02.04.06. Chapter 6
CHAPTER 6
Contains an Examination of the Author’s Distinction of the real and relative Evil of Sin; his Mistakes herein are noted. Sin not put for Obligation to Punishment, without a Charge of Offence. What he delivers on Guile and Guiltiness considered. His Thoughts of the Filth Of Sin, are also taken into Consideration: And some Animadversions are made on the Author’s Answers to several perplexing Questions, relating to these Subjects. THE Author of the Ruin and Recovery of Mankind, distinguishes the Evil of Sin, into real and relative,
1. With Respect to the real Evil of Sin, he observes, it consists in its hurtful Nature and evil Qualities; whether it be considered in the Habits of the Mind, or in the Actions of Life.
2. The relative Evil of sin, says he, consists more particularly in its Respect to the governing Authority and Law of God, it is a Contrariety to that Law, partly in the very Principles and Habits of the Soul, as well as in the Actions of Life. But as this relative Evil belongs chiefly to sinful Actions, it is more properly an actual Opposition to, or Violation of God’s righteous Law, and so it subjects the sinner to the Punishment, which that Law threatens (Pages 411, 412.).
1. The ingenious Author is obliged to allow, that the relative Evil of Sin, extends itself to the Habits of the Mind, as well as to the Actions of Life, ho’ more particularly and chiefly to external Acts; and therefore it bears Respect to the governing Authority and Law of God, of Consequence the natural Depravity of our Mind, as well as our sinful Actions in Life, renders us guilty in the Sight of God: Hence it is to be considered as a relative Evil of Sin, as well as a real Evil.
2. I cannot understand what this Gentleman designs by the Application of this Distinction, of the real and relative Evil of Sin, to the Habits of the Mind, and to sinful Actions in Life: Unless it is to prove, that vicious Principle, in Men, do not subject them to a Charge of Guilt and Condemnation by the Law. In a marginal Note he plainly acquaints us, that this is his Intention: I do not remember, says he, the Word Guilt, which is the proper relative Evil of sin, is ever in Scripture ascribed to the Principle or Habit of Sin, without the Act. His Opinion therefore, as it seems to me, is plainly this: That Sin, as it is an evil Habit in the Soul, is not any Part of our Guiltiness before God. Which I take to be an intolerable Error: Men at the Bar of God will, I am strongly persuaded, find the dreadful Corruption of their Hearts, charged on them as one Branch of their Guilt: For the divine Law requires Truth in the inward Part, as well as a strict and perpetual Conformity of Life to its righteous Precepts. Such an Observation as this from some Persons would be censured as Antinomianism, and how justly, I think any Person may easily discover.
3. The Mind of Man is an active, and ever thinking Power or Substance, as the ingenious Dr. Watts observesf65. As the Mind is depraved, it cannot think, will or desire regularly, and therefore it constantly thinks, wills and desires in an irregular Manner: The Imagination of the Thoughts of the Hearts of Men, is only evil continually. Now I would ask, whether our irregular Thoughts, and disorderly Acts of our Wills and Affections are criminal? If it is allowed they are, why should the Streams which flow from the Fountain of Sin in us, be accounted vile and abominable; and contrary to the Law, and the Origin from whence they take their Rise not be so esteem’d? I should think, that as the Source and the Streams are of the same Nature, they both must be hateful and displeasing to God.
4. When this Author says without the Act; he means either the internal Act of the Mind, or the external Act in Life: If he intends the latter, then the Apostle was mistaken, in thinking that he sinn’d, when he coveted; which will not soon be granted: If he means the internal Act of the Mind, when he is able, it may be expected of him to prove, that a reasoning Power or Substance, which ever thinks, and is corrupt, may think, will and desire, as it ought, or that the Habit of the Mind may be separated from the Act; then he may conclude, that the Depravity of the Mind, is not any Part of our Guiltiness before God; but not till this is done. The Reason of which is, tho’ the Habit and the Act may be distinguished, they cannot be seperated: As a Power of thinking, and Thought may be distinguished, but cannot be separated; for as a Man cannot cease to think, he cannot cease to think in a disorderly Manner: ‘Tis therefore a vain Thing, to distinguish upon the Habit and Act of Sin, in such a Way, as to clear the Habit of Blame, and throw it all upon the Act.
5. If the internal impure Acts of Men are not relatively evil, then the Law of God hath no Concern with their Hearts, then Covetousness, Pride and Envy, Malice and Revenge, as aged in the Mind are not criminal: Nor indeed any Act that is proper to the Soul, which is most false.
6. The Reason why the Guilt is charged on the Act, is, the Act is inseparable from the Habit, as was just now observed, and the evil Habit of Sin, from which sinful Acts spring, is considered or included in the Act.
7. It therefore is evident, that the evil Bias and Propensity of our Hearts, subjects us to Condemnation and Penalty.
8. The Want of any Thing which enters into that Righteousness, which the Law requires to Justification, renders us liable to Condemnation and Death. The Law commands Purity of Heart in order to Justification, and therefore the Want of it, and the contrary, i.e. Impurity, being found in us, subject us to Punishment and Death.
II. He asserts, that Sin both in the old and new Testament, is put for the sinful Disorder of the Heart, and also for the Demerit of some evil Action (Pages 214, 215.).
Answ. 1. I am of Opinion, Sin is never in the old Testament, but for Punishment, in an abstract Consideration from a Charge of the Crime deferring the Penalty, I know of no Instance where it is to be so taken; nor has this Gentleman produced any such.
2. It is not Fact, that Sin is ever put for Penalty in the new Testament, at least so far as I can find, true it is, that Punishment may be and is included; but a Charge of Offence, is always supposed as the Cause of that Penalty. It is not put for Punishment in a seperate Consideration from the Crime itself, in the new Testament, which is what this learned Gentleman intends, if I mistake not his Sense. When Christ is said to be made Sin, it designs the Imputation of Offence, and an Infliction of Punishment, as the Result of that Charge of sinful Disorder on him, not his own, but his People’s.
III. Guilt and Guiltiness the Author enquires into;
1. Guilt and guilty, he apprehends, denote a Person’s Obligation to suffer Punishment (Pages 214, 215.). But surely not without an Imputation of Sin itself: Guiltiness is the Opposite of Innocence and Righteousness, without which a Man is not intitled to a Reward; neither is or can any Man legally be obliged to suffer Punishment, without the Imputation of Offence.
2. He distinguishes Guilt into Reatus Culpae, & Reatus Paenae, i.e. Guilt of Blame and Guilt of Punishment; what Foundation so ever it may be thought, there is for this Distinction relating to Guilt, the latter only follows upon the former, they are inseperable: No Man is or can in Justice be liable to Punishment, that is not guilty of Fault, either by Perpetration or Imputation Reatus Poenae, cannot take place, where there is not Reatus Culpoe.
IV. He observes, That we never say a Man is guilty of the Fault; but when he is the actual personal Sinner (416, 417.). Very true: The Reason of which is, an Offender and an innocent Person among Men, cannot become one Person in a legal Sense. Says this Gentleman, But he may be said to bear the Guilt of sin, or have the Guilt laid on him, when be is made liable or subject to the Punishment, by the Imputation of Sin to him (ibid.). I cannot well understand this: Sometimes Obligation to suffer Penalty, is all the Imputation of Sin that is allow’d of. Here Imputation of Sin seems to be consider’d as a Thing distinct from it, which is the very Point we plead for, and shall be glad if it may be granted.
V. He observes, that Guilt of Conscience, or a Consciousness of Sin, is proper to the personal and actual Offender, and can never be transferred to another by Imputation (ibid.).
Answ. Tho’ our Saviour could not have the least Consciousness of personal Offence, yet he was capable of having a painful Sensation of the Charge of Sin on him by divine Justice, and of the evil Nature of Sin, and of the infinite Anger and Displeasure of God, demerited by those Sins he bore and he actually had a wounding Sense of these Things, or else he was not punished in his Suffering, for there are essential to divine Punishment, and enter into the very Nature of it: And if a Redeemer sustained not Penalty, Satisfaction is not made, and therefore after all, we must embrace Socinianism. There is nothing more inconsistent in the World, than to deny the Imputation of Sin to Christ:, and his having a painful Sensation of its vile Nature, and dreadful Demerit: And yet pretend to maintain the Doctrine of Satisfaction for Sin, by his Sacrifice and Death. If Christ had not a Sensation of there Things, his Soul was not made an Offering for Sin, or was not any other Way the Subject of Suffering, than as it was affected with his bodily Pains, and other afflictive Circumstances, which attended him, from Devils and Men, which Socinians themselves will never deny. The ingenious Gentleman expresses himself in such a Manner, if I understand him right, as is not very consistent, it is thug: The only Thing in Sin which can be transferr’d or imputed to any other Person, is the Obligation to suffer Penalty, or to make amends for the Violation of the Law. To which he subjoins in the following Part of this Discourse, Therefore when I use the Word Guilt I desire to be understood chiefly, or only, concerning that Liableness, Obligation or Subjection to Punishment, which sin may bring any Man under, whether it be actually and personally committed by himself, or whether it be transferr’d to him only by Imputation (418.). How can there Assertions consist together?
Obligation to suffer Penalty is the only Thing in Sin, which can be imputed to an innocent Person. 2. A Man is brought under a Liableness, Obligation or Subjection to Punishment by Sin, either as it is personally committed by himself, or as transferr’d to him only by Imputation.
1. If I mistake not, that which is denied in the first Assertion, is granted in the Second; Obligation to suffer Penalty, and Sin, are considered as distinct Things in each Assertion. Sin itself is denied to be imputed in the first, to any but the actual Transgresser: And in the second, Sin (as thus distinguished from the Obligation to suffer Penalty,) is said to be imputed to one, who is not the actual Offender, in order to his Subjection to Punishment. Either there Things are not consistent, or there is some Obscurity in the Manner of the Author’s expressing himself, which I acknowledge, is with him an exceeding rare Thing. Or else the Difficulty only arises from my Want of Capacity.to undersrand his Meaning, which of there it is: I leave with the Reader to determine,
2. Obligation to suffer Punishment is not any Thing in Sin; but; is absolutely distinct from it, tho’ it is the proper and legal Result of it. If therefore it was only the Obligation to Punishment that was imputed to Christ; nothing of Sin was imputed to or laid on him.
3. If the Obligation to suffer Penalty arises from, and is only founded in a Charge of Sin, then an innocent Person, as so considered, cannot be the Subject of that Obligation to suffer Punishment.
4. Christ’s Obligation to suffer Penalty must be most distinct from ours, if our Sins were not imputed to him: For our Liableness to suffering Punishment, results from a legal Charge of Sin. But if Sin was not imputed to him, his Obligation to suffer, infinitely differs from our Obligation to suffering: Nor did he take our Obligation upon himself, the Reason of which is evident: That Obligation to suffer, which only arises from a Charge of Sin, can never be separated from it, any more than the Effect and Cause may be: An Effect cannot exist without its Cause, a legal Charge of Guilt or Sin is the Cause, and our Obnoxiousness or Obligation to suffering is the Effect: And therefore Christ could not be any Way concerned in the Effect, seperately from a Concern in its Cause. And without this, his Sufferings could not be of a penal Nature; nor could any Satisfaction be made for our Sins by his Death.
IV. I proceed to observe what the learned Author says of the Filth of Sin, and here I must ask his Pardon, for being obliged to say, I cannot perfectly understand him: Or if I do, that he is egregiously mistaken in several Particulars.
1. I attend to the Sense of the Word Guilt, which he desires us to understand him in, when he uses that Term in this Discourse, i.e. chiefly or only of Obligation to Punishment.
2. I observe he ascribes the Pollution of Sin to the Guilt or relative Evil of it, i.e. to our Obligation to Penalty. Now, why Obligation to Punishment, should be thought vile and filthy, is to me a most inexplicable Thing, that is a righteous Effect which follows upon the Commission of Sin, according to the Nature of the holy Law of God, and therefore can have nothing of Filthiness or Pollution in it. He observes two Things in order to the Proof of it, 1st, It is the Guilt of Sin, that makes us offensive to the divine Justice (Page 421.). 1. If the Gentleman understands by Guilt, Obligation to Punishment: How is it possible to conceive, that this Obligation renders us offensive to God? 2. If he intends by Guilt, the Evil of Sin itself, he uses the Word in a Sense different from what he professes to do on this Subject, and would be understood to mean by it in this Discourse. 3. ‘Tis because Sin is in itself a vile, filthy and abominable Thing, and contrary to the holy and pure Nature of God, that it is condemned by his Law, and subjects us to Penalty: The Pollution of Sin therefore, cannot be our Obligation to suffer Punishment. 2dly. Says he, The Defilement of Sin is represented, as producing Shame and Fear in the Sinner in the Presence of God (422.), what he now calls Defilement, he presently calls by the Name of Guilt, i.e. our Obligation to Punishment: Fear, he observes, is the Effect of Guilt, and Shame is the Effect of the Disorder of Sin. Again, he says, The Guilt of Sin produces Fear, and the Disorder of Sin produces Shame (423.). His using the Terms, Defilement and Guilt indifferently, and understanding by Guilt, Obligation to Punishment, is no Proof at all, that they are the same Thing, they are quite distinct Things, and cannot be the same. 3. Guilt being taken as it ought to be, for Sin itself, and as charged on us, is a most filthy Thing, and subjects us to Punishment, and therefore produces both Fear and Shame in us. 3dly. He adds, The Defilement of sin is sometimes represented, as debating the Nature of the Soul, and rendering it vile (Ibid.). True it is so, and it actually does; but this is no Proof at all, that Pollution attends Obligation to Punishment: On the contrary, it is a strong Objection against it: For Men become not vile thro’ an Obligation to suffer the Evil of Punishment but they become liable to Penalty, because they are impure, and have acted a Part most polluted and vile. (2.) He proposes another Method for Proof. 1. Says he, we are said to be washed from our Sins, by the Blood of Christ, Revelation 1:5. There the Defilement imply’d, must signify Guilt (424.). It is readily granted, if Guilt be taken for our sinful Actions: But not if our Obligation to Punishment is intended by Guilt, in which Sense the Gentleman would have us understand it. 2. He hath two strange Assertions. I. Says he, It is possible in the Nature of Things, that the Guilt of Sin and all Obligations to Punishment may be taken away from a Person by pardoning Grace, and yet the Impurity or sinful Disorder of the Soul may remain (426.).
Answ. 1. If this is rightly understood, I think it is true, not only that so it may be, but also that it actually is so: For I question not, but the Elect of God are perfectly justified in his Sight, before their Regeneration, as considered in Christ. The Mention of the Possibility of this by me, some Persons would pronounce at once to be Antinomianism, perhaps it may be more favourably treated in this Gentleman. But if it be meant that it may always remain, then it follows that a Man might be pardoned and justified, and yet remain for ever in a State of Enmity against God, which is impossible.
2. It is possible also, that the sinfulness and moral Disorder, and evil Qualities of the Soul, may be removed by sanctifying Grace, and yet the Guilt of past sins may remain (Ibid.). If this is true, then a Man might be call’d, who is not justified or whole Sin Is imputed to him, i.e. a Person may be sanctified and glorified, who is under a Charge of Sin. This Assertion will hardly be received by any, who have a tolerable Degree of Discernment in spiritual Things: But besides, if Guilt be understood of an Obligation to Punishment, as this learned Person professes to understand it, in this Discourse, then a Man may be eternally happy, and yet not be free from an Obligation to suffer Penalty in Hell for his Sins. There Assertions, especially the latter (the former may be interpreted in a good Sense) if I am not mistaken, are very contrary to the true Nature of evangelical Truths, and afford no Support to the Point in View.
V. Let us consider the Author’s Answers, to some perplexing Questions, relating to these Subjects.
Quest. 1. Can the Defilement of Adam’s first Sin be transferred to his Offspring by Imputation? The Gentleman grants it may with Respect to the Guilt of his Sin: But denies it with Regard to the Pravity or Corruption of Nature (Page. 428.). If Guilt means an Obligation to Punishment, that is not the Defilement of Sin. Again, the Impurity of our Nature is not the Pollution that attended Adam’s first Sin; but it is the Consequence of that Sin, as it was legally’ charged on him and on. his Posterity. So that the Conveyance of that Depravity, cannot be considered, as the Imputation of that Sin. Besides, if his sinful Act itself in Eating of the forbidden Fruit, is not charged on his natural Descendants, they must necessarily be esteemed innocent, not having personally sinn’d, and they must become corrupt without any Charge of Offence. This seems to me such an Impeachment of the Justice of God, that I could much sooner entirely give up the Doctrine of Original Sin, than embrace this Account of it: But this I cannot do, so long as I know any Thing of myself, of human Nature, and of the Word of God. Farther, the Defilement of Adam’s first Sin, as it is of every sinful Act, was its Contrariety to the holy Law, and infinitely pure Nature of God. This is inseparable from Sin, and without it, Sin would cease to be Sin, the Imputation of his Act of Disobedience therefore, to himself and to his Offspring, was an Imputation of that Pollution to him and to his Seed, which is ever inseparable from a sinful Action.
Quest. 2. How far was our Lord Jesus Christ, our great Surety, concern’d in the Filth or Defilement of our Sins? Some, says he, pronounce it boldly, that he took upon him the Filth and Pollution of our Sins, tho’ at the same Time they mistake, and suppose it to mean something really distinct from the Guilt (Page 429.). This is no Mistake, that if is something distinct from Guilt, if Guilt is understood of Obligation to Punishment: For there is no Filthiness in that, Punishment is not Sin, nor can it be considered such with the least Propriety. Again, Pollution is inseparable from sinful Action, as is above observed, the Imputation of Sin therefore, to any Subject, whether innocent or guilty in himself, in an abstracted View from this Charge of Offence, must be allow’d to be an Imputation of Sin with its Filth and Pollution to him: But the Imputation of Sin with that Filthiness which is ever inseparable from it to Christ, supposes not, that he was rendered in himself impure, by that Imputation, and therefore there is no need, to reject the Doctrine of the Charge of Sin with its Pollution on Christ, which some do reject, as the learned Gentleman observes. This Author apprehends, that our Obligation to Punishment was imputed to Christ. But that is not Sin; it is absolutely distinct from it: tho’ a necessary Consequence thereof. Again, Christ could not be legally obliged to suffer Punishment, without a Charge of Sin, for where that is not, the formalis Ratio of such an Obligation is wanting, and therefore, he could not come under any such Obligation. Nor can it properly be said, that Christ made Atonement for our Guilt, i.e. our Obligation to Penalty, as this ingenious Person seems to apprehend. He concludes this Essay and the Book itself with expressing his Charity for all sincere Enquirers after Truth, which he might have done, without making Concessions prejudicial to Truth. Charity to Men’s Persons may be very consistently exercised, with a zealous, strict and faithful Defence of every Branch of evangelical Truth. While we are charitable to Men, we ought not to give the least Countenance to such Opinions they embrace, as are dishonourable to the divine Perfections, diminish the Glory of the Mediator, and are eversive of his Satisfaction: Which this ingenious Person does, in allowing that we suffer for Adam’s Sin, without the Imputation of it, and in supposing it sufficient, as he seems to do, to believe that Christ some Way or other is the Author and Cause of our Salvation, tho’ it be, for ought his Words imply, in the Socinian Way, without any Satisfaction for Sin by his Death. I fear his Charity to Men is not more extended, than his Zeal for the glorious Truths of the Gospel is dimish’d.