(2.) Our ability to yield acceptable obedience to God, much more perfect obedience, is wholly lost, as being destitute of a principle of spiritual life and grace, which must, if ever we have it, be implanted in regeneration; so that every one may say with the apostle, In me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing, Rom. vii. 18.
(3.) We are destitute of a right to the heavenly blessedness, and all those privileges, that were promised upon condition of our first parents performing perfect obedience, according to the tenor of the covenant made with them in their state of innocency.
This want of original righteousness is the immediate consequence of Adam’s first sin. By original righteousness we understand, either that freedom from guilt, which man had before he sinned, which exempted him from any liableness to condemnation, and afforded him a plea before God for his retaining the blessings he was possessed of; and, had he persisted longer in his integrity, it would have given him a right to a greater degree of happiness: His perfect obedience was his righteousness, in a forensick sense; and the failure thereof, in our first parents, rendered both them and us destitute of it. But, since this is the same with what is expressed in the foregoing words, wherein we are denominated guilty of Adam’s first sin, we must consider something else, as intended in this expression, when we are said to want that righteousness wherein he was created.
We have before observed, that, by the fall of our first parents, the image of God in man was defaced: But now, we are to speak of his supernatural image, as what was wholly lost, and therefore all mankind are, by nature, destitute of a principle of grace; upon which account it may be truly said, as the apostle does, There is none righteous; no, not one, Rom. iii. 10. and elsewhere man is called, A transgressor from the womb, Isa. xlviii. 8. and, by nature, not only a child of wrath, but dead in trespasses and sins, Eph. ii. 1. and therefore it is necessary that we be created again to good works, or that a new principle of grace be implanted in regeneration, without which there is no salvation. Our being destitute of this supernatural principle of grace is distinguished from that propensity to sin, or corruption of nature, which is spoken of in the following words of this answer; and therefore, considering it as thus distinguished, and as called, by some, the privative part of original sin; we are led to speak of man in his destitute state, deprived of that which was his glory, and tended to his defence against the assaults of temptation; and of those actual transgressions which are the consequence thereof. This excellent endowment man is said to have lost.
Some divines express themselves with a degree of caution, when treating on this subject; and therefore, though they allow that man has lost this righteousness, yet they will hardly own that God took it away, though it were by a judicial act, as supposing that this would argue him to be the author of sin; and I would not blame the least degree of concern expressed to fence against such a consequence, did it really ensue on our asserting it; yet I cannot but conclude, that the holiness of God may be vindicated, though we should assert, that he deprived him of this righteousness, as a punishment of his sin, or denied him that power to perform perfect obedience, which he conferred on him at first; for there is a vast difference between God’s restoring to him his lost power, to perform that which is truly and supernaturally good in all its circumstances; and the infusing habits of sin into his nature: This, we acknowledge, he could not do, consistently with his holiness, and shall make it farther appear, under a following head. But the other he might do, that is, leave man destitute of a power to walk before him in holiness and righteousness; for, if God had been obliged to have given him this power, then his bestowing it on fallen man, would be rather a debt than a grace, which is contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel. But this leads us to consider the positive part of original sin; therefore,
3. Man’s sinfulness, as fallen, consists in the corruption of his nature, or a propensity and inclination to all evil, which, as it is observed, is commonly called, original sin, that is, original sin inherent, as distinguished from it, as imputed to us, which has been already considered. That the nature of man is vitiated, corrupted, and prone to all that is bad, is taken for granted by all; and, indeed, he that denies it, must either be very much unacquainted with himself, or hardly retain the common notices which we have of moral good and evil. This is frequently represented, in scripture, as a plague, defilement, or deadly evil, with which his heart is affected; upon which account it is said, that it is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, Jer. xvii. 9. that out of it proceed evil thoughts, and all other abominations of the most heinous nature, Matth. xv. 19. unless prevented by the grace of God.
This propensity of nature to sin discovers itself in the first dawn of our reason; so that we no sooner appear to be men, but we give ground to conclude that we are sinners. Accordingly it is said, The imagination of man’s heart is only evil, and that from his youth,[[68]] Gen. vi. 5. compared with chap. viii. 21. and he is represented as estranged from the womb, going astray as soon as he is born, speaking lyes, Psal. lvii. 3. which is, notwithstanding, to be understood with this limitation, that we are prone to sin, as soon as we have any dispositions, or inclinations, to any thing; for it cannot be supposed that man is disposed to commit actual sin before he is capable of acting. Some, indeed, have attempted to prove that the soul of a child sins as soon as it is united to the body in the womb, and have carried this indefensible conjecture so far, as that they have maintained, that actual sin is committed in the womb. But this is not only destitute of all manner of proof, but it seems so very absurd, that, as few will be convinced by it, so it needs no confutation.
As for this propensity to sin, (whenever it may be said to take place) it is certain, that it is not equal in all; and in this it differs from Adam’s guilt, as imputed to us, and from our want of original righteousness, as the immediate consequence thereof; for these corrupt inclinations appear, from universal experience, as well as the concurrent testimony of scripture, to be of an increasing nature; so that some are more obstinate and hardened in sin than others; and the habits thereof, in many, are compared to the tincture of the Ethiopian, or the leopard’s spots, Jer. xiii. 23. which no human art can take away. We are, indeed, naturally prone to sin at first; but afterwards the leprosy spreads, and the propensity, or inclination to it, increases by repeated acts, or a course of sin. The Psalmist takes notice of this, in a beautiful climax, or gradation; They know not, neither will they understand, they walk in darkness, Psal. lxxxii. 5.
We shall now take occasion to speak something concerning the rise or origin hereof. This is a difficulty which many have attempted to account for and explain, though with as little success as any thing that comes within the compass of our enquiries. Some ancient heretics[[69]] have thought, that because it could not be from God, who is the author of nothing but what is good, that therefore there are two first causes; one of all good, which is God, and the other of all evil. But this is deservedly exploded, as a most dangerous and absurd notion.
Others seem to assert, that God is the author of it; and, that they may exculpate themselves from making him the author of sin, which is the vilest reproach that can be cast upon him, they add, that he does this in a judicial way, as a punishment for the sin of our first parents, and that it is no reflection on him to suppose, that, as a Judge, he may put this propensity to sin into our nature; so that it is, as it were, concreate with the soul, or derived to us, at the same time that it is formed in, and united to the body: But we cannot, by any means, conclude God to be the author hereof, though it be as a Judge; for that would be to suppose his vindictive justice inconsistent with the spotless purity of his nature. We read, indeed, of God’s giving men up to their own hearts’ lusts, Psal. lxxxi. 11, 12. as a punishment for other sins; but never of his producing in them an inclination to sin, though it be under the notion of a punishment: But this having been proved and illustrated, under a foregoing answer, when speaking concerning the providence of God, as conversant about those actions, to which sin is annexed, in a judicial way, we shall pass it over in this place[[70]].