The great Christian doctrine of original sin defended
The great Christian doctrine of original sin defended; evidences of it's [sic] truth produced, and arguments to the contrary answered. Containing, in particular, a reply to the objections and arguings of Dr. John Taylor, in his book, entitled, "The Scripture-doctrine of original sin proposed to free and candid examination, &c. / By the late Reverend and learned Jonathan Edwards, president of the College of New-Jersey. ; [Thirteen lines of quotations]The great Christian doctrine of original sin defended; evidences of it's [sic] truth produced, and arguments to the contrary answered. Containing, in particular, a reply to the objections and arguings of Dr. John Taylor, in his book, intitled, "The Scripture-doctrine of original sin proposed to free and candid examination, &c. / By the late Reverend and learned Jonathan Edwards, president of the College of New-Jersey. ; [Thirteen lines of quotations]
Jonathan Edwards 1703–1758printed by S. Kneeland, 1758
[2], xviii, 386, [10] p. ; 21 cm. (4to and 8vo) · 140k words · Evans 8118
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Another Objection, which some have made against this Doctrine, much like the former, is, That it tends to beget in us an ill Opinion of our Fellow-creatures, and so to promote Ill-Nature and mutual Hatred.
To which I would say, If it be truly so, that we all come sinful into the World, then our heartily acknowledging it, tends to promote Humility: But our disowning that Sin and Guilt, which truly belongs to us, & endeavouring to persuade ourselves that we are vastly better than in Truth we are, tends to a foolish Self-Exaltation & Pride. ⟨p. 370⟩And 'tis manifest, by Reason, Experience, and the Word of God, that Pride is the chief Source of all the Contention, mutual Hatred, and Ill-Will, which are so prevalent in the World; and that Nothing so effectually promotes the contrary Tempers and Deportments, as Humility. This Doctrine teaches us to think no worse of others, than of our selves: It teaches us, that we are all, as we are by Nature, Companions in a miserable helpless Condition▪ which, under a Revelation of the divine Mercy, tends to promote mutual Compassion. And Nothing has a greater Tendency to promote those amiable Dispositions of Mercy, Forbearance, Long-suffering, Gentleness and Forgiveness, than a Sense of our own extreme Unworthiness & Misery, and the infinite Need we have of the divine Pity, Forbearance and Forgiveness, together with a Hope of obtaining Mercy.—If the Doctrine, which teaches that Mankind are corrupt by Nature, tends to promote Ill-will, why should not Dr. T—r's Doctrine tend to it as much? For he teaches us, that the Generality of Mankind are very wicked, having made themselves so by their own free Choice, without any Necessity: which is a Way of becoming wicked, that renders Men truly worthy of Resentment; but the other, not at all, even according to his own Doctrine.
To which I shall briefly say, Doubtless, supposing Men are really become sinful, and so exposed to the Displeasure of God, by whatever Means, if they once come to have their Eyes opened, and are not very stupid, the Reflection on their Case will tend to make them sorrowful; and 'tis fit, it should. Men, with whom this is the Case, may well be filled with Sorrow, till they are sincerely willing to forsake their Sins, and turn to God.—But there is Nothing in this Doctrine, that in the least stands ⟨p. 371⟩in the Way of Comfort and exceeding Joy, to such as find in their Hearts a sincere Willingness, wholly to forsake all Sin, and give their Hearts and whole Selves to Christ, and comply with the Gospel-Method of Salvation by him.
To which I shall briefly say, Doubtless, supposing Men are really become sinful, and so exposed to the Displeasure of God, by whatever Means, if they once come to have their Eyes open'd, and are not very stupid, the Reflection on their Case will tend to make them sorrowful; and 'tis fit, it should. Men, with whom this is the Case, may well be fill'd with Sorrow, till they are sincerely willing to forsake their Sins, and turn to God.—But there is Nothing in this Doctrine, that in the least stands ⟨p. 371⟩in the Way of Comfort and exceeding Joy, to such as find in their Hearts a sincere Willingness, wholly to forsake all Sin, and give their Hearts and whole Selves to Christ, and comply with the Gospel-Method of Salvation by him.
Another Thing objected, is, That to make Men believe that Wickedness belongs to their very Nature. tends to encourage them in Sin, and plainly to lead them to all Manner of Iniquity; because they are taught, that Sin is natural, and therefore necessary and unavoidable*
But if this Doctrine, which teaches that Sin is natural to us, does also at the same Time teach us, that it is never the better, or less to be condemned, for its being natural, then it don't at all encourage Sin, any more than Dr. T—r's Doctrine encourages Wickedness that is become inveterate; who teaches, that such as by Custom have contracted strong Habits of Sin, are unable to help themselves. †—And is it reasonable, to represent it as encouraging a Man's boldly neglecting and wilfully continuing in his Disease, without seeking a Cure, to tell him of his Disease, to show him that his Disease is real and very fatal, and what he can never cure himself of; yet withal directing him to a great Physician, who is sufficient for his Restoration?—But for a more particular Answer to what is objected against the Doctrine of our natural Impotence and Inability, as being an Encouragement to go on in Sin, and a Discouragement to the Use of all Means for our Help, I must for Brevity refer the Reader to what has been largely written on this Head in my Discourse on the Freedom of the Will.
But if this Doctrine, which teaches that Sin is natural to us, does also at the same Time teach us, that it is never the better, or less to be condemned, for its being natural, then it don't at all encourage Sin, any more than Dr. T—r's Doctrine encourages Wickedness that is become inveterate; who teaches, that such as by Custom have contracted strong Habits of Sin, are unable to help themselves. †—And is it reasonable, to represent it as encouraging a Man's boldly neglecting and wilfully continuing in his Disease, without seeking a Cure, to tell him of his Disease, to shew him that his Disease is real and very fatal, and what he can never cure himself of; yet withal directing him to a great Physician, who is sufficient for his Restoration?—But for a more particular Answer to what is objected against the Doctrine of our natural Impotence and Inability, as being an Encouragement to go on in Sin, and a Discouragement to the Use of all Means for our Help, I must for Brevity refer the Reader to what has been largely written on this Head in my Discourse on the Freedom of the Will.
†See his Exposition of Rom. vii. P. 2•5,—220. But especially in his Paraphrase and Note• on the Epistle.See his Exposition of Rom. vii. P. 2•5,—220. But especially in his Paraphrase and Note• on the Epi••le.
Our Author is pleased to advance another Notion, among others, by Way of Objection against the Doctrine of original Sin; That if this Doctrine be true, it would be unlawful to beget Children. He says, ‖If natural Generation be the Means of unavoidably conveying all ⟨p. 372⟩Sin and Wickedness into the World, it must it self be a sinful, and unlawful Thing.—Now, if there be any Force of Argument here, it lies in this Proposition, Whatsoever is a Means or Occasion of the certain infallible Existence of Sin and Wickedness, must itself be sinful. But I imagine Dr. T. had not thoroughly weighed this Proposition, nor considered where it would carry him. For, God's continuing in Being the Devil, and others that are finally given up to Wickedness, will be attended, most certainly and infallibly, with an eternal Series of the most hateful and horrid Wickedness. But will any be guilty of such vile Blasphemy, as to say, Therefore God's upholding them in Being is it self a sinful Thing?—In the same Place our Author says, "So far as we are generated in Sin, it is a Sin to be generated." [Probably he intended the active Voice.] But there is no Appearance of Evidence in that Position, any more than in This; So far as any is upheld in Existence in Sin▪ 'tis a Sin to uphold them in Existence. Yea, if there were any Reason in the Case, it would be strongest in the latter Position: For Parents, as Dr. T. himself observes, are not the Authors of the Beginning of Existence: Whereas, God is truly the Author of the Continuance of Existence. As 'tis the known Will of God, to continue Satan and Millions of others in Being, tho' the most sure Consequence is the Continuance of a vast infernal World, full of everlasting hellish Wickedness: so 'tis Part of the revealed Will of God, that this World of Mankind should be continued, and the Species propagated, for his own wise and holy Purposes; which Will is complied with by the Parents joined in lawful Marriage. Whose Children, though they come into the World in Sin, yet are capable Subjects of eternal Holiness and Happiness: Which infinite Benefits for their Children, Parents have great Reason to encourage a Hope of, in the Way of giving up their Children to God in Faith, through a Redeemer, and bringing them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. I think, this may be Answer enough to such a Cavil.
Another Objection is, That the Doctrine of original Sin is no oftener, and no more plainly spoken of in Scripture; it being, if true, a very important Doctrine. Dr. T. in many Parts of his Book suggests to his Readers, that there are very few Texts, in the whole Bible, wherein there is the least Appearance of their teaching any such Doctrine.
Another Objection is, That the Doctrine of original Sin is no oftner, and no more plainly spoken of in Scripture; it being, if true, a very important Doctrine. Dr. T. in many Parts of his Book suggests to his Readers, that there are very few Texts, in the whole Bible, wherein there is the least Appearance of their teaching any such Doctrine.
Of this I took Notice before, but would here say further; That the Reader who has perused the pr•c•ding Defence of this Doctrine, must now be left to judge for himself, whether there be any Ground for such an Allegation; whether there be not Texts in sufficient Number, both in the old Testament and new, that exhibit undeniable Evidence of this great Article of Christian Divinity; and whether it be not a Doctrine taught in the Scripture with great Plainness. I think, there are few, if any, Doctrines of Revelation, taught more plainly and expressly. Indeed it is taught in a more and explicit Manner in the New-Testament, than the Old: Which is not to be wondered at; it being thus with respect to all the most important Doctrines of revealed Religion.
Of this I took Notice before, but would here say further; That the Reader who has perused the pr•c•ding Defence of this Doctrine, must now be left to judge for himself, whether there be any Ground for such an Allogation; whether there be not Texts in sufficient Number, both in the old Testament and new, that exhibit undeniable Evidence of this great Article of Christian Divinity; and whether it be not a Doctrine taught in the Scripture with great Plainness. I think, there are few, if any, Doctrines of Revelation, taught more plainly and expresly. Indeed it is taught in a more and explicit Manner in the New-Testament, than the Old: Which is not to be wonder'd at; it being thus with respect to all the most important Doctrines of reveal'd Religion.
But if it had been so, that this Doctrine were rarely taught in Scripture; yet if we find that it is indeed a Thing declared to us by God, if there be good Evidence of its being held forth to us by any Word of his, then what belongs to us, is, to believe his Word,& receive the Doctrine which he teaches us; and not, instead of this, to prescribe to him how often he shall speak of it, and to insist upon knowing what Reasons he has for speaking of it no oftener, before we will receive what he teaches us; or that he should give us an Account, why he did not speak of it so plainly as we think he ought to have done, sooner than he did. In this Way of Proceeding, if it be reasonable, the Sadducees of old, who denied any Resurrection or future State, might have maintained their Cause against Christ, when he blamed 'em for not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God: and for not understanding by the Scripture, that there would be a Resurrection to spiritual Enjoyment, and not to animal Life, and sensual ⟨p. 374⟩Gratifications; and they might have insisted, that these Doctrines, if true, were very important, and therefore ought to have been spoken of in the Scriptures oftener and more explicitly, and not that the Church of God should be left, till that Time, with only a few obscure Intimations of that which so infinitely concerned them. And they might with Disdain have rejected Christ's Argument, by Way of Inference, from God's calling himself, in the Books of Moses, the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For Answer, they might have said, That Moses was sent on Purpose to teach the People the Mind and Will of God; and therefore, if these Doctrines were true, he ought in Reason and in Truth to have taught them plainly and frequently, and not have left the People to spell out so important a Doctrine, only from God's saying, that he was the God of Abraham, &c.
But if it had been so, that this Doctrine were rarely taught in Scripture; yet if we find that it is indeed a Thing declared to us by God, if there be good Evidence of its being held forth to us by any Word of his, then what belongs to us, is, to believe his Word,& receive the Doctrine which he teaches us; and not, instead of this, to prescribe to him how often he shall speak of it, and to insist upon knowing what Reasons he has for speaking of it no oftner, before we will receive what he teaches us; or that he should give us an Account, why he did not speak of it so plainly as we think he ought to have done, sooner than he did. In this Way of Proceeding, if it be reasonable, the Sadducees of old, who denied any Resurrection or future State, might have maintained their Cause against Christ, when he blamed 'em for not knowing the Scrip•ures, nor the Power of God: and for not understanding by the Scripture, that there would be a Resurrection to spiritual Enjoyment, and not to animal Life, and sensual ⟨p. 374⟩Gratifications; and they might have insisted, that these Doctrines, if true, were very important, and therefore ought to have been spoken of in the Scriptures oftner and more explicitly, and not that the Church of God should be left, till that Time, with only a few obscure Intimations of that which so infinitely concerned them. And they might with Disdain have rejected Christ's Argument, by Way of Inference, from God's calling himself, in the Books of Moses, the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For Answer, they might have said, That Moses was sent on Purpose to teach the People the Mind and Will of God; and therefore, if these Doctrines were true, he ought in Reason and in Truth to have taught them plainly and frequently, and not have left the People to spell out so important a Doctrine, only from God's saying, that he was the God of Abraham, &c.
One great End of the Scripture is, to teach the World what Manner of Being GOD is; about which the World, without Revelation, has been so woefully in the dark: And that God is an infinite Being, is a Doctrine of great Importance, and a Doctrine sufficiently taught in the Scripture. But yet, it appears to me, this Doctrine is not taught there, in any Measure, with such Explicitness and Precision, as the Doctrine of original Sin: and the Socinians, who deny God's Omnipresence and Omniscience, have left 'em as much Room for Cavil, as the Pelagians, who deny original Sin
One great End of the Scripture is, to teach the World what Manner of Being GOD is; about which the World, without Revelation, has been so wofully in the dark: And that God is an infinite Being, is a Doctrine of great Importance, and a Doctrine sufficiently taught in the Scripture. But yet, it appears to me, this Doctrine is not taught there, in any Measure, with such Explicitness and Precision, as the Doctrine of original Sin: and the Socinians, who deny God's Omnipresence and Omniscience, have left 'em as much Room for Cavil, as the Pelagians, who deny original Sin
Dr. T. particularly urges, That Christ says not one Word of this Doctrine throughout the four Gospels; which Doctrine, if true, being so important, and what so nearly concerned the great Work of Redemption, which he came to work out (as is supposed) one would think, it should have been emphatically spoken of in every Page of the Gospels.*
In Reply to this, it may be observed, that by the Account given in the four Gospels, Christ was continually ⟨p. 375⟩saying those Things which plainly implied, that all Men in their original State are sinful and miserable. As, when he declared, that they which are whole, need not a Physician, but they which are sick; *—That he came to seek and to save that which was lost; †—That it was necessary for all to be born again, and to be converted, and that otherwise they could not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; ‖—and, That all were Sinners, as well as those whose Blood Pilate mingled with their Sacrifices, &c. and that every one who did not repent, should perish; ‡—Withal directing every one to pray to God for Forgiveness of Sin; **—Using our Nece••••y of Forgiveness from God, as an Argument with all to forgive the Injuries of their Neighbours; ††—Teaching, that earthly Parents, though kind to their Children, are in themselves evil; ‖ ‖—And signifying, that Things carnal and corrupt are properly the Things of Men; ‡‡—Warning his Disciples rather to beware of Men, than of wild Beasts;*—Often representing the WORLD as evil, as wicked in its Works, at Enmity with Truth and Holiness, and hating him; †—Yea, and teaching plainly, that all Men are extremely and inexpressibly sinful, owing ten Thousand Talents to their divine Creditor.**
And whether Christ did not plainly teach Nicodemus the Doctrine of original total Depravity, when he came to him to know what his Doctrine was, must be left to the Reader to judge, from what has been already observed on Joh. iii. 1,—11. And besides, Christ in the Course of his Preaching took the most proper Method to convince Men of the Corruption of their Nature,& to give them an effectual and practical Knowledge of it, in Application to themselves, in particular, by teaching and urging the holy and strict Law of God, in it's Extent and Spirituality and ⟨p. 376⟩dreadful Threatenings: Which, above all things, tends to search the Hearts of Men, & to teach them their inbred exceeding Depravity; not merely as a Matter of Speculation, but by proper Conviction of Conscience; which is the only Knowledge of original Sin, that can avail to prepare the Mind for receiving Christ's Redemption; as a Man's Sense of his own Sickness prepares him to apply in good Earnest to the Physician.
And whether Christ did not plainly teach Nicodemus the Doctrine of original total Depravity, when he came to him to know what his Doctrine was, must be left to the Reader to judge, from what has been already observed on Joh. iii. 1,—11. And besides, Christ in the Course of his Preaching took the most proper Method to convince Men of the Corruption of their Nature,& to give them an effectual and practical Knowledge of it, in Application to themselves, in particular, by teaching and urging the holy and strict Law of God, in it's Extent and Spirituality and ⟨p. 376⟩dreadful Threatnings: Which, above all things, tends to search the Hearts of Men, & to teach them their inbred exceeding Depravity; not meerly as a Matter of Speculation, but by proper Conviction of Conscience; which is the only Knowledge of original Sin, that can avail to prepare the Mind for receiving Christ's Redemption; as a Man's Sense of his own Sickness prepares him to apply in good Earnest to the Physician.
And as to Christ's being no more frequent and particular in mentioning and inculcating this Point in a doctrinal Manner, 'tis probable, one Reason to be given for it, is the same that is to be given for his speaking no oftener of God's creating the World: Which, though so important a Doctrine, is scarce ever spoken of in any of Christ's Discourses: and no Wonder, seeing this was a Matter which the Jews, to whom he confined his personal Ministry, had all been instructed in from their Forefathers, and never was called in Question among them. And there is a great deal of Reason. from the ancient Jewish Writers, to suppose, that the Doctrine of original Sin had ever been allowed in the open Profession of that People: *though they ⟨p. 377⟩were generally, in that corrupt Time, very far from a practical Conviction of it; and many Notions were then prevalent, especially among the Pharisees, which were indeed inconsistent with it. And though on Account of these Prejudices they might need to have this Doctrine explained and applied to them, yet 'tis well known, by all acquainted with their Bibles, that Christ, for wise Reasons, spake more ⟨p. 378⟩sparingly and obscurely of several of the most important Doctrines of revealed Religion, relating to the Necessity Grounds, Nature and Way of his Redemption, and the Method of the Justification of Sinners, while he lived […] in the Flesh; and left these Doctrines to be more plainly and fully opened and inculcated by the Holy Spirit, after his Ascension.
And as to Christ's being no more frequent and particular in mentioning and inculcating this Point in a doctrinal Manner, 'tis probable, one Reason to be given for it, is the same that is to be given for his speaking no oftner of God's creating the World: Which, thô so important a Doctrine, is scarce ever spoken of in any of Christ's Discourses: and no Wonder, seeing this was a Matter which the Jews, to whom he confined his personal Ministry, had all been instructed in from their Forefathers, and never was called in Question among them. And there is a great deal of Reason. from the ancient Jewish Writers, to suppose, that the Doctrine of original Sin had ever been allowed in the open Profession of that People: *thô they ⟨p. 377⟩were generally, in that corrupt Time, very far from a practical Conviction of it; and many Notions were then prevalent, especially among the Pharisees, which were indeed inconsistent with it. And thô on Account of these Prejudices they might need to have this Doctrine explain'd and apply'd to them, yet 'tis well known, by all acquainted with their Bibles, that Christ, for wise Reasons, spake more ⟨p. 378⟩sparingly and obscurely of several of the most important Doctrines of reveal'd Religion, relating to the Necessity Grounds, Nature and Way of his Redemption, and the Method of the Justification of Sinners, while he lived 〈…〉 in the Flesh; and left these Doctrines to be more plainly and fully opened and inculcated by the Holy Spirit, after his Ascension.
*What is found in the more ancient of the Jewish Rabbis, who have wrote since the Coming of Christ, is an Argument of this. Many Things of this Sort are taken Notice of by Stapserus, in his Theolegia Polemica before mentioned. Some of these things which are there cited by him in Latin, I shall here faithfully give in English, for the sake of the English Reader. —So Manasseh, concerning human Frailty, Pag. 129.—Gen. viii. 21. I will not any more curse the Earth for Man's Sake; for the Appetite of Man is evil from his Youth; that is, from the Time when he comes forth from his Mother's Womb. For at the same Time that he lucks the Breasts, he follows his Lust; and while he is yet an Infant, he is under the Dominion of Anger, Envy, Hatred and other Vices to which that tender Age is obnoxious.—Prov. xxii. 15. Solomon says, Foolishness is b•und to the Mind of a Child. Concerning which Place R. Levi Ben. Gerson observes thus, "Foolishness as it were grows to him in his very Beginning." Concerning this Sin, which is common and original to all Men, David said, Psal. li. 7. Behold, I was begotten in Iniquity, and in Sin did my Mother warm me. Upon which Place Eben-Ezra says thus; Behold, because of the Concupiscence which is innate in the Heart of Man, it is said, I am begotten in in Iniquity. And the Sense is, that there is implanted in the Heart of Man Jetzer harang, an evil Figment, from his Nativity. And Manasseh Ben. Israel, de Fragil. Pag. 2. Behold, I we formal in Iniquity, and in Sin hath my Mother warmed me. But whether this be understood concerning the common Mother, which was Eve, or whether David spake only of his own Mother, he would signify, that Sin is as it were natural, and inseparable in this Life. For it is to be observed, that Eve conceived after the Transgression was committed; and as many as were begotten afterwards, were not brought forth in a Conformity to the Rule of right Reason, but in Conformity to disorderly and lustful Affections. He adds, One of the wise Men of the Jews, namely, R. Aba, rightly observ'd, David would signify, that it is impossible, even for pious Men, who excel in Virtue, never to commit any Sin. Job also asserts the same Thing with David, Chap. xiv. 4. saying, Who will give a dare Thing from an unclean? Truly not one. Concerning which Words Aben-Ezra says thus; The Sense is the same with that, I was begotten in Iniquity, because Man is made out of an unclean Thing.—St•pferus, •h•olog. Polem. Tom. iii. P. 36, 37. Id.Ibid. P. 132.&c. So Sal Jarchi ad Gemaram, Cod. Schabbath, Fol. 142. Pag. 2. And this is not only to be refer'd to Sinners; because all the Posterity of the first Man are in like Manner subjected to all the Curses pronounced on him. And Manasseh Ben. Israel, in his Preface to Human Frailty, says I had a Mind to show by what Means it came to pass, that when the first Father of all had lost his Righteousness, his Posterity are begotten liable to the same Punishment with him.—And Munsterus on the Gospel of Matthew cites the following Words, from the Book called The Bundle of Myrrh: The Blessed Lord said to the first Man, when he cursed him, Thorns and Thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the Herb of the Field. The thing which he means, is, That because of his Sin all who should descend from him, should be wicked and perverse, like Thorns and Thistles; according to that Word of the Lord, speaking to the Prophet; Thorns and Irritators are with thee, and thou dwellest among Scorpions. And all this is from the Serpent, who was the Devil, Sam-macl, who emitted a mortiferous and corruptive Poison into Eve, and became the Cause of Death to Adam himself, when he eat the Fruit.—Remarkable is the Place quoted in Joseph de Voisin, against Martin Raymund, P. 471. of Master Menachem Raanatensis, Sect. Bereseit, from Midrasch Thillim; which is cited by Hoornbekius, against the Jews, in these Words; 'Tis no Wonder, that the Sin of Adam and Eve is written and sealed with the King's Ring, and to be propagated to all following Generations; because on the Day that Adam was created, all things were finished; so that he stood forth the Perfection and Completion of the whole Workmanship of the World: So when he sinned, the whole World sinned; whose Sin we bear and suffer. But the Matter is not thus with respect to the Sins of his Posterity.—Thus far Stapferus. Besides these, as Ainsworth on
But if after all, Christ did not speak of this Doctrine often enough to suit Dr. T—r, he might be asked, Why he supposes Christ did no oftener, and no more plainly teach some of his (Dr. T—r's) Doctrines, which he so much insists on? As, That temporal Death comes on all Mankind by Adam; and, That it comes on them by him, not as a Punishment or Calamity, but as a great Favour, being ⟨p. 380⟩made a rich Benefit, and a Fruit of God's abundant Grace, by Christ's Redemption, who came into the World as a second Adam for this End. Surely, if this were so, it was of vast Importance, that it should be known to the Church of God in all Ages, who saw Death reigning over Infants, as well as others. If Infants were indeed perfectly innocent, was it not needful, that the Design of that which ⟨p. 381⟩was such a melancholy and awful Dispensation towards so many Millions of innocent Creatures, should be known, in order to prevent the worst. Thoughts of God from arising in the Minds of the constant Spectators of so mysterious and gloomy a Dispensation? But why then such a total Silence about it, for four Thousand Years together, ⟨p. 382⟩and not one Word of it in all the old Testament; nor one Word of it in all the four Gospels; and indeed not one Word of it in the whole Bible, but only as forced and wrung out by Dr. T—r's Arts of Criticism & Deduction, against the plainest and strongest Evidence!
The author
Jonathan Edwards 1703–1758
EvangelicalsNew England
Minister at Northampton; theologian of the Great Awakening.
. observes, In Bereshith Rabba (a Hebrew Commentary on this Place) a Rabbin is said to be asked, when is the evil Imagination put into Man? And he answered, From the Hour that he is formed. And in Pool's Synopsis it is added, from Grotius, So Rabbi Solomon interpret, Con. viii 21. The Imagination of Man's Heart is evil from his Youth, of its being evil from the time that he is taken out of his Mother's Bowels. Aben-Ezra thus interprets
. I was shapen in Iniquity, and in Sin dia my Mother conceive me; That evil Concupiscence is implanted in the Heart from Childhood, as if he were formed in it; and by my Mother, he understands Eve, who did not bear Children till she had sin'd. And so Kafvenaki says, How shall I avoid sinning? My Original is corrupt, and from thence are those Sins. So Manasseh Ben. Israel, from this Place (
.) concludes, that not only David, but all Mankind, ever since Sin was introduced into the World, do sin from their Original. To this Purpose is the Answer of Rabbi Hakkad•s•h, which there is an Account of in the Talmud. From what Time does Concupiscence rule over Man? From the very Moment of his first Formation, or from his Nativity? Ans. From his Formation. —Pool's Syn•ps. in Loc. On these things I observe, there is the greatest Reason to suppose, that these old Rabbis of the Jewish Nation, who gave such Heed to the Tradition of the E••ers, would never have received this Doctrine of original Sin, had it not been delivered down to 'em from their Forefathers. For it is a Doctrine very disagreeable to those practical Principles and Notions, wherein the Religion of the unbelieving Jews most fundamentally differs from the Religion manintained among Christians: particularly their Notion of Justification by their own Righteousness, and Privileges as the Children of Abraham, &c. without standing in Need of any Satisfaction, by the Sufferings of the Messiah. On which Account the modern Jews do now universally reject the Doctrine of original Sin, and Corruption of Nature; as Stapferns observes. And it is not at all likely, that the ancient Jews, if no such Doctrine had been received by Tradition from the Fathers, would have taken it up from the Christian, whom they had in such great Contempt and Enmity; especially as it is a Doctrine so peculiarly agreeable to the Christian Notion of the spiritual Salvation of Jesus, and so contrary to their carnal Notions of the Messiah, and of his Salvation and Kingdom, and so contrary to their Opinion of themselves; and a Doctrine, which Men in general are so apt to be prejudiced against. And besides, these Rabbis do expressly refer to the Opinion of their Forefathers; as, R. Manasseh says, Accroding to the Opinion of the ANCIENTS, none are subject to Death, but those which have sin'd: for where there is no Sin, there is no Death. Stapfer. Tom. iii. P. 37, 38. But we have more direct Evidence, that the Doctrine of original Sin was truly a received Doctrine amongst the ancient Jews, even before the coming of Christ. This appears by ancient Jewish Writings, which were written before Christ; as, in the Apocrypha, 2. Esdras iii. 21. For the first Adam, having a wicked Heart, transgressed, and was overcome: and so be all they that be born of him. Thus Infirmity was made permanent; and the Law also in the Heart of the People, with the Malignity of the Root; so that the Good departed away, and the Evil abode still.—2 Esdras iv. 30. For the Grain of evil Seed hath been sown in the Heart of Adam, from the Beginning; and how much Ungodliness; hath it brought forth unto this Time? And how much shall it yet bring forth, till the time of threshing shall come? And Chap. vii. 46. It had been better, not to have given the Earth to Adam; or else, when it was given, to have restra••'d him from sinning: for what Profit is it, for Man now in this present Time, to live in Heaviness, and after Death, to look for Punishment? O thou Adam, what hast thou done! For though it was thou that sinned, thou art not fallen alone, but we all that come of thee. And we read, Ecclus. xxv. 24. Of the Women came the Beginning of Sin, and through her we all die. As this Doctrine of original Corruption was constantly maintained in the Church of God from the Beginning's so from thence, in all Probability, as well as from the Evidence of it in universal Experience, it was, that the wiser Heathen maintained the like Doctrine. Particularly Plate, that great Philosopher, so distinguished for his Veneration of ancient Traditions, and diligent Inquiries after them. Goal, in his Court of the Gentiles, observes as follows; PLATO says (Gorg. Fol. 493.) I have heard from the wise Men, that we are now dead, and that the Body is but our Sepulchre. And in his Timoeus Locrus (Fol. 10•.) he says, The C••se of Vitiosity is from our Parents, and first Principles, rather than from ourselves. So that we never relinquish those actions, which lead us to follow these primitive Blemishes of our FIRST PARENTS.—Plato mentions the corruption of the Will, and seems to disown any Free-Will to true Good, albeit he allows some […], or natural Dispositions, to civil Good, in some great Heroes.—SOCRATES asserted the Corruption of human Nature, or [Greek or Hebrew]—Grotius affirms, that the Philosophers acknowledged, it was own natural to Men, to sin. SENECA (Benef. 5. 14.) says, Wickedness has not it's first Beginning in wicked Practice; though by that it is first exercised and made manifest.—And PLUTARCH (de Sera vindicta) says, Man does not first become wicked, when he first manifests himself so: but he hath Wickedness from the Beginning; and he shows it as soon as he finds Opportunity & Ability. As Men Rightly judge, that the Sting is not first ingender'd in Scorpions […] they strike, or the Poison in Vipers when they bite.—Pool's […]. on
. To which may be subjoined what JUVENAL says, —Ad Mores Natura recurrit damnatos, fixa et mutari nescit. Englished thus, in Prose; NATURE, a Thing fix'd and not knowing how to change, returns to its wicked Manners.— WATTS, Ruin and Recovery.
What is found in the more antient of the Jewish Rabbies, who have wrote since the Coming of Christ, is an Argument of this. Many Things of this Sort are taken Notice of by Stapserus, in his Theolegia Polemica before mentioned. Some of these things which are there cited by him in Latin, I shall here faithfully give in English, for the sake of the English Reader. —So Menasseh, concerning human Frailty, Pag. 129.—Gen. viii. 21. I will not any more curse the Earth for Man's Sake; for the Appetite of Man is evil from his Youth; that is, from the Time when he comes forth from his Mother's Womb. For at the same Time that he lucks the Breasts, he follows his Lust; and while he is yet an Infant, he is under the Dominion of Anger, Envy, Hatred and other Vices to which that tender Age is obnoxious.—Prov. xxii. 15. Solomon says, Foolishness is b•und to the Mind of a Child. Concerning which Place R. Levi Ben. Gerson observes thus, "Foolishness as it were grows to him in his very Beginning." Concerning this Sin, which is common and original to all Men, David said, Psal. li. 7. Behold, I was begotten in Iniquity, and in Sin did my Mother warm me. Upon which Place Eben-Ezra says thus; Behold, because of the Concupiscence which is innate in the Heart of Man, it is said, I am begotten in in Iniquity. And the Sense is, that there is implanted in the Heart of Man Jetzer harang, an evil Figment, from his Nativity. And M•nasseh Ben. Israel, de Fragil. Pag. 2. Behold, I we formal in Iniquity, and in Sin hath my Mother warmed me. But whether this be understood concerning the common Mother, which was Eve, or whether David spake only of his own Mother, he would signify, that Sin is as it were natural, and inseparable in this Life. For it is to be observed, that Eve conceived after the Transgression was committ•d; and as many as were begotten afterwards, were not brought forth in a Conformity to the Rule of right Reason, but in Conformity to disorderly and lustful Affections. He adds, One of the wise Men of the Jews, namely, R. Aba, rightly observ'd, David would signify, that it is impossible, even for pious Men, who excel in Virtue, never to commit any Sin. Job also asserts the same Thing with David, Chap. xiv. 4. saying, Who will give a dare Thing from an unclean? Truly not one. Concerning which Words Aben-Ezra says thus; The Sense is the same with that, I was begotten in Iniquity, because Man is made out of an unclean Thing.—St•pferus, •h•olog. Polem. Tom. iii. P. 36, 37. Id.Ibid. P. 132.&c. So Sal Jarchi ad Gemaram, Cod. Schabbath, Fol. 142. Pag. 2. And this is not only to be refer'd to Sinners; because all the Posterity of the first Man are in like Manner subjected to all the Curses pronounced on him. And Menasseh Ben. Israel, in his Preface to Human Frailty, says I had a Mind to shew by what Means it came to pass, that when the first Father of all had lost his Righteousness, his Posterity are begotten liable to the same Punishment with him.—And Munsterus on the Gospel of Matthew cites the following Words, from the Book called The Bundle of Myrrh: The Blessed Lord said to the first Man, when he cursed him, Thorns and Thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the Herb of the Field. The thing which he means, is, That because of his Sin all who should descend from him, should be wicked and perverse, like Thorns and Thistles; according to that Word of the Lord, speaking to the Prophet; Throns and Irritators are with thee, and thou dwellest among Scorpions. And all this is from the Serpent, who was the Devil, Sam-macl, who emitted a mortiferous and corruptive Poison into Eve, and became the Cause of Death to Adam himself, when he eat the Fruit.—Remarkable is the Place quoted in Joseph de Voisin, against Martin Raymund, P. 471. of Master Menachem Ra•anatensis, Sect. Berese•it, from Midrasch T•hillim; which is cited by Hoornbekius, against the Jews, in these Words; 'Tis no Wonder, that the Sin of Adam and Eve is written and sealed with the King's Ring, and to be propagated to all following Generations; because on the Day that Adam was created, all things were finished; so that he stood forth the Perfection and Completion of the whole Workmanship of the World: So when he sinned, the whole World sinned; whose Sin we bear and suffer. But the Matter is not thus with respect to the Sins of his Posterity.—Thus far Stapferus. Besides these, as Ainsworth on Gen. 8. 2. observes, In Bereshith Rabba (a Hebrew Commentary on this Place) a Rabbin is said to be asked, when is the evil Imagination put into Man? And he answered, From the Hour that he is formed. And in Pool's Synopsis it is added, from Grotius, So Rabbi Salomon interpret, Con. viii 21. The Imagination of Man's Heart is evil from his Youth, of its being evil from the time that he is taken out of his Mother's Bowels. Aben-Ezra thus interprets Psal. li. 5. I was shapen in Iniquity, and in Sin dia my Mother conceive me; That evil Concupiscence is implanted in the Heart from Childhood, as if he were formed in it; and by my Mother, he understands Eve, who did not bear Children till she had sin'd. And so Kafvenaki says, How shall I avoid sinning? My Original is corrupt, and from thence are those Sins. So Manasseh Ben. Israel, from this Place (Psal. li. 5.) concludes, that not only David, but all Mankind, ever since Sin was introduced into the World, do sin from their Original. To this Purpose is the Answer of Rabbi Hakkad•s•h, which there is an Account of in the Talmud. From what Time does Concupiscence rule over Man? From the very Moment of his first Formation, or from his Nativity? Ans. From his Formation. —Pool's Syn•ps. in Loc. On these things I observe, there is the greatest Reason to suppose, that these old Rabbies of the Jewish Nation, who gave such Heed to the Tradition of the E••ers, would never have received this Doctrine of original Sin, had it not been delivered down to 'em from their Forefathers. For it is a Doctrine very disagreable to those practical Principles and Notions, wherein the Religion of the unbelieving Jews most fundamentally differs from the Religion manintained among Christians: particularly their Notion of Justification by their own Righteousness, and Privileges as the Children of Abraham, &c. without standing in Need of any Satisfaction, by the Sufferings of the Messiah. On which Account the modern Jews do now universally reject the Doctrine of original Sin, and Corruption of Nature; as Stapferns observes. And it is not at all likely, that the ancient Jews, if no such Doctrine had been received by Tradition from the Fathers, would have taken it up from the Christian, whom they had in such great Contempt and Enmity; especially as it is a Doctrine so peculiarly agreable to the Christian Notion of the spiritual Salvation of Jesus, and so contrary to their carnal Notions of the Messiah, and of his Salvation and Kingdom, and so contrary to their Opinion of themselves; and a Doctrine, which Men in general are so apt to be prejudiced against. And besides, these Rabbies do expresly refer to the Opinion of their Forefathers; as, R. Menasseh says, Accroding to the Opinion of the ANCIENTS, none are subject to Death, but those which have sin'd: for where there is no Sin, there is no Death. Stapfer. Tom. iii. P. 37, 38. But we have more direct Evidence, that the Doctrine of original Sin was truly a received Doctrine amongst the ancient Jews, even before the coming of Christ. This appears by ancient Jewish Writings, which were written before Christ; as, in the Apocrypha, 2. Esdras iii. 21. For the first Adam, having a wicked Heart, transgressed, and was overcome: and so be all they that be born of him. Thus Infirmity was made permanent; and the Law also in the Heart of the People, with the Malignity of the Root; so that the Good departed away, and the Evil abode still.—2 Esdras iv. 30. For the Grain of evil Seed hath been sown in the Heart of Adam, from the Beginning; and how much Ungodliness; hath it brought forth unto this Time? And how much shall it yet bring forth, till the time of threshing shall come? And Chap. vii. 46. It had been better, not to have given the Earth to Adam; or else, when it was given, to have restra'd him from sinning: for what Profit is it, for Man now in this present Time, to live in Heaviness, and after Death, to look for Punishment? O thou Adam, what hast thou done! For though it was thou that sinned, thou art not fallen alone, but we all that come of thee. And we read, Ecclus. xxv. 24. Of the Women came the Beginning of Sin, and through her we all die. As this Doctrine of original Corruption was constantly maintained in the Church of God from the Beginning's so from thence, in all Probability, as well as from the Evidence of it in universal Experience, it was, that the wiser Heathen maintained the like Doctrine. Particularly Plate, that great Philosopher, so distinguished for his Veneration of antient Traditions, and diligent Inquiries after them. Gole, in his Court of the Gentiles, observes as follows; PLATO says (Gorg. Fol. 493.) I have heard from the wise Men, that we are now dead, and that the Body is but our Sepulchre. And in his Timoeus Locrus (Fol. 10.) he says, The Cse of Vitiosity is from our Parents, and first Principles, rather than from ourselves. So that we never relinquish those actions, which lead us to follow these primitive Blemishes of our FIRST PARENTS.—Plato mentions the corruption of the Will, and seems to disown any Free-Will to true Good, albeit he allows some , or natural Dispositions, to civil Good, in some great Heroes.—SOCRATES asserted the Corruption of human Nature, or —Grotius affirms, that the Philosophers acknowledged, it was own natural to Men, to sin. SENECA (Benef. 5. 14.) says, Wickedness has not it's first Beginning in wicked Practice; though by that it is first exercised and made manifest.—And PLUTARCH (de Sera vindicta) says, Man does not first become wicked, when he first manifests himself so: but he hath Wickedness from the Beginning; and he shews it as soon as he finds Opportunity & Ability. As Men Rightly judge, that the Sting is not first ingender'd in Scorpions they strike, or the Poison in Vipers when they bite.—Pool's . on Gen. viii. 21. To which may be subjoined what JUVENAL says, —Ad Mores Natura recurrit damnatos, fixa et mutari nescit. Englished thus, in Prose; NATURE, a Thing fix'd and not knowing how to change, returns to its wicked Manners.— WATTS, Ruin and Recovery.
