"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is
no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had
not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of
him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if
through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the
gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And
not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift for the judgment was by one to
condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if
by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive
abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one,
Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all
men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made
sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Mereover the
law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did
much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace
reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."
IN our last discourse we attempted to show in how far the doctrine
of the Bible, respecting the existence of a corrupt tendency in our race, met
and was at one with human observation. This is clearly a question that may be
brought to such a tribunal. Whether a sinful disposition exists and is
universal among men, is matter of experience as well as of divine revelation.
That this corruption exists in the world, is matter of experience. But how it
entered into the world is altogether a matter of testimony. It is an historical
fact, which must be exhibited to us in a credible record, ere we can come to
the knowledge or the belief of it. We cannot confront it with any thing that
now passes before our eyes - it being a solitary event of great antiquity, and
which has no proper evidence to rest upon save the information of history.
'By one man,' says our text, ' sin entered into the world.' He came out
pure and righteous from the hand of God; but Adam, after he had yielded to the
temptation of the garden, was a changed man, from Adam in his days of innocence
in Paradise. He gathered a different hue in consequence; and that hue was
permanent; and while we are told that God made man at first after His own
image, we are further told that the very first person who was born into the
world, came to it in the image of his parent - not in the original, but in the
transformed image, that is, with the whole of that tendency to sin, which, on
the first act of sin, was formed in the character of Adam, and was transmitted
through him to all his posterity.
This is the simple statement; and we
arc not able to give the explanation. The first tree of a particular species,
may be conceived to have come from the Creator's hand, with the property of
bearing fruit, of the sweetest taste, and most exquisite flavour. A
pestilential gust may have passed over it, and so changed its nature, that all
the fruit it was afterwards to bear should be sour and unsavoury. After this
change, it may be conceived to have dropt its seeds or its acorns; and such may
the virulence of the transformation have been, that all the future trees which
are to be propagated from the parent stock, rise not in the original but
transformed likeness of the tree from which they sprung. If this were credibly
attested as a fact, we are certainly not prepared to resist it. We have no such
acquaintance with the physiology of the vegetable world, as to affirm, in the
face of good historical testimony, that this is impossible; and as little are
we entitled, from any acquaintance with the law of transmission from father to
son, in the department of animal and intelligent nature, to set ourselves in
opposition to that Bible narrative, by which we are given to understand, that a
moral blight came over the character of our great progenitor; and that, when so
reduced and deteriorated in his better qualities, a race of descendants
proceeded from him, with that very taint of degeneracy that he had taken on;
that the evil thus superinduced on the nature of the first man, was transmitted
to all the men whom he originated - who, of course, instead of being fruitful
in righteousness, yielded in their lives the bitter produce of many actual
transgressions, of much visible and abounding iniquity.
There is
another fact announced to us in this passage, and that is, the connection
between the corruption of our nature, and its mortality. Sin brought death into
the world; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. This
brings out to view in another way, the distinction that we have endeavoured to
impress between actual and original sin. All have not sinned after the
similitude of Adam's transgression; and yet death reigneth too over them. All
have not sinned by a positive deed of disobedience. Infants have not thus
sinned; and yet infants die. The death that they undergo is not the fruit of
any actual iniquity of theirs; but the fruit of that moral virus, which has
descended from the common fountain of our species, and which taints and
vilifies, and transmits the elements of decay and destructibleness, among all
the members of it. They have never done what is sinful; and yet they have that
of sin in them which carries death in its train. And what is this but the
corrupt tendency that we have all along insisted on; the original and
constitutional aptitude that there is to sinning, in virtue of which we may
compute, with all the firmness of certainty, that, when the time of bringing
forth cometh, transgression is the fruit that they will bear - a disposition
that only yet exists in embryo, but which will come out into deed and
development, so soon as powers and opportunities are expanded.
The
infant tiger has not yet performed one act of ferocity; but we are sure that
all the rudiments of ferocity exist in its native constitution; and that the
original principle of this quality, long before it has been unfolded into
actual development, lurks in it from its birth, and only waits its growth and
its maturity till it come out into exhibition. The tender sapling of the
crab-tree, has not yet yielded one sour apple; but we most certainly know, that
there is even from the minutcst germ of its existence, an organic necessity for
its producing this kind of fruit, when time has conducted it onward to this
period of its history. And, in like manner, the infant of a week old has not
broken one of the commandments; but well may we infer, from the universality of
sin in our species, that, should it rise to boyhood, there is that in its
disposition now, which will advance and ripen into disobedience then. And
should the hand of death arrest it in its career, and by its preventing stroke
snatch it away from the possibility of ever committing one action of iniquity;
and it be asked, how it is that the connection between sin and the suffering of
death is exemplified in the fate of this poor innocent - we would reply, that
though the mischief had not exploded in its history, yet the whole elements of
the mischief lay slumbering in its heart; and, though it could not be said to
die because of actual transgression, yet it shared in the common calamity with
the rest of the species, because, with the rest of the species, it had its full
share of the original tendency to evil.
One knows not how soon it is,
that this tendency breaks forth into open exhibition. One never saw and hardly
can conceive, how a babe of unspotted descent, would have proved from the first
day which ushered it into being, that it had no fellowship in that corrupt
principle, which taints from very infancy all the families of our earthly
generation. In a very few years, the difference would be palpable - even as the
Saviour, both in boyhood and in manhood, stood distinguished from all the
partakers of that nature, whose sufferings He bore but whose sins He had no
share in. We have a full record of His bright example, when He reached the
maturity of His human powers ; but it must be matter of curiosity, and not of
edification, that we have no record of His tone and habit and character in
infancy. One would like if he could, to lift the veil which hangs over the
experience of Mary; and to learn of her, who had the maternal care and guidance
of the holy child Jesus; and to know what was the precise complexion of that
moral dawn, which preceded the pure and perfect effulgence that shone forth on
the history of His riper years; and to be told how richly all her tenderness
was repaid, by smiles more lovely than ever before had played on the infant
countenance - and, in hours of anguish, by such a calm and unruffled serene, as
not one cry of impatience, and not one movement of fretfulness or wrath ever
broke in upon. But it is vain to pry into the secret of that alone sinless
infancy which the world ever saw; and we have only to assure ourselves of all
other children, that, helpless as they are in person, and dear to a parent's
fondest regards from that very helplessness - the germ of depravity is already
in their hearts.
And whether or not we should put to the account of
this, the boisterous outcry of an infant, and the ever- recurring turmoil
wherewith it clamours abroad its desires and all its disappointments, and the
constant exactions it makes of every thing it sees to its own wayward appetite
for indulgence, and its spurning impatience of all resistance and control; so
as in fact to subordinate the whole household to its caprices, and be the
little tyrant to whose brief but most effective authority the entire circle of
relationship must bend - whether these be symptomatic or not of that disease
wherewith humanity is infected in all its members, still we must admit, that
the disease is radically there; and however it may brood for a season, in a
sort of ambiguous concealment, among the inscrutable and unrevealed mysteries
of an infant's spirit - yet soon do the selfishness and the sensuality and the
ungodliness come out at length into such open declaration, as indeed to prove
to every calm and philosophic observer of our nature, that one and all of us
are born in sin, and all of us are shapen in iniquity.
You will be at
no loss then to conceive the distinction between original and actual sin. The
one is the tendency to sin in the constitution - the other is the outbreaking
of that tendency in the conduct; and if sinful conduct be universal, we infer a
sinful Constitution to be universal also. And you will be as little at a loss
to perceive, how the original sin of every human creature is coeval with the
first moment of his existence, and enters as much among the elements of his
formation - as the tendency to bear a particular kind of fruit, lies
incorporated with the very acorn from which the tree has germinated. We know
not whether, upon the introduction of sin, the sentence of mortality was made
to pass on the vegetable, as well as on the animal creation; or whether, had we
lived in an unfallen world, its plants as well as its people would have been
immortal. But such is in fact the organic structure of both, that both are
liable to dissolution; and whether they die ere the one has come forth with its
fruit of palpable iniquity, and the other with its apple of discernible flavour
- whether nipped in infancy, or withered into final extinction after having
passed through all the stages of growth and of decay - we never think of
ascribing this sweeping and universal destruction to any other cause, than to a
universal something in the original frame of all the individuals that are
subject to this sore fatality: And whether it be the grandfather bowed down
under the weight of years, or the babe of a week old that breathes its last, it
is the same deadly virus that carries off them both - the poison of an accursed
nature, that only needs the scope of opportunity for the development of all the
plagues and all the perversities which belong to it. We trust, then, that we
may have made it clear to your apprehension, how there exists in the human
constitution from the very first, a tendency to sin; and that this tendency has
a forth-coming in sinful actions, with every individual of our race, who lives
a few years in the world - just as the tendency in the crab-tree to produce
sour apples, has its forth-coming in the appearance of this very fruit, after
the time of bearing has arrived. The tendency in both has come down, through a
long series of intermediate parents; and may be traced in each, to the tendency
of one great progenitor, whether of the human or of the vegetable species.
Thus far then have we got in our argument - even that original sin, as
it respects the inborn depravity of our race, is at one with the actual
experience of mankind. And we should further proceed to show, in how far
original sin, as it respects not its actual existence in our frames, but as it
respects the imputat.ion of guilt to all who are under it, is at one with the
moral sense of mankind. And then would we propose to finish all our
preliminaries to the exposition of the passage before us, by replying to the
invectives which have been founded upon this doctrine against the character of
God. But we have already consumed too much of your time for entering at present
on topics so unwieldy; and we shall therefore confine the remainder of the
address to such practical enforcements, as may be educed from the explanation
that we have already attempted in your hearing.
The first consideration
we shall address to you is, what a testimony to God's irreconcilable antipathy
against sin, that he has made death to follow invariably in its train - that
because there is in these bodies of ours a tendency to moral evil, these bodies
must therefore be dissolved - that such is the blasting influence of this sore
contagion, as to wither and sicken every individual whom it touches, and be
unto him the unfailing poison, under the virulence of which he sooner or later
must expire - that though it was by the narrow inlet of one temptation, that
sin found entrance into our world at the first, and was thence diffused as if
by pestilence throughout the whole extent of our putrescent nature, yet, widely
as it has ranged abroad over the entire domain of humanity, and unsparingly as
it has attacked every single member of it, yet it goes nowhere, without
carrying the curse of mortality along with it; and on account of this does each
successive generation, hut moulder back again into the dust out of which it had
arisen. It would look, that, as if to detach this leprosy from our
constitution, the old materials of the old framework must be beaten into
powder, and be made to pass through some purifying ordeal in the sepulchre. And
it is indeed an impressive exhibition of the malignity of sin, to think that
because of it and of it alone, all nature is suffering violence - when we see
death thus making its relentless sweep among all ages; and even before it be
possible to evince sin in the conduct, as with the infant of a day old, yet it
is enough that there be sin in the constitution, to bring this almost
unconscious babe within the operation of a sentence, which grants no reprieve,
which knows no exception.
But secondly, this deep view of our disease,
however much it may look an inapplicable speculation in the eyes of many, yet,
if rightly improved, would lead in fact to a deep view of the remedy that was
suited to it. The man who looks upon sin as a mere affair of accident or
education, may think, that, by the putting forth a more strenuous determination
against it - by bringing the energies of the inward will to bear upon the
outward walk - he may suppress the moral evil at least of his own character,
and achieve for himself an exemption and a victory. But the man who looks upon
this sin as a constitutional taint, fixed upon him from very infancy, and
pervading all the recesses of his frame - who recognizes the will itself to be
corrupt, and that when it comes to be a question between God and His gifts, it
is only to the latter, and not at all to the former that he has any inclination
- when he finds that the dark hue of an original and inborn sinfulness adheres
to him, just as the spots do to the leopard, and the tawny skin which no
superficial operation can do away, does to the Ethiopian - Then, if he have any
depth of reflection, he will conclude, that, in such circumstances, he is
really not warranted to turn away from that remedy which the gospel proposes,
as the grand specific for all our moral and all our spiritual disorders. The
whole range of human power and human experience supplies him with nothing, that
can purge away the foul inveteracy wherewith his nature is stained; and he just
follows in the legitimate track of a rightly exercised and rightly discerning
judgment, when he is shut up unto the faith. More particularly, will such a man
hold it to be indeed worthy of all acceptation, when he reads of a new birth
being indispensable; nor will he recoil, as many do, with sensitive dislike
from the doctrine of regeneration; nor will he look upon it in any other light,
than as the prescription of a wise physician, who has probed the patient's
disease to its bottom, and finds it to be indeed engrained among the first
elements of the constitution of our nature. He will rather do homage to the
penetration of this physician when he afiirms, that the fruit is corrupt, just
because the tree is corrupt; and that an operation must be gone through, far
more radical than any which lies within the compass of unaided humanity; that a
new creation must issue forth from Him, who holds the creative faculty
altogether in His own hands; that ere the fruit can be made good, the tree must
be made good.
And thus it is, that the man who looks to the fall in all
its consequences; and to the transmitted depravity of nature, running
throughout all the men of all the generations of our world; and to the utter
impossibility of this sore corruption being dislodged by the determining energy
of man's will, because the corruption has in fact got hold of the will itself,
and determines it only to evil and that continually - such a man no longer
marvels with the incredulity of Nicodemus, when he is told that flesh and blood
shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and that unless he is born again and born
of the Spirit, he never can see that kingdom.
Lastly, it may be replied,
What is to be done? To believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, is the thing that is
to be done. This is the specific, and that not for guilt merely, but also for
corruption. You may think it too simple an affair for landing you in so mighty
a consummation. Make it a more strenuous affair, by putting your own puny
efforts to the stretch of their uttermost activity, and you never will succeed.
The Syrian thought it too simple an affair, when asked to bathe in the waters
of Jordan for his leprosy. Nevertheless, he did it and his leprosy left him.
You will see God in a new light, if you look to Him as reflected from the glass
of the offered mediatorship. If we can turn you from the hatred of God to the
love of Him, this would be to regenerate you; and we ask you to look unto God
as God in Christ reconciling the world, and the change from hatred to love is
accomplished. Those dark clouds which have hitherto lowred upon you from the
pavilion of His lofty residence, will forthwith be dissipated. You will then
see that all majestic as He is, and awfully as that majesty has been
illustrated by the account that has been made for sin - yet there is a mercy
too, which shines forth in the midst of His other attributes, and rejoices over
them. You will love the God who first loved you; and that unfailing promise,
that He who gave His own Son, will also freely give us all things, shall so
invite the prayers and the dependence of every believing soul, that the Spirit
given to those who ask it, will be given unto him; and he, gradually formed
after the lost image of the Godhead, will become a new creature - meet for the
inheritance of the saints in light; meet for the enjoyment of that Paradise,
where sin and sorrow and suffering are unknown.
We have all along, upon
this subject, proceeded on the constitutional tendency that there is to sin in
our nature being one thing, and the guilt chargeable upon us for having such a
tendency being another. The question, how far a native and original depravity
exists among mankind, is one thing. The question, how far mankind are justly
liable to be reckoned with, or to be dealt with as responsible and worthy of
punishment for having such a tendency, is another. We have already spoken
abundantly to the fact of the actual depravity - announced to us most
explicitly in the Bible, and confirmed to us most entirely and universally by
personal observation. In as far as the doctrine of original sin affirms a
native disposition to sin, and a disposition so strong in all as that all are
sinners - then is the doctrine at one with experience. But in as far as the
doctrine affirms, that there is a blame or a demerit rightly attachable to man
for having such a disposition, or that he is to be held a guilty and condemned
creature on account of it - this is a question referable not to the experience
of man, but to the moral sense of man. The experience of man takes cognizance
of the question whether such a thing is; and so is applicable to the question
whether a depraved tendency to moral evil is or is not in the human
constitution. The moral sense of man takes cognizance of the question, whether
such a thing ought to be; and is therefore applicable to the question, whether
man ought to be held and dealt with as a criminal on account of a tendency
which came unbidden by him into the world - which entered among the first
elements of his constitution, without ever consulting him or asking any leave
from him upon the subject - which he derived, not by choice but by inheritance,
and over which he had no more control than he had over the properties of the
air which he breathed, or the milk which nourished him.
We feel that we
are touching on the borders of a very profound, and what to most is a very
unfathomable speculation - But yet we would not have ventured so far - had we
not both conceived it due to scriptural truth, which we think ought to be
firmly and fearlessly expounded, up to the full amount of all that is revealed
to us; and had we not furthermore conceived the whole exposure of our disease
and misery, to have a deciding in thence on him who still hesitates about the
remedy of the gospel - not very sure perhaps, whether he is altogether welcome
to the use of it; not very sure perhaps whether he altogether stands in urgent
and indispensable need of it. To determine the question then, in how far the
attaching of demerit to a sinful nature that man has brought with him into the
world is agreeable to the moral sense of mankind - we should enquire how much
or how little man requires to have within his view, ere his moral sense shall
pronounce on the character either of any act or of any disposition that is
submitted to his notice. One may see a dagger projected from behind a curtain,
and in the firm grasp of a human hand, and directed with sure and deadly aim
against the bosom of an unconscious sleeper; and, seeing no more, he would
infer of the individual who held this mortal weapon, that he was an assassin,
and that he deserved the death of an assassin. Had he seen all, he might have
seen that this seeming agent of the murder which had just been perpetrated, was
in fact a struggling and overpowered victim, in the hands of others - that he,
the friend of the deceased was pitched upon, in the spirit of diabolic cruelty,
as the unwilling instrument of the deed which he abhorred - that for this
purpose, the fatal knife was clasped or fastened to his hand; and his voice was
stifled by violence; and he was borne in deepest silence to the spot by the
strength of others; and there was he, in most revolting agony of heart,
compelled to thrust forward his passive or rather his resisting arm, and
immediately to strike the exterminating blow into the bosom of a much-loved
companion.
Who does not sce that the moral sense, when these new
circumstances come into view, would instantly amend or rather reverse, and that
totally, the former decision which it had passed upon the subject - that he,
whom it deemed the murderer and chargeable with all the guilt of so foul an
atrocity, it would most readily absolve from all the blame and all the
condemnation - that it would transfer the charge to those who were behind him,
and pronounce them to be the murderers - that he who held the dagger and
performed the deed -was innocent of all its turpitude, because the victim of a
necessity which he could not help, and against which he had wrought and
wrestled in vain and thus, ere it passes such a sentence as it feels to be
righteous, must it look not merely to the act but to the intention, not merely
to the work of the hand but to the will of the heart which prompted it.
Now if we have any right consciousness of our own moral feelings, or
any right observation of the moral feelings of others, the mind of man, in
order to be made up as to the moral character of any act that is submitted to
its notice, needs to know what the intention was that originated the act, but
needs no more. It makes no enquiry as to what that was which originated the
intention. Give it simply to understand, that such is the intention of a man
who is not under derangement, and therefore knows what he is purposing and what
he is doing; and then, without looking farther, the moral sense comes at once
to its summary estimate of the moral character of that which is under
contemplation. Let us see a man who has done a murderous act, in the
circumstances which we have just now specified; and we do not look upon him as
a criminal, because we find that the act originated in the will of others and
against his own will. Let us see a man who has done a murderous act, and was
instigated thereto by a murderous disposition, and we cannot help looking upon
him as a criminal - finding as we do that the act originated in his own will.
An act against the will indicates no demerit on the part of him who performed
it. But an act with the will gives us the full impression of demerit.
The philosopher may amuse himself with the ulterior query, What was it
that originated the will? But the peasant has no metaphysics and no speculation
for entertaining such a topic - And yet he has just as fresh and just as
enlightened a sense of the demerit of a bad action coming from a bad intention,
as the most appetite is ever carrying him upward curious and contemplative
enquirer has - whose the remote and hidden principles of the phenomena that are
around him To get a right estimate of any given act, we must carry up from the
act of the hand to the disposition of the heart; but we need to carry it up no
farther. The moment that the disposition is seen, the moral sense is
correspondingly affected; and rests its whole estimation, whether of merit or
of demerit, not on the anterior cause which gave origin to the disposition, but
on the character which it now bears, or the aspect under which it is now seen
and contemplated before you.
How the disposition got there is not the
question, which the moral sense of man, when he is unvitiated by a taste for
speculation, takes any concern in. It is enough for the moral sense, that the
disposition is there. One may conceive, with the Manicheans of old, two eternal
Beings- - one of whom was essentially wicked and malignant and impure, and the
other of whom was essentially good and upright and compassionate and holy from
everlasting. We could not tell how these opposite dispositions got there, for
there they hehoved to be from the unfathomable depths of the eternity that is
behind us - yet that would not hinder us from regarding the one as an object of
moral hatefulness and dislike, and the other as an object of moral esteem and
moral approbation. It is enough that the dispositions exist; and it matters not
how they originated, or if ever they had an origin at all.
And, in like
manner, give us two human individuals - one of whom is revengeful and dishonest
and profligate and sensual, and the other of whom is kind and generous and
honourable and godly - Our moral sense on the simple exhibition of these two
characters, leads us to regard the one as bhameable and the other as
praiseworthy - the one as rightly the object of condemnation and punishment,
and the other as rightly the object of approval and reward. And in so doing, it
does not look so far back, as to the primary or originating cause of the
distinction that obtains between these two characters. It looks as far back, as
to reach its contemplation from the act of the outer man to the disposition of
the inner man; but there it stops. Give to its view a wrong act originating in
a wrong intention; and it asks no more to make up its estimate of the
criminality of what has been offered to its notice. It troubles not itself with
the metaphysics of prior and originating causes; and, however the deed in
question may have originated, let it simply have emanated from a concurring
disposition on the part of him who has performed it, and be a deed of
wickedness - then does it conclude that the man has done wickedly and that he
should be dealt with accordingly.
We know very well what it is, that
stumbles so readily the speculative enquirer into this mystery. He thinks that
a man born with a sinful disposition, is born with the necessity of sinning;
and that to be under such a necessity, exempts him from all blame, and all
imputation of guiltiness in having sinned. But so long as he is under this
feeling, he is in fact, though not very conscious of the delusion, he is in
fact confounding two things which are distinct the one from the other. He is
confounding the necessity that is against the will, with the necessity that is
with the will. The man who struggled against the external force, that compelled
him to thrust a dagger into the bosom of his friend, was operated upon by a
necessity that was against his will; and you exempt him from all charge of
criminality in the matter. But he does the very same thing at the spontaneous
bidding of his own heart - whose will him to the act, and who gave his consent
his choice to this deed of enormity - this is whom, you irresistibly condemn,
and you irresistibly recoil from. With such a disposition as he had, it was
perhaps unavoidable; but the very having of such a disposition, makes him in
your eye a monster of moral deformity. If there was a kind of necessity here,
it was a necessity of an essentially different sort from the one we have just
now specified, and ought therefore not to be confounded with it. It is
necessity with the will, and not against it ; and by the law both of God and
man, the act he has committed is a crime and he is treated as a criminal.
The only necessity which excuses a man for doing what is evil, is a
necessity that forces him by an external violence to do it, against the bent of
his will struggling most honestly and determinedly to resist it. But if it be
with the bent of the will, if the necessity he lies under of doing the evil
thing consists in this, that his will is strongly and determinedly bent upon
the doing of it - then such a necessity as this, so far from extenuating the
man's guiltiness, just aggravates it the more, and stamps upon it, in all plain
moral estimation, a character of fouller atrocity. For set before us two
murderers, and the one of them differing from the other in the keenness and
intensity of his thirst for blood. We have already evinced to you, how there is
one species of necessity which extinguishes the criminality of the act
altogether - even that necessity which operates with violence upon the muscles
of the body, and overbears the moral desires and tendency of the mind.
But
there is another species of necessity, which heightens the criminality of
murder - even that necessity, which lies in the taste and tendency of the mind
towards this deed of unnatural violence. And if of these two assassins of the
cave or of the highway, the one was pointed out to us who felt the most
uncontrollable impulse towards so fell a perpetration ; and to whom the fears
and the cries and. the agonies of the trembling victim, ministered the most
savage complacency - he of the two, even in spite of the greater inward
necessity that lay upon him, he, in the breast of every plain and
unsophisticated man,would raise the sensations of keenest indignancy; and be
regarded by all as the one, whom the voice of justice most loudly demanded, as
a sacrifice to the peace and the protection of society.
It is enough
then that a disposition to moral evil exists ; and however it originated, the
dispositim in itself, with all the evil acts which emanate therefrom, calls
forth, by the law of our moral nature, a sentiment of blame or reprobation. It
may have been acquired by education; or it may have been infused into us by the
force of surrounding example ; or it may be the fruit, instead of the
principle, of many wilful iniquities of conduct ; or, finally, it may,
agreeably to the doctrine of original sin, have been as much transmitted in the
shape of a constitutional bias from father to son, as is the ferocity of a
tiger, or the industry of an ant, or the acidity of an apple, or the odour and
loveliness of a rose. When we look to the beauty of a flower, we feel touched
and attracted by the mere exhibition of the object - nor is it necessary that
we should know whence this property sprung into existence. \Vhen we taste the
sourness of a particular fruit, it matters not to the sensation, whether this
unpleasant quality is due to time training of the tree, or to some accident of
exposure it has met with, or finally to some inherent universal tendency
diffused over the whole species, and derived through seeds and acorns from the
trees of former generations. When assailed by the fury of some wild vindictive
animal, we meet it with the same resentment, and inflict upon it the same
chastisement or revenge - whether the malignant rage by which it is actuated,
be the sin of its nature derived to it from inheritance, or the sin of its
education derived to it from the perverse influence of the circumstances by
which it has been surrounded.
And lastly, when moral corruption is
offered to our notice in the character of man - when we see a depraved will
venting itself forth in deeds of depravity - when, in every individual we meet
with, we behold an ungodliness or a selfishness or a deceit or an impurity,
which altogether make the moral scenery of earth, so widely different from the
moral scenery of heaven - It positively makes no difference to your feeling of
loathsomeness and culpability, wherewith we regard it - whether the vitiating
taint rises anew on every single specimen of humanity; or whether it has run in
one descending current from the progenitor of our race, and thence spread the
leprosy of moral evil over all succeeding generations. The doctrine of original
sin leaves the distinction between virtue and vice just where it found it; nor
does it affect the sense of moral approbation wherewith we regard the former,
or the moral dislike and feeling of demerit in which the latter ought to be
regarded.
If it be asked how this can be, we reply that we do not know
- that so it is we know, but how it is we do not know. It is not the only
instance in which we are compelled to stop short at ultimate facts of which we
can offer no other explanation than that simply such is the case; or, rather,
it is like in this respect to every other department which nature and
experience offer to human contemplation. We can no more account for our
physical, than we can account for our moral sensations. When we eat the fruit
of the bitter orange- tree we feel the bitterness; but we do not know how this
sensation upon our palate, stands connected with a constitutional property in
the tree, which has descended to it through a long line of ancestry, or from
the creation of the world. And when we look to the bitter fruit of
transgression on the life and character of any individual of the human species,
and feel upon our moral sense a nauseating revolt from the odious spectacle -
we do not know how this impression upon the taste of the inner man, stands
connected with a natural tendency which is exemplified by all, and has been
derived through a series of many centuries from the parent stock of the great
human family. But certain it is that the origin of our depravity, has nothing
to do with the sense and feeling of its loathsomeness, wherewith we regard it.
And let that depravity have been transmitted to us from Adam, or be a kind of
spontaneous and independent production on each of his children - still we
cannot look to it without moral censure and moral condemnation.
There
is not a more effectual way of bringing this to the test, than by making one
man the object of injustice and of provocation from another man. Let a
neighbour inflict upon any of you some moral wrong or moral injury - will not
the quick and ready feeling of resentment rise immediately in your hearts? Will
you stop to enquire whence your enemy has derived the malice, or the
selfishness, under which you suffer? Is it not simply enough that he tramples
upon your rights and interests, and does so wilfully - is not this of itself
enough to call out the sudden reaction of an angry judgment, and a keen
retaliation upon your part? If it be under some necessity which operates
against his disposition, this may soften your resentment. But if it be under
that kind of necessity, which arises from the strength of his disposition to do
you harm - this, so far from softening, would just whet and stimulate your
resentment against him. So far from taking it as an apology, that lie is
forcibly constrained by the obstinate tendency of his will to injure and
oppress you - this would just add to the exasperation of your feelings; and the
more hearty a good-will you saw he had to hurt or to traduce or to defraud you,
the more in fact would you hold him to be the culpable subject of your most
just and righteous indignation. And thinkest thou, 0 man, who judgest another
for his returns of unworthiness to you - that thou wilt escape the judgment of
God, if thou makest the very same returns of unworthiness to Him? Out of your
own mouth you will be condemned; and if, out of the sin of his original nature,
your neighbour has ever done that which you felt to be injurious and at which
you were offended - then be assured that the plea of your original nature will
never shield you from the curse and the condemnation due to the sins, which
have emanated from that nature against God.
These remarks may prepare
the way for all that man by his moral sense can understand or go along with, in
the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to all his posterity. We confess
that we are not able to perceive, how one man is at all responsible for the
personal doings of another whom he never saw, and who departed this life many
centuries before him. But if the personal doings of a distant ancestor, have in
point of fact corrupted his moral nature; and if this corruption has been
transmitted to his descendants - then we can see how these become responsible,
not for what their forefather did, but for what they themselves under the
corrupt disposition that they have received from their forefather. And if there
be a guilt attachable to evil desires, as well as to evil doings; and if the
evil desire which prompted Adam to his first transgression, enter into the
nature of all his posterity - then we can see how his posterity should be the
objects of moral blame and moral aversion, if not on account of the
transgression which Adam committed, at least on account of such a wrong
principle in their hearts, as would lead every one of them to the very same
transgression in the very same circumstances. It is thus that Adam has
transmitted a guilt the same with his own, as well as a depravity the same with
his own, among all the individuals and families of our species - if not that
each of them is liable to a separate reckoning on account of the offence
committed in the garden of Eden, at least that each of them is liable to a
separate reckoning on account of his own separate and personal depravity - -a
depravity which had its rise in the offence that was then and there committed;
and a depravity which would lead in every one instance to the same offence in
the same circumstances of temptation.
According to this explanation,
every man still reapeth not what another soweth, but what he soweth himself.
Every man eateth the fruit of his own doings. Man beareth the burden of his own
tainted and accursed nature. Every man suffereth for his own guilt and not for
Adam's guilt; and if he is said to suffer for Adam's guilt, the meaning is-
that, from Adam he inherits a corruption which lands him in a guilt equal to
that of Adam. It were correct enough to say, that the sin of Cataline, that
great conspirator against the state, is imputable to an equally great
conspirator of the present day - not that he is at all responsible for what
Cataline did, but responsible for his own sin that was the same with that of
Cataline. And it would strengthen the resemblance, if it was the recorded
example of Cataline which filled him with a kindred disposition, and hurried
him on to a kindred enterprise. Then as Adam was thc eflicient cause of our
corruption, so Cataline was of his; but each suffers for the guilt of his own
sin nevertheless - a guilt the same with us as that of Adam's, and the same
with him as that of Cataline's.
Our Saviour cursed a fig-tree because of
its barrenness. Conceive a fig-tree to be cursed because of the bitterness of
its fruit. It is for its own bitter fruit, and not for the bitter fruit of its
first ancestor, that it is laid under the doom which has been pronounced upon
it. But still its first ancestor may have been a tree of sweetly-flavoured
fruit at its first formation; and a pestilential gust may have passed over and
tainted it; and it may, by the laws of physiological succession, have sent down
its deteriorated nature among all its posterity; and it may be true of each
individual descendant, that, while it is for its own qualities it is so loathed
and so condemned, still was it from its great originating parent that it
inherited the taint by which it has been vitiated, and the sentence by which it
has been accursed. Many, we are aware, carry the doctrine of imputation farther
than this; and make each of us liable to answer at the bar of God's judicature
for Adam's individual transgression. We shall only say of this view at present,
that, whether it be scriptural or not, we are very sure that we cannot follow
it by any sense of morality or rightfulness that is in our own heart. Still,
even on this highest imagination of the doctrine, we hold the way of God to
man, in all the bearings of this much agitated subject, to be capable of a most
full and tnumphant vindication; and with our attempt to evince this, we trust
we shall be able in one address more, to finish all that is general and
preliminary to the passage that is now before us.
When we next resume
this topic, we shall endeavour to silence the rising murmurs, which we doubt
not have been already felt in many a heart, on the hearing of the
representation that we have now given - to prove that there is not an
individual amongst us, who has a right to complain of the hardness or severity
of God's dealing with us - to come forth with that gospel, in the utterance of
which God may be said to wipe His hands of the blood of all who come within
reach of the hearing of it - and to neutralize all your complaints about the
curse and the corruption that have been entailed upon us, by lifting the
welcome invitation to every man, of a righteousness overpassing all that we
have lost, and of a grace that will restore us to a higher state of innocence
and glory than that from which we are now the sentenced and the exiled
wanderers.
Go to Lecture 25Go back to Romans index