Page images

shall only desire to know of him, whether God did not is that estate require of them, that they should love him, fear him, believe him, acknowledge their dependance on him, in universal obedience to his will ? And whether a suitableness unto all this duty, were not wrought within them by God? If he shall say no, and that God required no more of them, but only not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; I desire to know whether they might have hated God, abhorred him, believed Satan, and yet been free from the threatening here mentioned, if they had only forbore the outward eating of the fruit? If this shall be granted, I hope I need not insist to manifest what will easily be inferred ? Nor to shew how impossible this is, "God continuing God, and man a rational creature? If he shall say that certainly God did require that they should own him for God; that is, believe him, love him, fear him, and worship him, according to all that he should reveal to them, and require of them, I desire to know whether this particular command could be any other than sacramental and symbolical, as to the matter of it, being a thing of so small importance in its own nature, in comparison of those moral acknowledgments of God beforementioned. And to that question I shall not need to add more:

Although it may justly be supposed, that Mr. B. is not without some thoughts of deviation from the truth, in the following questions, yet the last being of most importance, and he being express therein, in denying all the effects of the first sin, but only the curse that came upon the outward visible world, I shall insist only on that, and close our considerations of this chapter. His question is thus proposed :

Q. 'Did the sin of our first parents in eating of the forbidden fruit, bring both upon them and their posterity, the guilt of hell-fire, deface the image of God in them, darken their understandings, enslave their wills, deprive them of power to do good, and cause mortality? If not, what are the true penalties denounced against them for that offence.'

To this he answers from Gen. iii. 16—19.

What the sin of our first parents was, may easily be discovered from what was said before concerning the commandment given to them. If universal obedience was required

e Vid. Diatrib. de Justit. Vindicat.

of them unto God, according to the tenor of the law of their creation, their sin was an universal rebellion against, and apostacy from him ; which though it expressed itself in the peculiar transgression of that command mentioned, yet it is far from being reducible to any one kind of sin, whose whole nature is comprised in that expression. Of the effects of this sin commonly assigned, Mr. B. annumerates and rejects six; sundry whereof are coincident, and all but one, reducible to that general head of loss of the image of God. But for the exclusion of them all at once from being any effects of the first sin, Mr. Biddle thus argues : If there were no effects nor consequences of the first sin but what are expressly mentioned, Gen. iii. 16, 17, &c. then those now mentioned, are no effects of it; but there are no effects or consequences of that first sin, but what are mentioned in that place; therefore those recounted in his query, and commonly esteemed such, are to be cashiered from any such place in the thoughts of men.

Ans. The words insisted on by Mr. Biddle being expressive of the curse of God for sin on man, and the whole creation here below for his sake, it will not be easy for him to evince, that none of the things he rejects, are not eminently enwrapped in them. Would God have denounced, and actually inflicted such a curse on the whole creation, which he had put in subjection to man, as well as upon man himself, and actually have inflicted it with so much dread and severity as he hath done, if the transgression upon the account whereof he did it, had not been as universal a rebellion against him as could be fallen into? Man fell in his whole dependance from God, and is cursed universally in all his concernments, spiritual and temporal.

But is this indeed the only place of Scripture where the effects of our apostacy from God, in the sin of our first parents, are described ? Mr. Biddle may as well tell us, that Gen. iii. 15. is the only place where mention is made of Jesus Christ; for there he is mentioned. But a little to clear this whole matter in our passage, though what hath been spoken may suffice to make naked Mr. B.'s sophistry.

1. By the effects of the first sin, we understand every thing of evil, that either within or without, in respect of a present or future condition; in reference to God, and the fruition of him whereto man was created, or the enjoyment of any goodness from God which is come upon mankind, by the just ordination and appointment of God, whereunto man was not obnoxious in his primitive state and condition. I

am not at present at all engaged to speak de modo, of what is privative, what positive, in original sin, of the way of the traduction, or propagation of it, of the imputation of the guilt of the first sin, and adhesion of the pollution of our nature, defiled thereby, or any other questions that are coincident with these, in the usual inquest made into, and after the sin of Adam, and the fruits of it, but only as to the things themselves, which are here wholly denied. Now,

2. That whatsoever is evil in man by nature, whatever he is obnoxious and liable unto that is hurtful and destructive to him and all men in common, in reference to the end whereto they were created, or any title wherewith they were at first intrusted, is all wholly the effect of the first sin, and is in solidum to be ascribed thereunto, is easily demonstrated. For,

1. That which is common to all things in any kind, and is proper to them only of that kind, must needs have some common cause equally respecting the whole kind: but now of the evils that are common to all mankind, and peculiar or proper to them, and every one of them, there can be no cause, but that which equally concerns them all, which by the testimony of God himself, was this fall of Adam ; Rom.

V, 15. 18.

2. The evils that are now incumbent upon men in their natural condition (which what they are, shall be afterward considered), were either incumbent on them at their first creation, before the sin and fall of our first parents, or they are come upon them since, through some interposing cause or occasion. That they were not in them, on them, that they were not liable, nor obnoxious to those evils, which are now incumbent on them, in their first creation, as they came forth from the hand of God (besides what was said before, of the state and condition wherein man was created, even upright in the sight of God, in his favour and acceptation, no way obnoxious to his anger and wrath), is evident by the light of this one consideration; viz. That there was nothing in man nor belonging to him, no respect, no regard, or re

łation, but what was purely, and immediately of the Holy God's creation and institution. Now it is contrary to all that he hath revealed or made known to us of himself, that he should be the immediate author of so much evil, as is now by his own testimony in man by nature, and without any occasion, of so much vanity and misery as he is subject unto : and besides, directly thwarting the testimony which he gave of all the works of his hands, that they were exceeding good; it being evident, that man in the condition whereof we speak, is exceeding evil.

3. If all the evil mentioned hath since befallen mankind, then it hath done so by some chance and accident, whereof God was not aware, or by his righteous judgment and appointment, in reference to some procuring, and justly deserving cause of such a punishment. To affirm the first, is upon the matter to deny him to be God. And I doubt not, but that men, at as easy and cheap a rate of sin, may deny that there is a God, as confessing his divine essence, to turn it into an idol; and by making thick clouds, as Job speaks, to interpose between him and the affairs of the world, to exclude his energetical providence in the disposal of all the works of his hands. If the latter be affirmed, I ask, as before, what other common cause,

wherein all and every one of mankind is equally concerned, can be assigned of the evils mentioned, as the procurement of the 'wrath and vengeance of God, from whence they are, but only the fall of Adam, the sin of our first parents ; especially considering, that the Holy Ghost doth so expressly point out this fountain, and source of the evils insisted on; Rom. v.

4. These things then being premised, it will quickly appear, that every one of the particulars rejected by Mr. B. from being fruits or effects of the first sin, are indeed the proper issues of it: and though Mr. B. cut the roll of the abominations and corruptions of the nature of man by sin, and cast it into the fire, yet we may easily write it again, and add many more words of the like importance.

: 1. The first effect or fruit of the first sin, rejected by Mr. B. is, 'its rendering men guilty of hell fire;' but the Scripture seems to be of another mind, Rom. y. 12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned.' That, all men sinned in Adam, that they contracted the guilt of the same death with him, that death entered by sin, the Holy Ghost is express in. The death here mentioned is that which God threatened to Adam if he did transgress, Gen. ii. which; that it was not death temporal only, yea not at all, Mr. B. contends, by denying mortality to be a fruit of this sin; as also excluding in this very query all room for death spiritual, which consists in the defacing of the image of God in us, which he with this rejects. And what death remains, but that which hath hell following after it, we shall afterward consider.

f Rom, i, 18.

Besides, that death which Christ died to deliver us from, was that which we were obnoxious to, upon the account of the first sin: for he came to save that which was lost; and tasted death to deliver us from death; dying to deliver them, who for fear of death were in bondage all their lives;' Heb. ii. 13. But that this was such a death, as hath hell-fire attending it, he manifests by affirming, that'he delivers us from the wrath to come.' By hell-fire we understand nothing but the wrath of God for sin, into whose hand it is a fearful thing to fall, our God being a consuming fire. That the guilt of every sin is this death whereof we speak, that hath both curse and wrath attending it, and that it is the proper wages of sin, the testimony of God is evident. What other death men are obnoxious to, on the account of the first sin, that hath not these concomitants, Mr. B. hath not as yet revealed. By nature also we are ho children of wrath ;' and on what foot of account our obnoxiousness now by nature unto wrath is to be stated, is sufficiently evident by the light of the preceding considerations.

The defacing of the image of God in us,' by this sin, as it is usually asserted, is in the next place denied. That man was created in the image of God, and wherein that image of God doth consist, was before declared. That we are now born with that character upon us, as it was at first enstamped upon us, must be affirmed, or some common cause of the defect that is in us, wherein all and every one of the posterity of Adam are equally concerned, besides that of the first siñ, is to be assigned. That this latter 'cannot be done hath & Rom. vi. 23.

h Eph. ii. 3.

« PreviousContinue »