in so vast an alteration in his state, and the state of the world, which abides still, with respect to all his posterity, do most directly and suf ficiently lead to an understanding of the rise of calamity, sin and death, in this sinful, miserable world.

It is fit we all should know, that it does not become us to tell the Most High, how often he shall particularly explain and give the reason of any doctrine which he teaches, in order to our believing what he says. If he has at all given us evidence that it is a doctrine agreeable to his mind, it becomes us to receive it with full credit and submission; and not sullenly to reject it, because our notions and humors are not suited in the manner, and number of times, of his particularly explaining it to us. How often is pardon of sins promised in the Old Testament to repenting and returning sinners? How many hundred times is God's special favor there promised to the sincerely righteous, without any express mention of these benefits being through Christ? Would it therefore be becoming us to say, that, inasmuch as our dependence on Christ for these benefits, is a doctrine, which, if true, is of such importance, God ought expressly to have mentioned Christ's merits as the reason and ground of the benefits, if he knew they were the ground of them, and should have plainly declared it sooner, and more frequently, if ever he expected we should believe him, when he did tell us of it? How often is vengeance and misery threatened in the Old Testament to the wicked, without any clear and express signification of any such thing intended, as that everlasting fire, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, in another world, which Christ so often speaks of as the punishment appointed for all the wicked? Would it now become a Christ

ian, to object and say, that if God really meant any such thing, he ought in reason and truth to have declared it plainly and fully; and not to have been so silent about a matter of such vast importance to all mankind, for four thousand years together.

CHAPTER III.

Observations on various other Places of Scripture, principally of the New Testament, proving the Doctrine of ORIGINAL SIN.

SECTION I.

Observations on John iii. 6, in connexion with some other passages in the New Testament.

THOSE words of Christ, giving a reason to Nicodemus, why we must be born again, John iii. 6, "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit; have not, without good reason, been produced by divines, as a proof of the doctrine of original sin; supposing, that by flesh here is meant the human nature in a debased and corrupt state. Yet Dr. Taylor, p. 144, thus explains these words, That which is born of the flesh, is flesh: "That which is born by natural descent and propagation, is a man, consisting of body and soul, or the mere constitution and powers of a man in their natural state." But the constant use of these terms, flesh and spirit, in other parts of the New Testament, when thus set in opposition one to another,

and the latter said to be produced by the Spirit of God, as here, and when speaking of the same thing, which Christ is here speaking of to Nicodemus, viz. the requisite qualifica tions to salvation, will fully vindicate the sense of our divines. Thus in the 7th and 8th chapters of Romans, where these terms flesh and spirit (cap and up) are abundantly repeated, and set in opposition, as here. So, chap. vii. 14. The law is spiritual (anti) but I am carnal (σapin) sold under sin. He cannot only mean, "I am a man, consisting of body and soul, and having the powers of a man." Ver. 18. « I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." He does not mean to condemn his frame, as consisting of body and soul; and to assert, that in his human constitution, with the powers of a man, dwells no good thing. And when he says in the last verse of the chapter, "With the mind, I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin;" he cannot mean, "I myself serve the law of God; but with my innocent human constitution, as having the powers of a man, I serve the law of sin." And when he says in the next words in the beginning of the 8th chapter, " There is no condemnation to them, that walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit ;" and ver. 4, “The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh;" he cannot mean, "There is no condemnation to them that walk not according to the powers of a man," &c. And when he says, ver. 5 and 6, “They that are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh; and to be carnally minded is death;" he does not intend, “They that are according to the human constitution, and the powers of a man, do mind the things of the human constitution and powers; and to mind these, is death." And when he says, ver. 7 and 8, " The carnal (or fleshly) mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; so that they that are in the flesh, carnot please God;" he cannot mean, that," to mind the things which are agreeable to the powers and constitution of a man," (who, as our author says, is constituted or made right) "is enmity against God; and that a mind which is agreeable to this right human constitution, as God hath made it, is not subject to the law of

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »