Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

fections they are quite disordered, Further, this corruptíon has spread even to the body.'

The above are specimens of the whole school, and they do, if language has any definite meaning, plainly teach the doctrine of physical deprarity. This is manifestly the doctrine Calvin taught; and the view he took of original sin, when he defined it to be, "an hereditary depravity and corruption of our NATURE, DIFFUSED THROUGH EVERY PART OF THE SOU'L. Yet from him, (Adam,) hath not punishment alone marched upon us as a pestilence, (grassata est,) but the pestilence (lues) instilled from him, resides in us, for which punishment is justly due."2

Still more decisive and pointed are the following, when commenting on the Apostle's declaration, “ that all have sinned.” “That is,” says he, “ they are involved in original sin and polluted with its spots, and for this reason, infants also themselves, while they, bring their own damnation with themselves from their “ mother's womb, are obnoxious, not for another's but their own especial vice. (suo ipsoruin vitio.) For although they may not have produced the fruits of their own iniquity, yet have they the seed included in themselves: yea, their whole nature, is some such seed of sin; so that it cannot but be odious and abominable to God."93

1. Boston's body of Divinity, vol. 1, pp. 307, 308, 309.

2. Videtur ergo peccatum originale hæreditaria naturæ nostræ pravitas et corruptio, in omnes animæpartes diffusæ: Ab illo tamen non Sola in nos pæna grassata est, sed in stillata ab ipso, lues in nobis residet, cui jure pæna debetur. Calvini. Instit. Lib. ii. cap. 1. Sec. 8.

3. Et apostolus ipse disertissime testatur, icleo mortem in omnes pervagatam, quod omnes peccarint, id est, involuti sint originali peccato, et ejus maculis inquinati. Atqui ideo infantes quoque ipsi, dum suam secum damnationem a matris utero afferunt, non alienio sed suo ipsorum vitio sunt obstricti. Nam tametsi suæ iniquitatis fructus nondum protulerint, habent, tamen in se inclusum semen imo tota corum natura, quoddam est peccati

Vink, in his sermon published in the morning exercises, entitled “Original sin inhering,” has given exactly the same view which Boston after him and many other theologians of that day have done. We select a few passages: he says, “1. "Tis called original sinne, because 'tis in every one from his original; it may say to every one, as soon as thou wert I am: or 2. Because it is derived from Adam the original of all man-kinde, out of whose blood, God hath mude us'all: or 3. Because 'tis the original of all other sinne; it is the seed and spawn, out of which they all grow; this is that lust, which when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sinne. This sin runs parallel with our being men, or partaking of man's nature in this world. This sin, and our nature in us, are twins, in life and death. Our whole fabrick is so overspread with this leprosie, that it can never be sufficiently cleansed, till it be wholly taken down. 1. This sin cleaves to the soul: and 2. It infects the very body also.'

It is unnecessary to crowd our pages with other extracts.2 Those adduced, shew plainly, that original sin is spoken of, by some old Calvinistic writers, as an operative or efficient cause of sin, which is lodged in the very soul of man, from the very first moment of his origin, anterior to all voluntary acts whatever, and therefore can only be physical; i. e. must consist in some constitution of simple nature or created being, which is the appropriate, immediate, and necessary cause of sinful actions. This is

[ocr errors]

semen: ideo non odiosa et abominabilis Deo esse non potest. Cal. Inst. 1. ü. c. 1. Sec. 8.

1. See Morning Exercise, at Giles in the fields, pp. 155, 156, 157, 158.

1. The reader may find many in the first volume of a work entitled, Views of Theology published in New York, in which the author has undertaken to prove that in some theories and reasonings of divines, deprarity je exhibited as a physical attribute.

philosophy. It is an inference drawn from certain facts, and sustained by false analogies. Who does not see, that it as deeply implicates the character of God, as it certainly relieves the sinner from obligation? If simple created nuture, or EXISTENCE is sinful, then is God the direct and immediate author of sin, for it is His exclusive prerogative to create. This however, He cannot be.

Nor is it sufficient to vindicate the purity of God in this matter, to say that Adam, having corrupted himself by his own act, propagated to his progeny a corrupt nature, and that by virture of fixed and established laws, ordained to regulate the agency of God, in the production of successive creatures. For it does not appear, that Adam lost or acquired any physical property by his rebellion; nor that his nature, consisting simply of his created substance and its constitutional properties, sustained any physical change by his sin. llis voluntary exercises were sadly deranged, and became awfully depraved, but that depravity formed no part of his substance, nor belonged to his constitutional properties. It attached to his character, as a moral agent. How then could he transmit, by natural generation what did not inhere in his own constitution. It does not appear that Adam's sin, produced in his own soul, any physical defect, or lodged there any new efficient principle or physical being, possessing power to control his voluntary actions.

We shall have occasion presently to trace the influence of certain great moral principles, as they operated to regulate his actions, and to shape his character: but certainly, no one will affirm, that the first sin of Adam, inhered in him, changing his very physical constitution, and becoming an efficient cause of all his subsequent sinful actions. For that sin was an act, not a substance, and had no other existence, than as an event which transpired in his history,

but which changed his moral relations, and rendered those exercises in which his holiness consisted, morally impossible; and if to him physical depravity accrued not, from him it cannot be derived. If such a thing were possible, and actually did take place, who can undertake to blame men for sinning? Their sins would be the proper, and necessary result of their very constitution, in the production of which they had no agency. They would sin of necessity, and could no more be criminal for their sinful actions, than for craving food or any other act which results from an established law of nature. Let men believe this to be the fact, and what dreadful practical results would follow! How does the voluptuary grasp it with delight, as the sop to quiet his conscience! And where might it not be practically plead as an apology for the worst and vilest deeds? If the cause of men's sins lies in an “ind welling principle,” as Dr. Owen calls it, “inclining and pressing unto actions agreeable and suitable unto its nature,” it possesses the precise character of a law of naturel as he himself has defined it. And if men sin according to a law of nature, the divine agency is implicated, and human obligation is destroyed.

If, therefore, we cannot predicate sin of simple created existence; if mere physical being is not sin ful; and if there cannot be found, in any physical defect of our being, or in the presence of any positive principle of our constitutional conscience of mankind give full assent. The authority of Dr. Owen, on this point, is explicit and satisfactory. “The will," says he, “is the principle, the next seat and cause of obedience and disobedience. Moral actions are, unto us, or in us, so far good or evil, as they partake of the consent of the will. He spake truth, of old, who said, Omne peccatum est adeo voluntarium, ut non sit peccatum nisi sit voluntarium. “Every sin is so voluntary, that if it be not voluntary it is not sin." The present inquiry, however, carries our attention to the more remote, or prime origin of our sinful actions.

ature, the immediate cause of sinful actions, it may be asked, whence do they originate? We have already shewn that their immediate and appropriate cause, is to be assigned to the will of the sinner, who chooses and acts contrary to the requisitions of God. To this, the common sense and

1. The principle that is in the nature of every thing, moving and carrying it towards its own end and rest, is called the law of nature. Owen on indwelling sin, p. 15.

It must be obvious to every one, that the rise or origin of all sinsul actions, as committed by men, is to be dated in the first sin of Adam. That some connection therefore exists between that sin, and the transgressions of his offspring, none are disposed to deny, as to the character of that connection however there is much dispute. It is of moment to determine whether, our sinful actions are the legal, or only natural results of Adam's sin. And in order to this, we must inquire—whether our sinful actions flow from any operative principle of our physical nature, or any constitutional properties derived from Adam by the process of natural generation-whether they are to be considered as penal results, i. e. the specific punishment provided by law for crime committed—or whether it became morally certain, that, from the established constitution of God, our great primogenitor having sinned, his descendants would do the same.

The first inquiry has been already disposed of. As to the second, it may be proper to remark, that there is a difference between a constitution, a covenant, and a law. A law requires or prohibits conduct, and determines the suffering or consequences—or, to speak more technically, the peo

1. Ouen on indwelling sin, p. 174.

« AnteriorContinuar »