« السابقةمتابعة »
« III. Hereby he incurred death of every kind; not only temporal, but also spiritual and eternal. By losing his original righteousness, he became not only mortal as to his body, but also spiritually dead, dead to God,' dead in sin :'void of that principle which St. Paul terms the life of God,' Eph. iv. 18: St. John, “Eternal life abiding in us,' 1 John iii. 15. A creature formed with a capacity of knowing, loving, and serving God, must be either dead in sin,' or alive to God.' Adam in his primitive state was * alive to God;' but after he had sinned, dead in sin, as well as dead in law. (p. 20.)
“ But Dr. Taylor is sure only temporal death was to be the consequence of his disobedience. « For death is the 66 loss of life, and must be understood according to the b6 nature of the life to which it is 'opposed.” Most true : and the life to which it is here opposed, the life Adam enjoyed till lost by sin, was not only bodily life, but the principle of holiness which the Scripture terms, the life of
6 God.' It was also a title to eternal life. All this, there
fore, he lost by sin. And that justly: for death is the due - wages of sin ;' death, both temporal, spiritual, and eternal. (p. 21.)
“ IV. Adam's first sin was the sin of a public person, one whom God had appointed to represent all his descendants. This also has been proved. In one sensë, indeed, Adam's sin was not ours. It was not our personal fault, our actual transgression. But in another sense it was ours. It was the sin of our common representative. And as such St. Paul shews it is imputed to us and all his descendants. Hence, (p. 25.)
66 V. -All these are from their birth children of wrath,' void of all righteousness, and propense to sin of all sorts.
« In order to clear and confirm this proposition I intend,
“ 1. To consider a text which proves Original Sin in the full extent of it: (p. 26.)
• 2. To explain some other texts which relate either to the guilt or corruption we derive from our first parents :
“ 3. To add some arguments which Dr. Taylor has taken no notice of, or touched bụt very slightly ;
“4. To answer objections.
“And, 1. To consider that text, Eph. ii. 3, 'And were by nature children of wrath, even as others. In the beginning of the chapter St. Paul puts the Ephesians in mind of what God had done for them. This led him to observe, what they had been before their conversion to God. They had been dead in trespasses and sins, but were now
quickened, made alive to God. They had walked according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that worketh with energy in the children of disobedience. Among such, saith the apostle, 'we all had our conversation in times past, the whole time before our conversion, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as others.' (p.27.) On this I observe,
“ 1. The persons spoken of are both the believing Ephesians and the apostle himself. For he says not, ye were, speaking in the second person, as he had done, ver. 1, 2, but we were, plainly with a design the more expressly to include himself. Indeed had he still spoken in the second person, yet what is here affirmed would have been true of him as well as them. But for the sake of more explicitly including himself, he chose to say, we were: you, Ephesians, who were descended of Heathen parents, and I who was born in the visible church.
“ 2. The wrath here spoken of means, either's God's displeasure at sinners, or the punishment, which he threatens and inflicts for sin. (p. 28.)
“ 3. Children of wrath' is an Hebraism, and denotes persons worthy of, or liable to wrath. And this implies the being sinners; seeing sin only exposes us to God's displeasure, and the dreadful effects of it.
“ 4. This charge the apostle fixes on himself and them, as they had been before their conversion. He does not say, we are, but we were children of wrath' (p. 29.)
“5. He speaks of himself and the converted Ephesians, as having been so, equally with others. There is an emphasis on the words, even as others: even as the stubborn Jews, and idolatrous Heathens: even as all who are still 6 strangers and enemies to Christ.' These are still children of wrath.' But whatever difference there is between us and them, we were once what they are now.
“ 6. He expressly says, 'we were children of wrath, even as others, by nature,' or from our birth. He does not say, we became so by education, or by imitation, or by custom in sinning. But to shew us when it is that we commence simers, by what means we become children of wrath,' whence it is that we are so prone to evil from our infancy, and to imitate bad rather than good examples, he says, we were children of wrath by nature,' we were born fallen creatures. We came into the world sinners, and as such liable to wrath, in consequence of the fall of our first father.
“But it is affirmed, 1. That "by nature means by habit or custom.”
I answer, though the term nature, with some qualifying expression annexed, is sometimes taken for inveterate custom, yet it is never so taken when put singly, without any such qualifying expression. When, therefore, the apostle says absolutely, we were children of wrath by nature,' this, according to the constant sense of the words, must mean, we were so from our birth. (p. 31.)
“ It is affirmed, 2. That “ because the original words stand thus TEXyQ Quoel ogens, children by nature of wrath: therefore children by nature means only truly and really children of wrath.” I answer, The consequence is good for nothing : for let the words.stand how they will, it is evident, that TEXVO Quoel, are children by birth, or such as are born so, in distinction from those who become such afterward.
“ It is affirmed, 3. “ That Quael, by nature, signifies no more than truly or really.” I answer, (1.) It is not al
. lowed, that any good Greek writers ever use the word in this sense. (2.) Whatever others do, the writers of the New
Testament, always use it in another sense. So Gal. i. 15,
ü We who are Jews by nature,' quoa 'Isdato. That is, We who are born Jews, in contradistinction to Proselytes. Gal. iv. 8, Ye did service to them which by nature are ne gods ;' un Quoel sol Seous, persons or things which are partakers of no divine nature. Rom. ii. 14, The Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law;' that is, by their own natural powers, without a written law. Neither here por any where else does the word quoel signify no more than really or truly (p. 32.) -- It remains then, that the word which we render by nature, does really so signify: : " And yet it is allowed, we are not so guilty by nature, as a course of actual sin afterward makes us.
But we are antecedent to that course children of wrath, liable to some degree of wrath and punishment. Here then from a plain text, taken in its obvious sense, we have a clear evidence, both of what divines term original sin imputed, and of original sin inherent. The former is, 'the sin of Adam so far reckoned' ours, as to constitute us in some degree guilty : the latter, a want of original righteousness, and a corruption of nature; whence it is, that from our infancy we are averse to what is good, and propertse to what is evil. (p. 33.)
“I am, 2. To explain some other texts which relate either to the guilt or the corruption which we derive from our first parents.
“ Gen. v. 3. Here the image of Adam in which he begat a son after his fall, stands opposed to the image of God, in which man was at first created. Moses had said, ver. 1, ! In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. In this, speaking of Adam, as he was after the fall, he does not say, he begat a son in the likeness of God; but he begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.? Now this must refer to Adam, either as a man ; or as a good man: or as a mortal, sinful man. But it could not refer to him merely as a man. The inspired writer could not design to inform us, that Adam begat a man, not a lion, or a horse. It could not well refer to
him as a good man. For it is not said, Adam begat a son, who at length became pious like himself; but he begat a son in his own likeness. It refers to him therefore as a mortal, sinful man; giving us to know, that the mortality and corruption, contracted by the fall, descended from Adam to his son : Adam a sinner, begat a sinner like himself. And if Seth was thus a sinner by nature, so is every other descendant of Adam. (p. 35, 36.)
“ Dr. Taylor takes no notice of the antithesis between the likeness of God, ver.1, and the likeness of Adam, ver. 3. On the other hand, he speaks of these two as one: as if Seth had been born in the very same image of God, wherein Adam was made. But this cannot be admitted : because Adam had now lost his original righteousness. It must, therefore, be the likeness of fallen, corrupted Adam which is here intended.
66 Gen. vi. 5, 'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.' Here Moses having observed, as the cause of the Flood, that
God saw that the wickedness of man was great,' to'âce count for this general wickedness, adds, “Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil, yea, was
only evil,' and that continually.' The heart of man is bere put for his soul. This God had formed with a marvel lous thinking power. But so is his soul debased that every imagination, figment, formation of the thoughts of it, is evil
, only evil, continually evil. Whatever it forms within itself, às a thinking power, is an evil formation. This Moses spoke of the Antediluvians; but we cannot confine it to them. If all their actual wickedness sprung from the evil formations of their corrupt heart; and if consequently they were sinners from the birth, so are all others likewise. (p. 37.)
6 Gen. viii. 21, 'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every living thing.' I will not be provoked to this by the