Page images
PDF
EPUB

Says President Edwards, "The inferior principles of self-love and natural appetite which were given only to serve, (and which as he also says, 'were in man in innocence') being alone and left to themselves became reigning principles. Man did set up himself (which by the way was doing something) and the objects of his private affections and appetites as supreme, and so they took the place of God. Man's love to his own honour, private interest and pleasure which was before wholly subordinate unto love to God and regard to his glory, (and while thus, he says also, 'all things were in excellent order and in their proper and perfect state,') now disposes him to pursue those objects without regard to God's honour or law." Thus he adds, "it is easy to give an account, how total corruption of heart should follow-without God's putting any evil into his heart, or implanting any bad principle, or infusing any corrupt taint, and so becoming the author of depravity."*-Again, he says, "If the essence of virtuousness or fault does not lie in the nature of the dispositions or acts of the mind, then it is certain, it lies no where at all." "That which makes vice hateful-is a certain deformity in that evil will, which is the soul of all vice." "If a thing be from us, and not from our choice, it has not the nature of blame-worthiness or ill-desert."

What says St. Paul? In the context he describes the nature of human depravity, and I request you to mark the agreement between his description and that of the last named author. He says "ye, who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein ye walked." You see it was a walking-living death. Dead as they were, they did something; "Wherein ye walked according to the course of

* Works, Vol. VI, pp. 427-431.

+ Works, Vol. V, p. 220, et passim. Vide also, Vol. IV, pp. 12--16.

this world." And what is the course of this world? What is it, but as Edwards says, "Men setting up themselves and the objects of their private affections as supreme, so that these things take the place of God?" What is it, but a world loving the creature more than God the Creator, and acting accordingly.-Again says this Apostle, "Among whom we all had our conversation "—our deportment and manner of life," in the lusts of the flesh, fulfiling the desires of the flesh and the mind." Now what is this, but freely and voluntarily yielding to propensities, which men ought to restrain and govern, and to subordinate to the will of God; what is it but propensities rising into a free preference of their objects, and going out into a free purpose of self-gratification? For how can men walk in the lusts of the flesh and fulfil the desires of the flesh and of the mind without preferring the gratification of these lusts and desires to other good? How live and act thus, without choosing to do it? You see then that the sin, which the Apostle describes consists not merely in external action, nor merely in having propensities for natural good, but in acting freely, in yielding to these propensities as a matter of choice and preference.

What saith St. James?"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God," (and was there ever a more fatal tempter than God, if he creates sin in us?)— "for God is not tempted of evil neither tempteth he any man; but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Then, when lust, i. e. strong desire (the same word used by Paul when he says 'I have a desire to depart, &c.'-and by our Lord when he says 'with desire have I desired to eat this passover') then when lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin." Now when does lust or strong desire conceive and bring forth sin? When it rises into a preference of its object, and goes out in ac

tion to secure its own gratification.-Or, if you say the lust is itself the sin, (though I think this is ascribing to the Apostle the absurdity of asserting sin before sin,) yet be it so. What then is the lust which is sin, but a preference of its object, a stronger affection for it than for God? Interpret then the language of the Apostle either way, and you come to the same result, that all sin consists in freely preferring some inferior good to God. I might add to these many other passages. I only ask what is the import of the most common terms used by Apostles to describe sin in its true nature? I refer to such as these, minding the flesh, walking in the flesh, living after the flesh, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, what is this, but freely, voluntarily setting up the gratification of our natural propensities and appetites as our chief good, fixing our supreme affections upon it,-setting the heart, when the living God claims it, upon some inferior good?

I now enquire, what says Common Sense ?-Take then any action which common sense in the common use of language, calls a sinful action,-what is the sin of it? As an example, take the act of murder. Now do we mean by this term in common usage, to denote simply the external act of killing? Clearly not. This may be by accident, or in obedience to a divine law.-Do we mean simply the external act, together with the specific volition, to perform the act? Clearly not; for there must be such a volition, though the act were performed in obedience to a divine command. It is only when the circumstances and manner of the action evince a selfish or malicious purpose,

a state of mind in which the perpetrator of the deed shows a preference of some private selfish interest to the life of a fellow-being, and to the will of God, that we call it murder. So true is it, that we regard this state of mind as constituting the sin of the action, that could we ascertain independently of external action, the existence of

such a preference, we should, as the Bible does, pronounce it murder. This preference then of some private interest, object or end, rather than God, common sense decides to be the sin of all that we call sinful action, and strictly speaking, the sum total of all sin.

But common sense decides the question in another form. And here we come to what I regard as the turning point of the whole controversy. So far as I know, the only argument in support of the opinion, that sin pertains to something which is not preference, is based in a supposed decision of common sense. The decision claimed is, that all particular or specific sins, as fraud, falsehood, injustice, unbelief, envy, pride, revenge, result from a wicked heart, —from a sinful disposition, as the cause or source of such sinful acts. To this fact, I yield unqualified assent, as "the dictate of the universal sense & reason of mankind," and by this universal judgment, I wish the present question to be decided. Let us then look at the fact in its full force and just application. There is a man then, whose course of life is wholly that of a worldling, his heart and hand shut against human woe, living without prayer, without gratitude, unmindful of God, and rejecting the Saviour of men, devising all, purposing all, doing all, for the sake of this world.Why is it? You say, and all say, and say right, it is owing to his love of the world-to his worldly disposition to a heart set on the world.-Now while all say this, and are right in saying it, we have one simple question to decide, viz. what do all mean by it? Every child can answer. Every child knows that the meaning is, that this man does freely and voluntarily fix his affection on worldly good, in preference to God; that the man has chosen the world as his chief good, his portion, his God. He knows that this is what is meant by a worldly heart, a worldly disposition, which leads to all other sins. So when we ascribe the sins of the miser to his

avaricious disposition, we mean his supreme love of money; or the crimes of the hero or conqueror to his ambitious disposition, we mean his supreme love of fame, a state of mind which involves preference for its object. And whatever previous tendency, or if you will, previous disposition, there is to this state of mind; this state of mind itself and not any previous thing as the cause of it, is the wicked heart the sinful disposition of men. They love the creature more than the Creator, when they can and ought to love the Creator most. This forbidden choice of worldly good, this preference of the low and sordid pleasures of the earth to God and his glory-this love of the world which excludes the love of the Father,-this-this is man's depravity. This is that evil treasure of the heart, from which proceed evil things; this is the fountain, the source of all other abominations-man's free, voluntary preference of the world as his chief good, amid the revealed glories of a perfect God.

Having attempted to show in what the moral depravity of man consists, I now proceed to show

II. That this depravity is by nature. This I understand the Apostle to assert when he says, "and were by nature the children of wrath."

What then are we to understand, when it is said that mankind are depraved by nature?—I answer that such is their nature, that they will sin and only sin in all the appropriate circumstances of their being.

To bring this part of the subject distinctly before the mind, it may be well to remark, that the question between the Calvinists and the Arminians on the point is thiswhether the depravity or sinfulness of mankind is truly and properly ascribed to their nature or to their circumstances of temptation? And since, as it must be confessed, there can no more be sin without circumstances of temptation, than there can be sin without a nature to be tempted, why as

« PreviousContinue »