網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

mitted a first sin; but that first sin has never been called, nor considered to be, an original sin. This phrase is properly applicable to no other sin, than that of Adam's eating the forbidden fruit. And that sin is properly called original, not because it was the first ever committed in this world, for Eve was first in transgression; nor simply because it was the first sin of the first man; but because it was that particular sin, upon which the moral character of all mankind was constitutionally suspended. According to the divine constitution, that sin alone was the occasion of all the future sinfulness of Adam, and Eve, and their whole posterity.

And since it is improper to call any sin original sin, but that first sin of Adam; it is equally improper to say, that any person ever committed, or was guilty of original sin, but the first man Adam. Though all men begin to sin, in consequence of original sin; yet their beginning to sin, is neither eating the forbidden fruit, nor consenting to eat it, nor doing any thing else, which resembles the first sin of Adam, any more than the first sin of any other man. The act and guilt of Adam's first transgression were his own, and never transferred to us. He committed and was guilty of original sin, and he alone. Though we have committed a multitude of other sins; yet we never committed that sin, nor stand in the least degree chargeable with it. To say, therefore, that all mankind are guilty of Adam's first transgression, is extremely absurd, and naturally tends to prejudice the minds of many against the true doctrine of original sin.

2. We learn from what has been said, that the true doctrine of original sin is clearly revealed in the Bible. This has often been called in question. Some suppose, if such an important doctrine were true, it

[ocr errors]

1

would have been much more frequently mentioned, and much more clearly revealed in Scripture. They imagine, there is no trait of it to be found, after the third chapter of Genesis, until we come to this: Epistle to the Romans, which is extremely obscure and hard to be understood. It is readily granted, that the idea, which some have formed of original sin, is no where revealed in the Bible. But that idea of it, which has been exhibited in this discourse, and which we conceive to be the only true idea, appears to run through all the books of the Old and New Testament. Upon the first offence of our first Parents, we read of God's providing a Savior, not only for them, but for their future posterity. Immediately after this, we find sacrifices were appointed, to prefigure a suffering Savior, and, through him, the pardoning mercy of God to all penitent sinners. Under the Law, circumcision was instituted, which plainly represented the native depravity of the human heart. This doctrine was uniformly taught by all the sacred Writers from Moses to Malachi. John the Baptist and Christ himself plainly and pointedly preached the same sentiment. Christ instituted the ordinance of Baptism, which signifies the "washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." Paul represents Adam and Christ as two public Heads of mankind; and plainly declares, that we became sinners, by the disobedience of the former, and may be saved from ruin, by the obedience of the latter: Christ is represented, in the New Testament, as the Savior provided for both Jews and Gentiles; and is expressly said to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. And the predictions concerning the future spread of the gospel, and the enlargement of the Redeemer's kingdom, carry the idea, that mankind will all be sinful, and need a Savior to

the end of time. In such a great variety of ways, is the constituted connexion between the first sin of Adam and the sinfulness of all mankind to the latest posterity, clearly revealed in the Bible. Neither the promises concerning the coming of Christ; nor the declarations concerning his design in coming; nor the descriptions of his sufferings and death; nor the positive institutions of the gospel, can be accounted for on any other ground, than that of Original sin. This doctrine lies at the foundation of all revealed religion; and to deny it, is virtually to deny the whole of divine Revelation. For if it had not been for the original sin of the first Man, there would have been no occasion for the sufferings and death of the second Man, who is the Lord from heaven.

3. There is no ground to suppose, from any thing which has been said in this discourse, that Adam knew, before the fall, that he was the public head of his posterity; or that his conduct should determine the moral state, in which they should come into existence. The divine prohibition and threatening were sufficient to acquaint him with his duty, and lay him under obligation to perform it. There appears to have been no more occasion for his knowing, that his sin would destroy his posterity; than for his knowing, that a divine Redeemer would come into the world to save them. God constituted the connexion between him and his posterity, to regulate his own conduct, and to accom. plish his own designs. And he might see a great impropriety, in acquainting him with his public capacity, before his first transgression. Our Savior concealed the knowledge of his character and sufferings, for a long time after he entered upon his public ministry, lest this knowledge should either retard or accelerate the event of his death. And God might foresee, that

it would frustrate his own designs, if he acquainted Adam with his public capacity, before he had actually involved himself and his posterity in ruin. Accordingly we find the first prohibition and threatening were directed to him personally. God says, "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." If we now search the Bible from beginning to end, we shall discover no intimation, that God informed Adam of his being placed as the public Head of his posterity, before he actually sinned, and exposed them all to the fatal effects of his first transgression. And since the Scriptures are entirely silent upon this point, it is by no means proper to take it for granted, and to reason from it as an established truth.

4. It appears from what has been said in this discourse, that God did no injustice to mankind, in appointing Adam their public Head. They have often complained of the injustice of God, on this account. But they never had the least foundation for this general complaint. It appears from what has been said, that the constituted connexion between Adam and his posterity, neither made his sin their sin; nor his guilt their guilt; nor exposed them to the least degree of punishment, on his account. There could be no injustice, therefore, in God's appointing Adam the public Head of his posterity. It is presumed, the general complaint of injustice has originated entirely from a false idea of the divine constitution, under which Adam was placed. God made that constitution to regulate his own conduct; and not to regulate the conduct of either Adam or his posterity. It was Adam's duty to obey the divine prohibition, whether he stood in a public or private capacity. And it is our duty to obey all the divine commands, notwithstanding his constituted relation to and connexion with us. The truth

f

is, there was neither justice, nor injustice, in God's appointing Adam our public Head. It was an act of mere Sovereignty. God, as a Sovereign, had as good a right, to make Adam the public Head of his posterity, as he had to make him at all, or to place him in the garden of Eden, or to determine a single circumstance of his life. And, as a Sovereign, he had as good a right to determine that his posterity should be sinners, in consequence of his first offence, as he had, to determine their numbers, their natural abilities, their outward circumstances, and their final state. There is neither justice, nor injustice, in God's determining what the moral characters of moral agents shall be; though there may be justice, or injustice, in his conduct towards them, after their moral characters are formed. The constitution, which connected Adam's sin with the sin of his posterity, was such a constitution as God had an original and sovereign right to make. For if he had a right to bring us into existence, he had an equal right to determine how he would bring us into existence, whether as single, detached individuals, like the angels; or as naturally and constitutionally connected with our first and great Progenitor. And since God had a sovereign right to place us under such a constitution, we have no right to call it unwise, unjust, or unkind.

5. It appears from what has been said, that our first Parent laid us under no necessity of sinning. If he had transmitted to us a corrupt nature, or a sinful prin ciple, we might have had some ground to suppose, that we were obliged to sin, by the fatal influence of his first transgression. But since that sin neither directly nor indirectly ever affected either our natural or moral faculties; it is certain, that we act as freely and voluntary in committing sin, as we could have done,

« 上一頁繼續 »